Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below
Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
while undoing the ill-named enty programming theory I noticed of course that we did have an entry computer science already, even if all it contained was a pointer to an article by John Power.
I am not in position to put anything substantial into this entry, but I did add a handful of words to turn it from a puny stub into a tiny stub, at least.
I have searched around and found that we did have some entries on computer science that could be linked to … so I did that! I also added some wished for entries both on topics and people. I also linked to an old discussion on the café, from 2006. see here. We may find other points in there which could be useful here.
There may be other entries that are relevant as well.
I created a stubby denotational semantics as needed by some of the computer science entries.
I added some more links to people.
I have added a reference to Asperti and Longo, Categories Types and Structures, which is available on lineI put a link at computer science.
(i) I have been adding entries (people) to the list of computer scientist. Should this be organised differently? e.g. separate entry?
(ii) I have been consistently (I hope) giving category:computer science to the non-people entries that area of relevance to CS. Can this be used in some neat way to enrich the CS part of the nLab?
I don’t know how neat it is, but you can put the people in that category too, since a page can be in any number of categories.
I will do that bit by bit. Thanks,
In addition to the category-tag “computer science” I added the tag “software” to the page computer science. While these are distinct category-tags, at least the top page for computer science has to be aware of both closely related and partly overlapping groups of $n$Lab topics.
In the introduction at computer science somebody has put that it would be better to call (theoretical) computer science “programming theory”. I disagree with this software-centric point of view. Computer science is about so many other things than the code and execution algorithm related ones, including signal processing, physics of quantum computing, hardware optimization, security, hardware standardization, algorithms for integrated components packing, real time profiling of computer performance, fault management etc.
From the nPOV, computer science is part of the computational trinity, together with type theory and category theory. Maybe programming theory would have been a good term for computer science (to match with its siblings). But it’s not used this way, more’s the pity.
That remark (above) is also problematic because the computational trinity is (logic, type theory, category theory). Out of the three computer science corresponds most to type theory, so its complement should really be “logic and category theory”, rather than “type theory and category theory”. Perhaps you should just reduce the remark to:
From the nPOV, computer science is part of the computational trinity, together with logic and category theory.
That does fit better with Harper’s original words:
Logic, which gives primacy to proofs and propositions; Languages, which gives primacy to programs and types; Categories, which gives primacy to mappings and structures.
…
Logic tells us what propositions exist (what sorts of thoughts we wish to express) and what constitutes a proof (how we can communicate our thoughts to others). Languages (in the sense of programming) tells us what types exist (what computational phenomena we wish to express) and what constitutes a program (how we can give rise to that phenomenon). Categories tell us what structures exist (what mathematical models we have to work with) and what constitutes a mapping between them (how they relate to one another).
Link
at computer science does not seem to work in http nor https version.
1 to 13 of 13