In his post (here) about it he makes a passing comment:
I'm of course not a physicist
I won't disagree (does that mean I agree? Darn Logic!) but it raises the question of how we identify ourselves. How to answer the question:
Is X a Y?
(We will also consider why we care, if we do.)
Some criteria below. Note that I may say thinks like `Dijkstra is obviously a computer scientist'
but this is cheating since my point is that it may be hard to tell these things (though I think he is).
Is X a Y?
(We will also consider why we care, if we do.)
Some criteria below. Note that I may say thinks like `Dijkstra is obviously a computer scientist'
but this is cheating since my point is that it may be hard to tell these things (though I think he is).
1) If X in a Y-dept then X is a Y. While often true, there are some problems: MIT CS is housed in Mathematics, some people change fields. Readers- if you know someone who is in dept X but really does Y, leave a comment.
2) If X got their degree in Y then they are Y. Again, people can change fields. Also, some of the older people in our field got degrees in Physics or Math since there was no CS (I am thinking Dijkstra-Physics, Knuth-Math). Even more recently there are cases. Andrew Child's degree is in Physics, but he did quantum computing. Readers- if you know someone who got there degree in X but is now donig Y, leave a comment.
3) Look at X's motivation. If Donald Knuth does hard math but he does it to better analyze algorithms, then he is a computer scientist. One problem -- some people don't know their own motivations, or it can be hard to tell. And people can get distracted into another field.
4) What does X call himself? Of course people can be wrong. The cranks he email me their proofs that R(5) is 40 (its not) think the are mathematicians. They are not- or are they? see next point
5) What X is interested in, ind. of if they are good at it or even know any. Not quite right- if an 8 year old Bill Gasarch is interested in the Ketchup problem that does not make him a mathematician.
6) What X is working on right now. Fine but might change. And some work is hard to classify.
7) If you win an award in X, then you are an X. Some exceptions
Scott is a computer scientist who won the Tomassoni-Chisesi Physics Prize
Ed Witten is a Physicist who won the Fields Medal (Math)
John Nash is a mathematician who won a Nobel prize in Economics.
I want to make a full circle- so if you know other X won a prize in Y then leave a comment and
we'll see what kind of graph we get. Bipartite with people on one side and fields on the other.
8) What they can teach? Helpful in terms of hiring when you want to fill teaching needs.
Does any of this matter? We use terms like `mathematician' `physicist' `computer scientist' as shorthand for what someone is working on, so its good to know we have it right.
2) If X got their degree in Y then they are Y. Again, people can change fields. Also, some of the older people in our field got degrees in Physics or Math since there was no CS (I am thinking Dijkstra-Physics, Knuth-Math). Even more recently there are cases. Andrew Child's degree is in Physics, but he did quantum computing. Readers- if you know someone who got there degree in X but is now donig Y, leave a comment.
3) Look at X's motivation. If Donald Knuth does hard math but he does it to better analyze algorithms, then he is a computer scientist. One problem -- some people don't know their own motivations, or it can be hard to tell. And people can get distracted into another field.
4) What does X call himself? Of course people can be wrong. The cranks he email me their proofs that R(5) is 40 (its not) think the are mathematicians. They are not- or are they? see next point
5) What X is interested in, ind. of if they are good at it or even know any. Not quite right- if an 8 year old Bill Gasarch is interested in the Ketchup problem that does not make him a mathematician.
6) What X is working on right now. Fine but might change. And some work is hard to classify.
7) If you win an award in X, then you are an X. Some exceptions
Scott is a computer scientist who won the Tomassoni-Chisesi Physics Prize
Ed Witten is a Physicist who won the Fields Medal (Math)
John Nash is a mathematician who won a Nobel prize in Economics.
I want to make a full circle- so if you know other X won a prize in Y then leave a comment and
we'll see what kind of graph we get. Bipartite with people on one side and fields on the other.
8) What they can teach? Helpful in terms of hiring when you want to fill teaching needs.
Does any of this matter? We use terms like `mathematician' `physicist' `computer scientist' as shorthand for what someone is working on, so its good to know we have it right.
Computational Complexity published first on Computational Complexity
No comments:
Post a Comment