Software engineering

Is the same as Computer science.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.software-eng/TwGSbrS-rZ8/HhjUD-VrDwAJ

No, it isn't. Science is coming up with hypotheses and testing them. Engineering is applying that knowledge to create things.

As far as schools are concerned,

Software Engineering is project management
Computer Science is studying computation (or just fucking Java if your school is shit)
Computer Engineering is building hardware

Nobody actually teaches how to program.

Science is coming up with hypotheses and testing them.

looks like computer "sciennce" isn't really a science then
i've been saying this for years and nobody listens
computer science is NOT a science
it's a joke people call "science"
there are real sciences like physics and biology
but doing bullshit like sorting a list isn't a science
what exactly are you testing in computer science?
jack shit

>>4

Computer Science teaches you how to Java
Nobody actually teaches how to program

oxymoron much?

>>6
the obvious subtext being you can monkey out fizzbuzz and palindromes but not much else

>>6
Learn what words mean.

https://i.warosu.org/data/sci/img/0064/30/1395549157651.gif

>>7
Monkeying out toy programs is still programming though.

>>10
No, it's coding not programming.

>>11
So what is apping?

Computer science is the math of computation. Software engineering is intellectual prostitution. They are about as related as a neolithic spear is to a fighter jet.

>>13
math isn't science, dolt

>>14
It's a science about phenomena in a magical formal fantasy-land.

>>11,12
Semantic hogwash.

>>15
The only thing math can be a science of is tautology. Because every mathematical statement is either an axiom or a tautology. Mathematicians are either useless fantasizers or brain-dead robot imitators.

>>17
Math does involve postulating tautologies, and then proving or disproving their tautologiness.

what is platonism

>>18
Every theorem or lemma is either a tautology or wrong. It's the nature of mathematics.

>>20
Calling any "correct" theorem a tautology is a bit disingenious, as there is always an implied environment of semantics, a specific interpretation of the operations involved, and a few conditions it is predicated on (e.g. "for all positive numbers").

>>21
Every correct theorem is a tautology as demonstrated by its proof. That's because any mathematically correct proof is a demonstration of how the axioms (which you for some reason call " environment of semantics") automatically imply the theorem's statement.
E.g. the arithmetic axioms along with the definition of a prime number automatically imply the infinitude of the set of prime numbers; to state that the set of prime numbers is infinite would be a tautology yet mathematicians call it a theorem. Choosing a different definition of a prime number or different arithmetic axioms would create different tautologies (like non-Euclidean geometries lead to theorems different from Euclidean geometry theorems) but the mathematicall process is always the same: propose a statement then check whether it's a tautology or wrong. There are no other options in mathematics, which is why proof verification exists and people like Voevodsky are working to make all mathematics automatic and computer-verified. Mathematics is cancer of the human mind and it's time we freed everyone from the dolorous shackles of mindlessly trudging through tautologies.

>>22
Sure, I was mostly talking out of my ass.

" environment of semantics"

To clarify, that would be which axioms are in use. A stupid example, but consider how < means different things in ℂ and ℤ. There are only so many symbols, after all.

>>22
Mathematical axioms/postulates "automatically imply" mathematical theorems and lemmae just like certain isotopes' nuclei imply the processes of radioactivity, yet it took Mme. Curie's and Mr. Rutherford's groundbreaking discoveries for humanity to tee that implication. Physics is completely analogous to math.

You mention prime numbers. Well, in 2013 some American chink proved that there is an infinite supply of prime number pairs distanced no more than 70 million from each other. If that is implied in the definition of a prime number, then that's a pretty damn far-going implication if mathematicians couldn't fucking see it for decades.
Proof: http://annals.math.princeton.edu/2014/179-3/p07

But guess what, after that chink's publication James Maynard, a British mathematician, improved the original result from 70 million to 600. Turns out the road from axiom to theorem is not so automatic and rigidly set, huh?
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1311.4600v2.pdf

You say that there are no options other than tautology and error in mathematics, but what about the Riemann hypothesis akd N != NP and other mathematical statements which can be neither proven nor disproven? Turns out there are alternatives, huh?

You make mention of automated proof verification but prefer to elide the fact that generation of proofs and theorem statements does not lend itself to automatization so easily and requires human creativity.

You call mathematics "cancer of the human mind" yet it is the most beautiful and abstract science known to man, and a true testing-bed for human brilliance.

The only difference between mathematics and any natural science is that mathematics, being formal, is absolutely precise and rigorous. But that only serves to improve the value and applicability of its results, not to deteriorate the scientific processes that mathematic scientists use to achieve them, the sweat, blood and creativity that they have to put in to make their discoveries.

So fuck you, buddy.

>>23
You've given up way too easily. The only one talking out of his ass was >>22.

>>24
I just want to inform you that I find your somewhat archaic mode of expression quite endearing!

>>25
Archaic is it? Well, I have no qualms with that. Thank you.

muh homotopy theory

im not actually a mathematician or know anything beyond basic facts about category theory but let me tell you this: homotomtopy type theory is really IN right now and it's gonna be the next BIG THING. Bigger than node.js

>>23
Blackboard ``bold'' considered harmful.

>>24
I used to be deliberately antagonistic on textboards about things I neither know nor care about. Those days are past.

>>28
``bold'' my cddr.

>>27
Who said that?

>>5
The title of CS is a misnomer. CS is not a science in the way that it does not deal with the scientific method to discover the nature of the physical universe. It is a science in the way that it is a systematic discipline of study. CS is also not about computers.

Meanwhile Oracle already structures unstructured data:
1. Oracle obtains statistics on queries and data from the data itself, internally'.
3. Oracle gets 100% patterns from data.
4. Oracle uses synonyms searching.
5. Oracle indexes data by common dictionary.
6.
Oracle killed SQL: SQL, Structured Query Language either does not use
statistics at all or uses manually assigned one.IBM should stop to use
SQL.
The structuring of data is the way to AI.

I want to go to a homotopy type theory conference and find out that all the speakers are actually node.js hipsters.