Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!regenmeister!chrisp
From: chrisp@regenmeister.uucp (Chris Prael)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: CS education [engineering, mathematics, and computer science]
Message-ID: <34921@regenmeister.uucp>
Date: 7 Dec 89 21:17:11 GMT
References: <15966@megaron.cs.arizona.edu>
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc. - Mtn View, CA
Lines: 56

From article <15966@megaron.cs.arizona.edu>, by mike@cs.arizona.edu (Mike Coffin):
> From article <34878@regenmeister.uucp>, (Chris Prael):
>> Except when they were the realm of physicists, chemists, engineers, ...
>> Algorithm is nothing but a pompous synonym for the word "process".  All
>> forms of engineering deal equally in designing and implementing
>> processes.

A modest correction: "algorithm" as used (or abused) within the
computing community.
 
> "Algorithm" is not a synonym for "process."  In the usual sense of the
> term an "algorithm" is a procedure for solving a *mathematical* problem.
> If you want to call the procedure for building a bridge or making
> coffee an algorithm I won't argue with you, but in doing so you make
> the term almost vacuous.

I reckon that you have understood my meaning well.  Just apply it to
"computing" in the current sense of the word.

> (By the way, I'm curious: why do you think "algorithm" is pompous?)

Pompous adj. 1. Self-important; pretentious;
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Mathematics
>> deals primarily in discovering the implications of sets of postulates.
>> A paraphrase is: mathematics deals in determining the content of sets
>> defined by a small number of identifying elements.  A proof is a formal
>> demonstration that a non-identifying element is a member of the set.
>> The term "correctness" is content free (ie. meaningless) in mathematics.
 
> This is sometimes the way mathematics is presented, but it's hardly
> ever the way it is invented.

I described the way mathematicians understand the field.  It is not the 
way non-mathematicians (miss)understand the field.  I was once enough of a
mathematician to know that.  With a small handfull of exceptions, one of
which Mike mentions, below, my description is, indeed, how mathematics
grows.

> Newton invented the calculus in order to
> derive an algorithm for predicting the motion of the planets.  

Quite true.  But Newton was a physicist who invented some mathematics.
That does not make him a mathematician.  It did, and does, make him a
remarkable physicist.

> If you take a good look at the work of great (and, for
> that matter lesser) mathematicians you will find that they almost
> uniformly had solid practical reasons for the mathematics they
> invented.

I did.  An extensive look.  With very rare exceptions, the solidly 
practical reason for the invention of most new mathematics has been the
pursuit of mathematics.

Chris Prael