| ▲ | amelius 3 hours ago |
| Remember, programming is a branch of mathematics. |
|
| ▲ | TheOtherHobbes 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Programming is the mathematical equivalent of brick layers looking at architects and saying "I could do that." |
| |
|
| ▲ | nextaccountic 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| computer science, yes, 100% a branch of math programming is more like communicating to a computer to convince them to do some task. has always been like this, and this will not change |
|
| ▲ | Llamamoe 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| In the same sense as pharmacology is a branch of physics. Technically, yes. Realistically the overlap is small and you don't need one for the other most of the time. |
|
| ▲ | sandworm101 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| >> programming is a branch of mathematics. I saw a cryptographer interviewed. She was maybe 20yo and was working onboard a US aircraft carrier. Installing and managing cryptographic systems does not make one a cryptographer. Doing math via computer programing also does not make one a mathematician any more than driving a car makes one a mechanic. |
|
| ▲ | siva7 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| so is physics? |
| |
| ▲ | abstractbill 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Theoretical physics, sure, ok. Not experimental physics though. | | |
| ▲ | lioeters 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | That's arguable. | |
| ▲ | brador 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | That too. Statistics used to analyze results and turn them into conclusions. | | |
| ▲ | Revanche1367 an hour ago | parent [-] | | As my mathematical statistics professor told us on the first day, “statistics is not mathematics.” It’s a good idea to remember: if a branch of the subject x is called “mathematical x,” then x in general is not totally mathematical and can be studied to some extent without mathematics. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | ChrisGreenHeur 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| What’s the mathematical proof of this? |
| |
| ▲ | IngoBlechschmid 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | The Curry-Howard correspondence. For instance, in mathematics, we have A ⇒ A (every statement implies itself, for instance "if it rains, then it rains"); and analogously, in programming, we have the identity function of type A → A (which reads a value as input and outputs the same value). This is the tip of an enormous iceberg identifying, in a certain precise sense, proving with programming (and stating mathematical assertions with specifying the desired behavior of a program). However, programming is a bit more general than proving: Circular proofs are simply of no value, whereas looping programs can still be valuable. For instance, I for sure hope that the main loop of the browser I'm currently using to fill out this textbox does not prematurely stop. | | |
| ▲ | mrob 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | >we have the identity function of type A → A (which reads a value as input and outputs the same value) That only exists in theoretical computer science. In real computer programming, you always have some bounds to the value of A. | | |
|
|
