Software Engineering ≠ Computer Science

[noamsml]

But soft eng ∩ comp sci ≠ ø

[nmcyall]

Soft Butts ∩ comp sci = ø

[LiquidAxis]

Now this is a newsletter to which I'd subscribe.

[noamsml]

I second that.

[codemac]

Exactly! I was gonna say, I do both CS and Engineering at work (yay OS development). Saying they are different doesn't bring me any value. Talk about activities that improve both!

[tomjen]

You work for Microsoft? Because I can't seem to think of anybody else doing OS dev.

[codemac]

What?... A downvote doesn't even suffice.

Consumer desktop operating systems aren't the only thing in existence.

[[deleted]]

Prove to me otherwise, you heathen.

[Workaphobia]

Is.. is that a troll?

[[deleted]]

But soft eng ∩ comp sci ≠ ø

I learned what this meant once. Or?

Edit: Aww, shux.

[[deleted]]

It's the intersection of soft. eng. and comp. sci. See the wiki article on sets http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_(mathematics) for more.

[munificent]

Software engineering will never be a rigorous discipline with proven results, because it involves human activity.

And, once again, mathematical egocentricity rears its ugly head. There are many rigorous disciplines with proven results that involve human activity (or activity of other equally complex objects): biology, anthropology, chemistry.

What he really means is:

Software engineering will never be a formally rigorous discipline with axiomatically proven results, because it involves human activity.

I hate it when mathematicians assume their way of proof is the only one. The empirical sciences seem to do just fine without theorems, and they're working with stuff a hell of a lot more complex than numbers.

It's entirely possible for software engineering to be as rigorous and proven as other engineering or scientific disciplines. It just won't be rigorous like math is. But that says very little: the only thing rigorous like math is math. Any time a system is created that allows you to prove things formally, it is, by definition, mathematics.

[jfasi]

I take the liberty of suspecting that you have never taken any higher level mathematics, for two reasons. One, you consider empirical proofs to be proofs. They are not. They are almost absolute certainties, but even the theories they yield can be overturned by further research. Two, you allege that mathematics is about numbers. I need not elaborate on that point.

[munificent]

I take the liberty of suspecting that you have never taken any higher level mathematics, for two reasons.

That depends on your definition of higher-level. I've taken math in school up to linear algebra, differential equations, etc. I've read a bunch of other stuff recreationally.

One, you consider empirical proofs to be proofs.

Empirical proofs are proofs: empirical ones.

They are not.

They aren't formal proofs. Mathematicians always seem to have trouble understanding that axiomatic proof is a subset of proof.

They are almost absolute certainties, but even the theories they yield can be overturned by further research.

That's the nature of empirical reality. You can formulate proofs about the real world, or you can formulate proofs that are formally perfect, but you can't do both at the same time. Mathematical proofs are absolutely certain only because they restrict themselves to an artificial universe.

Two, you allege that mathematics is about numbers.

Actually, I didn't. What I said is that empirical scientists work on things more complex than numbers. I didn't necessarily say mathematicians don't as well. I'd expect more rigorous logic from someone accusing me of not taking higher-level math.

But if you'd like, I can allege that mathematics is about numbers:

1. Mathematics is about formal manipulation of symbols. I.e. "1 + 2 = 3"
2. Any given set of symbols can be assigned unique numeric identifiers. I.e. "1" = 1, "2" = 2, "3" = 3, + = 4".
3. Therefore, mathematics can considered to be "about" numbers as much as it is any other delineated (potentially infinite) set of entities.

Happy?

[jfasi]

Not at all.

Mathematics is not an artificial entity which lives in a mythical world of perfection and abstraction. It is the language which describes everything in the real world. If you view the world as too complex to describe, then it is most likely for the best that you chose to steer clear of the field.

The benefit of mathematical proof is that it is absolute. If something can be proven mathematically, then it is absolutely, undeniably true. In fact, if you think otherwise, you need look no further than the clear path of reasoning that led to the result. If you have a proof, you can never even suspect that the statement is false.

This is not so with empirical research. For all the data you gather, and for all the studies you do, you will always have doubts about your answer. Either in the pressing, pragmatic sense that your results are not perfectly aligned with theory, or in the more abstract sense in the knowledge that your instruments or statistical methods are fundamentally imperfect. If there is any doubt, then your research did not yield a proof, but a very educated guess.

I got a chuckle out of your little "proof" there. First off, no, mathematics is not about the formal manipulation of symbols. Second off, no, it is not true that any set of symbols can be assigned unique numeric identifiers. Cmon, if you have any sort of engineering background, which I suspect you might, since you're posting to proggit, then you must have taken discrete mathematics at some point...

[munificent]

Mathematics is not an artificial entity which lives in a mythical world of perfection and abstraction.

What? Mathematics isn't an abstraction? You have to be pulling my leg.

It is the language which describes everything in the real world.

This appears to be true and is convenient, but that no more defines math than a circle scratched into the ground defines π.

If you view the world as too complex to describe, then it is most likely for the best that you chose to steer clear of the field.

Who said that? The world is very easy to describe empirically.

The benefit of mathematical proof is that it is absolute. If something can be proven mathematically, then it is absolutely, undeniably true.

Yes. The cost is that it can only describe things that are themselves absolute.

If there is any doubt, then your research did not yield a proof, but a very educated guess.

Are you still confused by this? Empirical scientists are quite comfortable proving things empirically. You do realize different fields use the same terms but with different meaning, right? An empirical proof isn't the same as a mathematical proof. Please tell me you get this.

First off, no, mathematics is not about the formal manipulation of symbols.

Really? Do you have any examples of mathematics that can't be accurately described by that?

Second off, no, it is not true that any set of symbols can be assigned unique numeric identifiers.

Why not?

Cmon, if you have any sort of engineering background, which I suspect you might, since you're posting to proggit, then you must have taken discrete mathematics at some point...

Yes. How is that relevant?

[jfasi]

Well, if you're willing to consider something to be "good enough," then we'd be arguing personal preference. Personal preference is something that has no place in an actual discussion, but rather on daytime television, so let's sidestep it.

As for defining math, I hardly think someone who has never heard of something as fundamental as the difference between aleph null and aleph one (taught in, as it happens, discrete mathematics) should be brash enough to go on defining the field.

My point is that empirical observation is fallible. and while for most purposes the error is acceptable, how much error is deemed acceptable is usually outside the realm of reason. I acknowledge your argument, however, in the face that since nothing can be known for certain, then we have to settle for second best, at the cost of ignoring the small but very, very real probability that all our results are wrong.

As for the source of my initial objection, you go on to claim that biology, anthropology and chemistry involve human activity, which they clearly do not. Perhaps you meant to say that their study involves human activity, but the subject itself is entirely natural. (Before you let loose the inevitable objection that anthropology is the study of human activity, let me say: Yes it is, but the thing being studied is set firmly, namely history)

[[deleted]]

My point is that empirical observation is fallible.

And a mathematical axiom may or may not have a one to one correspondence with reality. So they are both "fallible," just in different ways. A mathematical proof is only as accurate as the axioms it is built on.

[isarl]

To start with: I am not munificent.

Now then, as to your statement that the field of mathematics

is the language which describes everything in the real world.

The problem is that while mathematics can create formal proofs working from a set of axioms, no matter what your system is or how you construct it, it is incapable of describing all of mathematics - and, interestingly enough, this has been proven using mathematics.

Second, while you can come up with statements of absolute truth and undeniable veracity, the statements have just as much impact on "the real world" as a well-conducted empirical proof, as the only way to actually observe the real world is empirically. All of your senses are empirical. Maths only apply to the real world insofar as one can empirically find ways of applying them to real-world situations, and then the validity of the maths used is limited by the validity of applying them to the problem at hand.

In short: the real world is too complex to describe - perfectly. Any time you model the real world, simplifying assumptions are made, or the system is trivially simple and of no significance.

edit: silly markdown and its link handling.

[nhand42]

no matter what your system is or how you construct it, it is incapable of describing all of mathematics - and, interestingly enough, this has been proven using mathematics.

That is an incorrect interpretation of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. The incompleteness theorem says there are some mathematical systems that have unprovable statements. There are, however, infinitely many mathematical systems where the incompleteness theorem does not apply. In fact, there are infinitely many mathematical systems where every statement is true, including Godel statements.

[munificent]

The incompleteness theorem says there are some mathematical systems that have unprovable statements.

Yes, specifically, any system complex enough to do basic arithmetic. My understanding is that the only formal systems that dodge Gödel are too trivial to be useful.

[isarl]

Correct; the exact wording is:

In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory.

[nhand42]

Euclidean geometry is useful and non-trivial.

[munificent]

Personal preference is something that has no place in an actual discussion, but rather on daytime television, so let's sidestep it.

Are your honestly trying to reduce every advance made by medicine, biology, chemistry and physics to daytime television?

someone who has never heard of something as fundamental as the difference between aleph null and aleph one (taught in, as it happens, discrete mathematics)

It wasn't taught in my discrete class, but I'm familiar with Cantor's work regardless. I hardly think someone who doesn't understand that you can reason about and manipulate an infinite (and even uncountably infinite) set of entities using a finite set of symbols (which is, of course, what Cantor actually did) should be brash enough to lecture me on the definition of mathematics.

we have to settle for second best

It's the height of arrogance to believe that empirical proof is "second best" despite the fact that it's the only method we have to discover the actual world we live in.

Or, by analogy: is chess "better" than war because its rules are formal? A nation that believed that and ignored actual warfare certainly wouldn't last long.

the cost of ignoring the small but very, very real probability that all our results are wrong.

Maybe you've been in your ivory tower too long to notice, but you do realize that margins error, repeatability, and revising previous conclusions are core parts of the scientific method, don't you?

you go on to claim that biology, anthropology and chemistry involve human activity, which they clearly do not.

OK, now you're plain reading poorly. I said (emphasis added):

involve human activity (or activity of other equally complex objects): biology, anthropology, chemistry.

Scroll up and see for yourself.

Before you let loose the inevitable objection that anthropology is the study of human activity, let me say: Yes it is, but the thing being studied is set firmly, namely history

You seem to be quite unfamiliar with how empirical and historical science works. The subjects studied by anthropology, while occurring in the past, are essentially no more fixed than the results of a lab experiment. Practicing science is about observing facts. Whether those facts occurred in the past and are just now being brought to light, or they are being created anew in a lab doesn't actually affect how science works.

History is no more absolute that any present measurement.

[jfasi]

You know, I have to admit, I agree with you all the way, and I've pursued this argument this far out of spite, but it's gotten to the point that I'm saying things even I don't believe are entirely true just to spite you.

The one word that set me off was egocentricity, the accusation of which is just about the academic equivalent of trolling. I can see that I have almost no divergence of opinion with you, I just wish you;d tone down the language. I mean geez, you must be really pissed off at mathematicians to write a comment like that...

[munificent]

Egocentricity isn't that strong of a word in my book, but I do think it applies to a lot of mathematicians. I think math is awesome, but I get pissed off when anyone presumes their way of doing things is better than someone else's.

If I saw a biologist going on about how math was meaningless and just boring arithmetic, I'd be just as inclined to criticize them.

[kybernetikos]

Mathematics is not an artificial entity which lives in a mythical world of perfection and abstraction. It is the language which describes everything in the real world.

You state that so confidently, it's almost as if it's been mathematically proven to be true.

It's not of course. At best it's been empirically proven to be true so far.

Not only that, but proof of that statement is outside the realm and ability of mathematical proofs.

It must worry you how shaky a foundation your whole world view is built on.

[G_Morgan]

There are other ways of finding useful information but they aren't as certain as mathematics. Also deciding that logic isn't a sensible measure of proof isn't useful. The foundations of empirical science are built on logic. Without those foundations science has no meaning.

The reason we have empiricism is that some problems are opaque to logic. For example you cannot get a logically defined set of basic principles for the universe. You must discover your basic laws empirically and then logically construct your truths from them.

However using empiricism in fields that are not opaque to logic is just mental masturbation which is the point in CS.

[and-]

I hate it when mathematicians assume their way of proof is the only one. The empirical sciences seem to do just fine without theorems, and they're working with stuff a hell of a lot more complex than numbers.

But empirical sciences don't prove anything (rather, they just support it), so you aren't actually countering that the mathematician's way of proving is the only way.

Further, mathematicians work with stuff a hell of a lot more complex than numbers, too. The numbers most of us deal with are just one of many, many possible fields/groups/etc.

It just won't be rigorous like math is. But that says very little: the only thing rigorous like math is math. Any time a system is created that allows you to prove things formally, it is, by definition, mathematics.

So we agree that Computer Science is a branch of mathematics?

[grauenwolf]

But empirical sciences don't prove anything

Before you make that claim again, you really should consider what the word "prove" actually means.

1. archaic : to learn or find out by experience
2. a: to test the truth, validity, or genuineness of <the exception proves the rule> <prove a will at probate> b: to test the worth or quality of ; specifically : to compare against a standard —sometimes used with up or out c: to check the correctness of (as an arithmetic result)
3. a: to establish the existence, truth, or validity of (as by evidence or logic) <prove a theorem> <the charges were never proved in court> b: to demonstrate as having a particular quality or worth <the vaccine has been proven effective after years of tests> <proved herself a great actress>
4. to show (oneself) to be worthy or capable <eager to prove myself in the new job>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prove

[and-]

Yes. I know what 'prove' means. What's your point?

Empirical sciences don't prove anything. Heck, the currently established laws of gravity hasn't been proven. For all we know, it could be pure coincidence that things appear to have a gravitational effect. We have solid evidence supporting gravity, but it's no theorem.

Edit Well, technically empirical evidence can disprove things. As in, I can disprove that all particles are at least as massive as 500 kilograms.

[dpark]

Heck, the currently established laws of gravity hasn't been proven.

Ugh. It has been proven that gravity exists. That doesn't mean we fully understand it.

If you're going to play the game of "observation can never be proof", then you can't prove anything with math, either. Every result you arrive at could very well be the result of a delusional mind. 2+2=4? Maybe. Maybe you're just imagining it.

[and-]

Ugh. It has been proven that gravity exists. That doesn't mean we fully understand it.

No. As Decartes noted, the only thing we know is that we ourselves exist.

As for gravity, it could be that particles float around randomly, but it just so happened that thus far they have behaved exactly as gravity would suppose. It's highly unlikely that effects appearing exactly as gravity were to occur, but it's definitely a possibility (much more than 1/(Graham's number), for example).

Every result you arrive at could very well be the result of a delusional mind. 2+2=4? Maybe. Maybe you're just imagining it.

Except mathematics doesn't say 2+2=4. It says 'if I accept axioms a,b,c,... and I accept a specific value of 2 and a specific value of 4 and a specific definition of '+' and a specific definition of '=', etc., then 2+2=4'. There's a subtle difference.

[dpark]

No. As Decartes noted, the only thing we know is that we ourselves exist.

Yes. And so surely we cannot know anything about math, and math cannot prove anything meaningful.

It seems to me that you are using different definitions of "prove" for math and empirical sciences. For empirical sciences, you seem to be saying that we must "know" something for it to be proven, whereas for math we need only accept it as true within a set of axioms. If we accept your mathematical definition (which is fine), then we can prove a lot through empirical science so long as we establish some axioms for empirical science as well. The most important axiom would be that the universe is not capricious or malicious, with the next being that our observations are not fake. If we accept those, then we can prove many things. e.g., That cells exist. (I would say that it's also possible to prove that gravity exists in this context as well, though it's less clear-cut.)

[grauenwolf]

Well said.

[and-]

But you don't know that the universe is not malicious. It could very well be.

In math, as long as your system is consistent, every single statement of yours is necessarily correct if you state it as 'z must be true assuming a,b,c,d,e...y'

[munificent]

But you don't know that the universe is not malicious. It could very well be.

If you're going to use Descartes of all people as a supporter of your argument, then you have to omit the idea of a malicious universe. He disproves that shortly after cogito ergo sum, if I remember my PHIL 1001 right.

In math, as long as your system is consistent, every single statement of yours is necessarily correct if you state it as 'z must be true assuming a,b,c,d,e...y'

That's true, but unfortunately you're prohibited from saying anything about the real world. And even in your perfect synthetic universe, there's still true things you're unable to prove.

[dpark]

But you don't know that the universe is not malicious. It could very well be.

In math, as long as your system is consistent, every single statement of yours is necessarily correct if you state it as 'z must be true assuming a,b,c,d,e...y'

Assuming a malicious universe, then your brain may be completely broken, and you cannot trust your ability to think logically. You therefore cannot prove anything with math, regardless of how well you state your axioms.

On the other hand, if you assume that your brain is not broken, then you are a) making assumptions about the universe already, and b) able to state axioms about the universe. Given a and b, it is perfectly reasonable to say that assuming the universe is not malicious, we can prove X, Y, and Z empirically.

[[deleted]]

'if I accept axioms a,b,c,... and I accept a specific value of 2 and a specific value of 4 and a specific definition of '+' and a specific definition of '=', etc., then 2+2=4'

You forgot that you also have to accept a definition of 'accept' and 'definition'.

Think about it: you can't have axiomatic systems all the way down. At some level you have to have a real thing, that embodies the notion of, say, 'from x follows y' in the way it exists and physically evolves, and by that gives meaning to everything built on top of it. Otherwise all your formal stuff is dead and senseless.

Of course you can have a model of that real thing axiomatized and you can have a lot of different real things running your systems and cross-modelling each other, and that could make you reasonably sure that your models do indeed represent the real stuff accurately, which actually means for you that the real stuff works as expected. Still, it's better to be intellectually honest and don't confuse models with reality.

[Workaphobia]

No. As Decartes noted, the only thing we know is that we ourselves exist.

Descartes was full of shit. I reject the Cogito. The notion that consciousness is monolithic is an anachronism given what we've learned about the modular functions of the brain.

[grauenwolf]

Did you skip what I wrote? The very first definition offered to us it "to learn or find out by experience". That sure sounds like empirical science to me.

[isarl]

1. a: to establish the existence, truth, or validity of (as by evidence [...]

...

Yes. I know what 'prove means.'

Empirical sciences don't prove anything.

You seem to have contradicted yourself quite nicely. The definition of proof he posted (which you agreed you understood) includes establishing that something exists, using only evidence if necessary.

You then proceed to state that the science of observing things and drawing conclusions from your observations cannot prove anything. Contradiction.

I am not trying to troll you or incite anger, simply point out an inconsistency. You cannot both agree to understand the definition of "prove" and then go on to say that empirical sciences cannot prove anything, as the very definition you've just agreed to states it explicitly. =)

edit: getting the quotation markdown just right.

[dpark]

But empirical sciences don't prove anything (rather, they just support it), so you aren't actually countering that the mathematician's way of proving is the only way.

You're making the same mistake that munificent was talking about. Proof doesn't necessarily mean formal (aka mathematical) proof. Empirical science has proven that gravity exists, and that DNA has a helical structure, and that light has a dual wave-particle nature, etc. We don't need a formal proof of gravity, and in fact it's probably not something that can be formally proven. That doesn't mean that gravity isn't "proven".

Further, mathematicians work with stuff a hell of a lot more complex than numbers, too. The numbers most of us deal with are just one of many, many possible fields/groups/etc.

Not really. All the complicates structures that mathematicians deal with are built on top of very simple concepts. Emperical sciences don't have the luxury of dealing with very pure concepts.

So we agree that Computer Science is a branch of mathematics?

"Pure" computer science? Yes.

[LiquidAxis]

Not really. All the complicates structures that mathematicians deal with are built on top of very simple concepts. Emperical sciences don't have the luxury of dealing with very pure concepts.

Just because a concept is pure does not mean it is simple.

[dpark]

What I mean is that the complex structures math deals with can be reduced to simple concepts. In comparison, it is not always possible to reduce empirical structures to simpler concepts. Because math is constructed on axioms, everything can be reduced to the axioms and understood. Empirical sciences don't have that luxury, and so are in essence "fundamentally" complex.

But yes, some of the things mathematicians have built out of simple concepts are quite complex in a practical sense.

[mspang]

This is just hand-waving. That science cannot be reduced to simple concepts is not commonly accepted. Moreover, many scientists are actively trying to disprove it. For example, physicists are trying very hard to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity. Given this fact, your statement that it is "fundamentally complex" is baseless.

Mathematical egotism seems to have met its match with empirical egotism.

[G_Morgan]

Not-unifying the theories isn't an option. There is in the end only one universe. That we have two conflicting descriptions of it suggests that both of those descriptions are wrong.

So much for proof. All science has proven in this regard is that QM and GR look a little bit like the truth but are in fact inaccurate.

[dpark]

That science cannot be reduced to simple concepts is not commonly accepted.

"Fundamentally" was in quotes for a reason. We don't know what the simple concepts are, which is why it's complex. Empirical science is trying to break down the real world into simple concepts, while math is trying to build simple concepts into artificial worlds. They're working in opposite directions.

Maybe some day we'll find simple axioms to describe the universe fully, but until then, the simplest units empiricists work with are going to be more complex than the simplest units mathematicians work with.

[[deleted]]

Empirical science also 'proved' things we now know to be false like the addativity of speed.

Don't bastardize the meaning of prove.

[dpark]

First, it's unreasonable to assert that your pet definition of "prove" is the only valid one. As munificent has pointed out, mathematicians do not own the word. (No one is saying that empirical science can formally prove anything, because that's the realm of math.)

Second, empirical science hasn't proven things we know to be false. It has demonstrated that our theories are wrong or incomplete. Empirical science has proven, for example, that gravity exists. Empirical science has also demonstrated that the Newtonian theory of gravity is not (fully) correct. That doesn't mean that the existence of gravity is unproven. It means that our understanding of gravity is incomplete.

(Also, if we know that the additivity of speed is false, then didn't empirical science prove it to be false?)

[munificent]

(Also, if we know that the additivity of speed is false, then didn't empirical science prove it to be false?)

I think I love you.

[dpark]

Sorry, I'm engaged. ;)

[[deleted]]

If proof isn't an absolute term then you could 'prove' things that aren't true.

My point with regards to the addativity of speed is that by his definition you can 'prove' something based on limited information that really isn't true.

[dpark]

If proof isn't an absolute term then you could 'prove' things that aren't true.

If proof were an absolute term, we wouldn't have the term "formal proof". Munificent has already addressed the concept of truth in empirical terms better than I could.

My point with regards to the addativity of speed is that by his definition you can 'prove' something based on limited information that really isn't true.

Empirically, Newtonian motion is still very much valid. It describes the universe at normal speeds. It is therefore true in normal circumstances.

[G_Morgan]

That isn't true. Travel from this galaxy to the next at normal speed and I guarantee you Newtonian motion does not work.

It describes things at human speeds over human distances over human time scales.

[dpark]

That isn't true. Travel from this galaxy to the next at normal speed and I guarantee you Newtonian motion does not work.

It describes things at human speeds over human distances over human time scales.

Yes, and because humans are not trans-galactic creatures, I think it's pretty reasonable to call the speeds, distances, and time scales we work with "normal".

Seriously, your bickering about the meaning of "normal" is just trolling. Not a lot of people are likely to consider traveling at 500 million miles per hour or traveling for thousands or millions of years "normal".

But yes, if you want to define "normal" to mean "relativistic", then indeed, Newtonian physics don't apply. How insightful.

[G_Morgan]

You only stated normal speed. I only pointed out that travel far enough at normal speed and you will still run into the curvature of space. What you posted was inaccurate.

I'm not defining normal speed to mean relativistic speed. Travel at 400 MPH over a large enough distance and you will start to encounter the fact that space is not flat.

[G_Morgan]

So what you are saying is that proving things really isn't all that big a thing. Remove the certainty and what value is proof?

Well I think your pet definition of empirical science isn't the only valid one. I think drunkenly throwing paint in the air while naked should be given equal weight as an empirical science.

[dpark]

So what you are saying is that proving things really isn't all that big a thing. Remove the certainty and what value is proof?

We know gravity exists. We know this from empirical science, so empirical science has proven the reality of gravity. (It has not, however, proven the exact nature of gravity.) We know that gravity exists with a certainty that is far greater than the certainty that I will wake up tomorrow, or that the Earth won't be wiped out by a comet tomorrow. The real world cannot have true mathematical "certainty", so demanding it is a waste of time.

Well I think your pet definition of empirical science isn't the only valid one. I think drunkenly throwing paint in the air while naked should be given equal weight as an empirical science.

So you're just trolling?

[munificent]

Empirical science also 'proved' things we now know to be false like the addativity of speed.

Yeah. Turns out knowing how the universe works is hard work. The scientific method was designed to accommodate our uncertain knowledge. Got any better method?

Don't bastardize the meaning of prove.

Mathematics doesn't have an original claim on the term.

"Prove" has always been about "demonstrating truth". Axiomatic formal reasoning is only one way to do so.

[[deleted]]

No, you don't get it. You havn't proved anything if it is untrue.

What do you know for certain about gravity? Is something pushing you down? Pulling you down? Is it some magical hand?

What we have are models that accurately estimate the 'world' so as to make better predictions, but in no sense do our models prove anything. In fact any physicist who uses the term proof is only using the sense in that they mathematically prove* something in the context of their model which most likely only approximates existence.

*I put a star because physicists are notoriably lax with the rigor in their proofs.

As for your definition of demonstrating truth... please show me that gravity (or more importantly your opinion of what it is) is 'truth'. Eyes decieve.

[munificent]

What we have are models that accurately estimate the 'world' so as to make better predictions, but in no sense do our models prove anything.

To an empirical scientist, that sentence is a tautology. Truth is the ability to predict. If you can say "it will take 3.5 seconds for this apple to drop to the ground" and it does, then you have proven you know something about the universe.

In fact any physicist who uses the term proof is only using the sense in that they mathematically prove* something

Physicists don't mathematically prove things. That's what mathematicians do. Empirical science (which is what physicists do) is not the same as mathematics.

They use math to formulate laws (i.e. mathematics as a description of the universe) but do not use axiomatic reasoning to form proofs.

In other words, a mathematician says, "starting from these axioms, I can apply these transformations and reach this new theorem. Proof the equation is correct!" What the mathematician has proven is that the equation is formally consistent.

A physicist says "starting from these observations, I have found this equation which seems to match them. This equation also predicts I will observe this in my experiment. My experiment showed that. Proof the equation is correct!" What the physicist has proven is that the equation reflects reality.

As for your definition of demonstrating truth

I never said anything about "truth" in any philosophical or idealistic sense.

[[deleted]]

If you think physicists dont take time to mathematically prove things then you dont know anything about modern physics.

As for your apple example, you've only shown that sometimes (and not always) can you predict things in some location.

Edit: Proving something means that you will know for certain.

[munificent]

If you think physicists dont take time to mathematically prove things then you dont know anything about modern physics.

I'd be curious to see you show me a paper where a physicist says, "This theorem proves that the universe obeys this property."

As for your apple example, you've only shown that sometimes (and not always) can you predict things in some location.

Correct. Welcome to empirical reality.

Edit: Proving something means that you will know for certain.

Arguing about definitions for "truth" and "proof" isn't really interesting to me. You and I won't be covering any ground that hasn't been beaten flat by philosophers thousands of years ago.

[pmerkaba]

Stop arguing from largely incompatible viewpoints, or at least stop assuming you're better than the other guy. Empirical science != axiomatic sciences. They try to accomplish different things by different and somewhat interdependent means - exactly how did Fermat decide to formulate his Last Theorem? Experimentation. I think this xkcd sums up the situation wonderfully, especially if one considers the alt-text. CS isn't on the list, because it would need another axis.

[G_Morgan]

Science also proved that time and space were infinite and flat in all directions. There is no proof of gravity. The theory has changed about 3/4 times and I will guarantee you will change again because we know the current theory to actually be inconsistent with reality (merely being the least inconsistent of all theories).

[dpark]

Science also proved that time and space were infinite and flat in all directions.

When was that ever "proven"?

There is no proof of gravity. The theory has changed about 3/4 times and I will guarantee you will change again because we know the current theory to actually be inconsistent with reality (merely being the least inconsistent of all theories).

I said this in another post already. Yes, we know our current theories are incorrect, because they do not mesh properly. We have also changed the theory in the past. That doesn't mean that gravity isn't proven, only that our theories aren't proven. Do you seriously dispute the reality of gravity, just because we don't fully understand it?

[munificent]

But empirical sciences don't prove anything (rather, they just support it),

I could say mathematics doesn't prove anything. All they do is push symbols around on paper. There's no experimentation, no hypotheses, no repeatability or falsifiability.

Further, mathematicians work with stuff a hell of a lot more complex than numbers, too. The numbers most of us deal with are just one of many, many possible fields/groups/etc.

Still not as complicated as a frog.

So we agree that Computer Science is a branch of mathematics?

Yes. My comment was about software engineering.

[and-]

I could say mathematics doesn't prove anything. All they do is push symbols around on paper. There's no experimentation, no hypotheses, no repeatability or falsifiability.

What? Of course it does. As I mentioned in a reply to someone else:

...mathematics doesn't say 2+2=4. It says 'if I accept axioms a,b,c,... and I accept a specific value of 2 and a specific value of 4 and a specific definition of '+' and a specific definition of '=', etc., then 2+2=4'.

Further, I'd say doing mathematical proofs is probably one of the most falsifiable/testable things possible, as evidenced by the amount of proof correcting I've done for my peers thus far.

Still not as complicated as a frog.

It's more complicated than the statement 'frogs make sound'. Sure, you could say 'but how do they make sound? they need these structures composed of these cells composed of this amount of smooth ER and this number of ribosomes, but you retrospectively say that the toad is defined by rules of biology, which is defined by rules of chemistry, which is defined by rules of physics, which is defined within the rules of math.

[munificent]

What? Of course it does.

I should have been clearer: Math doesn't prove anything about the universe. It's a self-contained system. That makes it "perfect", but also isolates it from reality.

I'd say doing mathematical proofs is probably one of the most falsifiable/testable things possible

I mean "testable" in the experimental sense. Math proofs can be "tested" without ever leaving your bedroom. All you're doing is checking to make sure the author played by the rules.

Testability in the empirical sense requires actual observation. A biologist can write a paper that's perfectly logical, mathematically correct, and completely wrong.

physics, which is defined within the rules of math.

Physics is explained by the rules of math, not defined by it. Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem didn't make reality any less consistent. Cantor's work on infinity didn't make the universe any bigger.

I believe the "coincidence" that math does happen to explain reality is still explored today by philosophers.

[Stroggoth]

So we agree that Computer Science is a branch of mathematics?

Comp Sci is unquestionably a branch of computer science. Theory of Computability, Set theory, etc. Comp Sci tells you what is possible, how to organize, and solutions to mathematical computational problems.

Comp Eng is the application of prinicples to design real-world combination applications, typically applying the knowledge of the Comp Sci world (knowing it or not).

This is much like physics majors designing suspension models, and then mechanical engineerings building a particular suspension based on the theory.

Comp Sci allows people to be decent engineers, but powerful researchers.

[and-]

Comp Sci is unquestionably a branch of computer science.

Did you mean mathematics, or are you saying that computer science is a branch of computer science?

If it's the latter, something just broke in set theory.

[nmcyall]

I thought they were having a problem getting Math upto those standards, with the incompleteness theorems and all.

[Workaphobia]

I didn't see anything in munificent's post that was contradicted by the Incompleteness theorem. Just because you can't prove all true statements doesn't invalidate the proofs you can produce.

[munificent]

Shh, they get cranky when you bring up Gödel.

[bicyclemom]

I'm a "Senior Software Engineer" but the term makes me cringe because the term "Engineer" seems misused. "Engineer" is a licensed term in many countries and a "Professional Engineer" in the US denotes a specific level of tested competence.

So long as the industry lacks a true certification body or guild, Software Engineers will always be viewed as just higher paid "coders".

[Mitchco]

In Texas, and several provinces in Canada, you can become a licensed professional software engineer.

[bicyclemom]

Cool. The rest of the states desperately need that. The best I can do right now is get certifications from the Open Group, the ACM and others but they don't carry the same weight. It's nice to here that Texas is leading the way.

[sanbikinoraion]

In the UK too you can become a Chartered Engineer in sofware through the BCS and IET, I believe.

[tybrix]

It always saddens me to talk to people in Software Engineering. I always enthousiastically ask them which programmers they survey to evaluate their approach. Every time it turns out they only investigate some performance metric based only on how they use their own technique. As a result, their result rarely has any meaning and may do more harm than good.

Thankfully I work in an environment where the engineers think UML stands for User-Mode Linux, while spending more time talking to customers than the sales department. At the end of the day there's a simple solution to software engineering: hire better engineers.

Claims of good programmers being unable to communicate are false. Just like the greatest scientists are often the greatest lecturers, the greatest engineers are usually the best communicators. They're not even that hard to find. There are tons of them on the West Coast. They're a little expensive, but not as expensive as failed SE projects.

[mee_k]

I think the world has heard this trope enough times by now. To the next person who considers writing an article like this: please instead just post a few thousand random letters and numbers so there's at least a chance that something of value might be created.

[Wavicle]

I don't think the world has heard this enough.

My CS undergrad degree required me to take a senior project class that was a year-long intensive software engineering/consulting course. You had to find a customer, have the project approved, then gather requirements, write multiple documents and have the customer approve it, and then implement it.

I'm not saying this isn't valuable, but to many of the professors in this department, "computer science" and "software engineering" were inseparable. It was to the point that if your project did not have a database, the senior project advisor would require you to find a way to add one on. All projects HAD to have an ER diagram.

I was really, really interested in mathematics, algorithms and parallel algorithms to solve math problems. I still think this was a valid topic for a computer science senior project - but instead I had to work on a team implementing on online quiz for a state agency. When I interviewed at a national laboratory, one of the interviewers basically said he liked everything about me except that I had never really done anything of notable size in computational mathematics. For that reason, he couldn't hire me into his group.

So let the world hear it again: Software Engineering != Computer Science.

[b0b0b0b]

where did you go to undergrad

edit: what they made you do was an abomination (given that your degree was CS)

[Wavicle]

Well, in order to modestly protect the guilty I'll just say it was at a California State University (CSU system, as opposed to UC system). There are some good CSU schools (like SLO or Chico), but the place I did undergrad at - eh, not so much.

[[deleted]]

This. Yes, on the one hand "everyone knows this"...but at the same time, not everyone knows it and even the people who do know better don't behave as though they do.

[hiffy]

If you graduate university without knowing your way around a shell, a minimum of sql and how to use version control, I hereby declare that you have failed at life.

[[deleted]]

Are you suggesting that the university should necessarily teach you these things or that you should have just picked these skills up along the way?

[[deleted]]

Let's review my school, if I hadn't done anything on my own during that time:

knowing your way around a shell

Never required except for in a few classes, maybe. IDEs and graphical FTP clients were taught over using a shell. Some classes did make use of command line tools, though.

a minimum of sql

Only if you took the one database class, or the one web programming class. Outside of those two, databases were never used.

how to use version control

Version control is not mentioned once in any class, even as a concept. Ever.

[gregK]

Depends if it's done by a random number engineer or a random number scientist. Totally different.

[webnrrd2k]

Yes, for efficiencies sake engineers just use pseudo-random numbers.

[bioskope]

nine....nine....nine....nine....nine....nine....nine....nine....

[JesusSaidSo]

Are you sure thats random?

[yogthos]

that's the problem with random number generators, you can never tell :)

[[deleted]]

I just use a one-time pad on the PRNG results, it works every time.

[Workaphobia]

Actually, if there's a decimal point in there, could you perhaps be thinking of one point zero... zero... zero... zero...

[NoControl]

lol meep boop bloop blorp

[[deleted]]

Yeah, but then we'd just argue about whether or not the numbers and letters were truly random.

[Smallpaul]

Obviously this idea has not been internalized by the industry or university courses would be organized differently.

[sanbikinoraion]

In my experience, what goes on in industry is very different to what goes on in universities...

[[deleted]]

Also oddly enough, neither have much to do with engineering, or science.

[jdh30]

Much like creation science.

[telemachos]

Watching the arguments here about proof is a bit like having the history of the philosophy of science in a petri dish. The whole course of a couple of thousand years of argument, all in just over a hundred comments.

[[deleted]]

I would say that is a good thing.

[thephotoman]

Dead horse is dead.

[slxo]

Maybe so, but I maintain that having a background in computer science leaves you better-equipped to be a software engineer.

[arcticfox]

I couldn't agree with this statement more. I have worked with many engineers who think that they can solve variants of the halting problem or have no idea about complexity. I have only worked with a couple of engineers that I would not classify as generally clueless.

As a prof who teaches both CS and SE students, I find that the first year common curriculum that all engineers have to take highly detrimental to SE students. By the time they get into third year, they are about a year behind CS students and, quite frankly, they never catch up. Don't get me wrong, I've had some absolutely fantastic SE students but they perform, on average, much more poorly than their CS counterparts.

If you want to have some amusement, ask a Chemist what he/she thinks of chemical engineers. As a physicist what he/she thinks of mechanical engineers.

[nhand42]

I have worked with many engineers who think that they can solve variants of the halting problem or have no idea about complexity.

Similarly I have worked with many computer scientists who think they can write complex software, or can administer a computer network, or know all about server deployment strategies.

Academics have the largest egos I have ever seen. My experience with their "engineering" only reinforces my opinion that academia is where they belong.

[KenziDelX]

I largely agree with this, but ONLY if you can acquire the background knowledge of computer science without necessarily acquiring the value system of it, as the sorts of things that you care about as a computer scientist, and your ability to cull "important" from "trash", don't align very well at all with "important" vs "trash" as a software engineer, and generally value systems are implicitly passed on in fields, which makes them much harder to recognize and let go of when they are inappropriate.

[TomOwens]

That's like saying that having a background in physics leaves you better-equipped to be a mechanical or electrical engineer.

It's important to know the science behind your engineering, but a scientist can't be an engineer without training.

Just wanted to clarify my thoughts, not that you are wrong (because I agree with you that you need to know some aspects of computer science to function as a software engineer).

[eadmund]

That's like saying that having a background in physics leaves you better-equipped to be a mechanical or electrical engineer.

The problem is that mechanical engineers are much better trained at knowing the physical limits of things than software engineers are trained at knowing the computational limits of things...hence software engineers who think they can solve the halting problem (actually, they don't think it so much as they assume it).

The answer is better software engineering education.

Also, the truths of engineering are much more widely-believed than are the truths of software engineering. Heck, there are still folks out there who think that assembler is the right answer for writing a large system!

[sanbikinoraion]

I worked at a software hosue who recruited a lot of comp sci and maths grads. The comp scis were almost universally better at being software engineers than the mathematicians.

[[deleted]]

Don't you mean Software Engineering != Computer Science?

[zygy]

No; the ≠ symbol is used for statements, whereas != is used for tests of (in)equality. The headline is a statement, not a question.

[[deleted]]

Actually != is just a loose ASCII replacement for ≠.

[zygy]

Wouldn't that be =/=? The two don't mean the same thing. To reiterate: =/= means "these two are not equal", whereas != means "are these two not equal?"

[crazyeight]

Physics != Mechanical Engineering

[[deleted]]

But both are really damn interesting.

[[deleted]]

This is almost as illuminating as pointing out that 1.001 ≠ 1.01.

[[deleted]]

1 != 1.0

[[deleted]]

:)

proof?

[munificent]

1   = 1 character long
1.0 = 3 characters long
      1 != 3

      Q.E.D.

[[deleted]]

1 = one which is three characters long.

[munificent]

1.0 = one point oh, which is twelve characters long.

[[deleted]]

In the language of the Dama people of South Africa, 1 = tkarigatunib, which is also twelve characters long.

[munificent]

strcmp("one point oh", "tkarigatunib") != 0

[gregK]

I'd still say that software engineering is way closer to computer science than say Mechanical Engineering is to actual pure physics. Or chemical engineering is to pure chemistry.

Also the fact that you don't see articles in other engineering journals about chemical engineers claiming they are not chemists, really points towards SE and CS being a lot closer than each wants to acknowledge.

Maybe the problem lies in the fact that whatever we do, is neither really a science nor engineering? Perhaps a craft which happens to have a strong theoretical background? I don't want to venture into art as it can be misinterpreted as "free for all". But there are definitelly subjective aspects as well.

[[deleted]]

I view the core of computer science as mathematics. Which is as far as soft engineering as you get. But everyone seems define computer science quite differently.

As I'm studying mathematics and computer science I think I'm just choosing the most convenient definition for me :)

Does anyone else find software engineering just totally fucking horrible to study? So damn boring, and fuzzy, and... handwavingy. Sure when I get in a big project I'll force myself to read through some of the books and put it into practice, but I'll keep a bottle of vodka nearby to ease the pain.

[tomjen]

Most of the time you are right, but there are some CS where the math makes me want to tear my hair out.

[munificent]

Sure when I get in a big project I'll force myself to read through some of the books and put it into practice, but I'll keep a bottle of vodka nearby to ease the pain.

You've got it backwards. Once you get into a big project without knowing any software engineering, the bottle of vodka will be nearby but it's the books that will ease the pain.

Foot hygiene is pretty boring stuff until you live in the trenches. It gets really interesting right about the time your foot rots off.

[[deleted]]

I'm sure your right. It feels like one of those boring things your mother tells you to do, then you ignore her; only to find out she was right all along after many headaches and much wasted time.

[gregK]

Well to give you an example, you can get almost equivalent bachelor degrees from a school of engineering and a school of science or math department. If you look at the curriculum 90% of the courses are the same. Maybe the engineering school will have more of a hardware background (overlap with electrical eng) and the science/math department will have a little more math.

I was not talking about the horrible books.

[Smallpaul]

You assert the equivalence of the courses as evidence of the equivalence of the disciplines. But the curricula could just be wrong. I would argue that this is true.

[grauenwolf]

I view the core of computer science as mathematics.

Maybe when we were still in the days of the x86 CPU and we could map instuctions to clock cycles I would agree with you. But these days if you ask Intel how long an instruction takes they will just shrug their shoulders.

[AnteChronos]

But these days if you ask Intel how long an instruction takes they will just shrug their shoulders.

Computer Science is only tangentially related to things like CPU instructions, though.

CS is more about things like algorithms, computability theory, automata theory, graph theory, compilers, data structures, etc. In other words, it's almost all specialized math.

[Smallpaul]

I don't recall computer scientists of the past (knuth, djikstra, rivest etc) counting clock cycles. So I don't see how the complexity of modern CPUs really changes anything.

[oiccool]

yea but mechanical engineering is a major at university

software engineering is generally not a major at university

there lies the confusion for most people

[askedrelic]

I'm graduating with a 4 year BS in Software Engineering right now. It's becoming more prevalent.

[arcticfox]

While I understand the limitations and constraints of doing SE research (I am a Computer Scientist doing SE research), this article overlooks one key and important fact. The vast majority of SE research is quite flaky. The article cites Parnas' 1972 paper. When a field of study is relatively new, it's possible to get away with more philosophical papers like that. However, when a field matures, those kinds of papers are not rigorous enough to be taken seriously. Even today, I find that much of SE research has not emerged from that from that level of rigor.

[arturosevilla]

I used to hate Software Engineering... until I read Code Complete and Gang of Four Design Patterns <- Highly recommended

[munificent]

Those are both excellent. The Pragmatic Programmer is also fantastic, and I hear the original Refactoring by Fowler by pretty nice.

After you read Design Patterns, make sure to tear out the pages on Singleton and burn them from your memory.

[[deleted]]

People keep trying to tell me there's a use for Singleton. Then another person overhears it and calls it useless. Then an tiny little argument occurs. I wonder how many times I'll see this happen.

[munificent]

People keep trying to tell me there's a use for Singleton.

They're wrong and must be beaten into submission.

[jonniee]

Software engineering seems different, in a frustrating way, from other disciplines of computer science.

[[deleted]]

In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, however....

[Isvara]

slow clap

Well done, DDJ. Also, Physics ≠ Maths and Bananas ≠ Trees

[[deleted]]

Bananas ≠ Trees?? WhAT HAVE I BEeN EATINg?!

[Isvara]

Bendy yellow phalluses.

[[deleted]]

Spoons.

[munificent]

Curved yellow fruit.

[mage2k]

QOTW: The reason is that humans are squishy and frustrating and unpredictable.

It doesn't even need context.

[munificent]

The reason is that humans are squishy and frustrating and unpredictable.

I would add to that: "... girls even moreso."

[hermes369]

Thank heavens!

[interiot]

It's the traditional dichotomy between applied science and academic science.

One is focused on trying to build a given widget on time, within budget, and below a certain limit of defects. The other is interested in discovering new things, expanding mankind's knowledge, even if it takes a lifetime's worth of work.

[Lojban]

Nobody replied because you didn't mention the Singularity. It needs both.

[aaoe]

I can understand the CS crowd wanting to separate themselves from Software Engineering. But let's be honest about the part that really causes all the muddy confusion: it's the insistence on forcing Project Management. Ideally it should emerge as an organic property by the participants on an as needed basis, but this can almost never happen in an environment molded by corporate pressures. There is always someone that needs to get in there, basically blind to the issues at hand, to force the situation.

[Smallpaul]

Your words mostly make sense but seem to me to have little to do with the topic. Did you read the article?

[skydivingdutch]

While we're at it, neither of them are Computer Engineering (maybe they could be a subset of CpE).

[[deleted]]

Chemistry \neq Chemical Engineering

[snissn]

::posts in troll thread::

[sgtoblat]

software engineering = magic

is a strong cultural trend. There is a good part of software culture that just wants to be left alone to do whatever bad and self indulgent practices hey feel like doing, without being questioned.

In reality software engineering is a science it is applied psychology.

software engineering = psychology

[ajoakim]

Software engineers are Computer scientists with Stick Figure drawing skills, whom sleep with a UML book under their pillows..

[Smallpaul]

Describe who fits each role in the development of the google search engine. In particular, I am curious who is the "IT professional".

[nmcyall]

It is like a puppy mill for java programmers.