eugene@pioneer.arpa (Eugene Miya N.) (01/01/70)
A couple of more recommended readings which came to me after a short
conversion with Denning:
"Cargo Cult Science" by Richard Feynman last chapter (1974 Comm. Addr.
at Caltech) in his Autobiography which I reread before bed last evening.
"An Empirical Study of FORTRAN Programs" Software -- Practice and
Experience by Don Knuth Feb. 1971, see intro and conclusions.
Knuth's paper in American Math. Monthly on the differences between
Algorithmic and Mathematical Thinking, around 1985.
These along with Simon, etc. mentioned earlier.
Unfortunately, I would say CS exhibits some cargo cult characteristics.
This does not have to be, we can change it.
From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
--eugene miya
NASA Ames Research Center
eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA
"You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
"Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize."
{hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugenefranklin@csv.rpi.edu.UUCP (01/01/70)
In article <2868@ames.arpa> eugene@pioneer.UUCP (Eugene Miya N.) writes: >Status Quo? Hopefully a short note: >The reason why you have to make some clear distinctions care partially >be read in the latest CPSR [Computer Professionals for Social >Responsibility] Newsletter. It appears in the halls of places like >Ames, JPL, DOE Labs, the NAS (Natl. Acad. Sci), NSF, etc. Basically if >you are not a science, you don't get funding from those Science >Agencies. > >This is a difference in Geography (seen as an art) and Geology. >I studied remote sensing for several years. The fact that it was in a >geography --->cartography -->graph --> "art" department was a big >minus. RS is pretty respectable in some circles, and like AI, disreputable This may be improving. NSF is soliciting proposals to set up a center for excellence in Geographic Information Systems. ------------ Wm. Randolph Franklin Preferred net address: Franklin@csv.rpi.edu Alternate net: wrf@RPITSMTS.BITNET Papermail: ECSE Dept, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY, 12180 Telephone: (518) 276-6077 Telex: 6716050 RPI TROU -- general RPI telex number. ------------ Wm. Randolph Franklin, RPI, 6026 JEC, (518) 276-6077, Franklin@csv.rpi.edu
gore@humble.rutgers.edu.UUCP (01/01/70)
testing. I do not feel that Computer Science is a science except when I'm doing courses like Theory of Computation, Algorithms, Principles of Programming Languages etc. Isn't this right? By the way , this iis just a testing message. Turn a blind eye to it.
jimh@ism780c.UUCP (Jim Hori) (01/01/70)
In article <2868@ames.arpa> eugene@pioneer.UUCP (Eugene Miya N.) writes: >be read in the latest CPSR [Computer Professionals for Social >Responsibility] Newsletter. It appears in the halls of places like can you, or anyone, post the address of this newletter? jimh ...yeah you right ........................
rapaport@sunybcs (William J. Rapaport) (09/08/87)
A colleague of mine in a philosophy department recently asked me if
I could give him "some major causal laws, principles or regularities
that are special to Computer Science.... (Every science has its special
laws, so what are some for Computer Science?)"
I vaguely recall a recent discussion on one of the nets about this. If so,
is there some way I could get a copy of it (hard or soft)? If not,
would anyone like to take a stab at answering this?
William J. Rapaport
Assistant Professor
Dept. of Computer Science, SUNY Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14260
(716) 636-3193, 3180
uucp: ..!{ames,boulder,decvax,rutgers}!sunybcs!rapaport
csnet: rapaport@buffalo.csnet
internet: rapaport@cs.buffalo.edu
[if that fails, try: rapaport%cs.buffalo.edu@cs.relay.net]
bitnet: rapaport@sunybcs.bitnetcorwin@apple.UUCP (Entomology Lab) (09/10/87)
In article <5113@sunybcs.UUCP> rapaport@sunybcs.UUCP (William J. Rapaport) writes: > >A colleague of mine in a philosophy department recently asked me if >I could give him "some major causal laws, principles or regularities >that are special to Computer Science.... (Every science has its special >laws, so what are some for Computer Science?)" > "Anything that can go wrong will go wrong." "There is always one more bug" "The differnce between a bug and a feature is that a feature is documented" -cory -- corwin@apple.[UUCP, CSNET] Disclaimer: The preceding message is not based on reality.
johnson@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu (09/10/87)
There is a general rule that disciplines with names like XXX Science are not a science. In spite of that, there are some general laws that arise out of CS. My favorite are all from computability and complexity theory, though I do not do that kind of research and don't plan to. Undecideability -- just because a question has an answer doesn't mean that there is a method to answer it. E.g. all programs will either terminate or not terminate, but the halting problem is undecideable. NP complete problems -- just because a proposed answer is very easy to check for correctness does not mean that the question is easy to solve. NP complete problems are those whose answer can be checked in polynomial time but where any method for finding the solution must essentially check all possible solutions, taking exponential time. In a similar manner, a proof can be easily checked for correctness, but it is undecideable (in any interesting theory) whether there exists a proof or not for a particular theorem.
shafto@aurora.UUCP (Michael Shafto) (09/11/87)
I just saw a tech report by Peter J. Denning on the topic "Is computer science science?" The tech report was issued through RIACS here at Ames. It will allegedly appear as an editorial in the Oct., 1987, CACM. The title is something like "Paradigms Crossed" -- referring to the crossed paradigms of design vs. experimentation, or engineering vs. science. I would rate this "real good" on a scale of 1 to 10, and I urge interested parties to watch for and read it. Mike Shafto
ed298-ak@violet.berkeley.edu (Edouard Lagache) (09/11/87)
In article <6195@apple.UUCP> corwin@apple.UUCP (Entomology Lab) writes: >In article <5113@sunybcs.UUCP> rapaport@sunybcs.UUCP (William J. Rapaport) writes: >> .... Does Computer Science have any laws? >> >"Anything that can go wrong will go wrong." >"There is always one more bug" >"The differnce between a bug and a feature is that a feature is documented" >-cory Hey those aren't laws from Computer Science, they are from the Science (Religion?) of Murphyology! E.L.
goldfain@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (09/13/87)
THERE ARE SOME RULES OF DESIGN, AS WELL, SUCH AS: "Garbage In --> Garbage Out." "If the user doesn't know what he/she/they want, or what computers in general can or can't do with the current technology, then they're not going to like the program you write for them." "You can't build an expert system that is better than your human experts, although perhaps more reliable." RULES OF SOFTWARE PRODUCTION MANAGEMENT: "No programmer, in the history of the trade, has yet underestimated the time it will take to get a working program." "It takes 90% of the time to do the first 90% of the job, and the other 90% of the time to do the last 10% of the job." IN SPITE OF RESEARCH, THE FOLLOWING ARE TENETS OF THE CURRENT WORKPLACE: "There is no such thing as real computer security." "There is always one more bug." johnson's previous posting involved some hard, scientific/mathematical laws. These are much looser. Possibly someday, we will feel differently about them, but they are definitely there today.
ram@elmgate.UUCP (Randy Martens) (09/14/87)
I am of the firm opinion that there is NO such thing as computer science. To quote (and I have forgotten the attribution) "Computer Science bears the same relationship to Real Science, that plumbing bears to Hydrodynamics." There is, however, Computer Engineering. (and Software Engineering, and Systems Engineering etc.). Science is the discovery of the new. Engineering takes what the scientists have found, and finds ways to do useful things with it. The two are like Yin and Yang, closely interrelated, but not the same, and each dependant on the other. I am a computer engineer. Randy Martens "Reality - What a Concept !" - R.Williams
donahue@artecon.artecon.UUCP (Brian D. Donahue) (09/16/87)
In article <737@elmgate.UUCP> ram@elmgate.UUCP (Randy Martens) writes: >I am of the firm opinion that there is NO such thing as >computer science. To quote (and I have forgotten the attribution) >"Computer Science bears the same relationship to Real Science, that >plumbing bears to Hydrodynamics." > >There is, however, Computer Engineering. (and Software Engineering, >and Systems Engineering etc.). Science is the discovery of the new. > From Webster's New World Dictionary: science n. [<L. scire, know] 1. systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, etc. 2. a branch of knowledge, esp. one that systematizes facts, principles, and methods 3. skill or technique From the above definition, it seems fair & reasonable to call the field of computers, computer SCIENCE. After all, it is a branch of knowledge. On the other hand, there's From Webster's New World Dictionary: engineering n. 1. the putting of scientific knowledge in various branches to practical uses According to the above definition, there is SCIENTIFIC knowledge before engineering. Not that any of this belongs in comp.ai, but can we get back to neural nets? Does anyone know of a good introductory article/book to neural networks? How do they "learn" anyways? From what I understand, NN's basically tweak the coefficients of your basic model/equation for the best fit to your "answer". What if you've got several thousand sets of data/"answers", and there really isnt a very good single "fit"? Can they detect certain characteristics that might indicate that answer X might be more probable than answer Y? How do nueral nets compare with multiple regression models of statistics/probability? buenos adidas, bd --- no silly quotes here {seismo, sdcsvax}!esosun!artecon!donahue
sierra@lll-tis.arpa (Frankie Sierra) (09/16/87)
In article <737@elmgate.UUCP> ram@elmgate.UUCP (Randy Martens) writes: >I am of the firm opinion that there is NO such thing as >computer science. To quote (and I have forgotten the attribution) >"Computer Science bears the same relationship to Real Science, that >plumbing bears to Hydrodynamics." In UNIX you can do Computer Piping :-) >There is, however, Computer Engineering. (and Software Engineering, >and Systems Engineering etc.). Science is the discovery of the new. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I thought that there was anything new, but that science is the discovery of the unknown...Thus, when you enrich your knowledge, that is a scientific behaviour in nature. Yes!...a plumber is a scientist when he discovers how to fix a given pipe without any tutoring, or when he disprove one of his hypothesis by discovering that a particular fix didn't work as he thought. Thus, if a plumber is a scientist, then a programmer is a scientist, by Modus Ponens on your statement (including tautology). >Engineering takes what the scientists have found, and finds ways >to do useful things with it. The two are like Yin and Yang, closely >interrelated, but not the same, and each dependant on the other. Ahja!...Of course they are the same (Yin and Yang), for sure unrelated, at times different, quite interrelated. That depends from your point of view; from your world....Going further on Descartes, I believe that if you can imagine it, it is posible! >I am a computer engineer. As I said, a software plumber, a scientist. > >Randy Martens >"Reality - What a Concept !" - R.Williams Frankie Sierra sierra@lll-tis.arpa "Reality - thats it !" - Alf -- Frankie Sierra sierra@lll-tis.ARPA
ram@elmgate.UUCP (Randy Martens) (09/16/87)
Keywords : time In article <8300004@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu> goldfain@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu writes: > >THERE ARE SOME RULES OF DESIGN, AS WELL, SUCH AS: > (stuff deleted) >RULES OF SOFTWARE PRODUCTION MANAGEMENT: >"No programmer, in the history of the trade, has yet underestimated the time >it will take to get a working program." Wrong. I have. Twice. ***************************************************************** Randy Martens ||| "Reality - What a Concept!" - R.Williams ***************************************************************** >-decvax--ucbvax----sun----------sunrock-\ >---------rutgers->-rochester-<--kodak---->-elmgate--ram >---------ames---/ \-ritcv---/ ***************************************************************** disclaimer : The preceeding represents only my random babbling, and certainly reflects no one else's opinions. Fnord. *****************************************************************
ramesh@cvl.umd.edu (Ramesh Sitaraman) (09/17/87)
In article <737@elmgate.UUCP> ram@elmgate.UUCP (Randy Martens) writes: >I am of the firm opinion that there is NO such thing as >computer science. Unfortunately you are totally wrong!!! The scientific part of CS deals with unravelling the nature of computation. This is the object of study of theoretical areas such as Complexity theory, recursive function theory, programming language semantics etc. Computation is an abstract process but unlike other abstract formalisms is immediately applicable and can be realised through physical computers. Thus there has been such an overwhelming growth in computer applications that the applicational aspects of CS are more evident to an *outsider* than the theoretical core. Note that computation existed long before computers. Neither Eratosthenes or Galois knew anything about digital computers but they certainly did know about computation. Therefore the development of computers, though extremely beneficial, is only incidental to a theoretician. > >There is, however, Computer Engineering. (and Software Engineering, >and Systems Engineering etc.). Science is the discovery of the new. >Engineering takes what the scientists have found, and finds ways >to do useful things with it. The two are like Yin and Yang, closely >interrelated, but not the same, and each dependant on the other. > >I am a computer engineer. >Randy Martens >"Reality - What a Concept !" - R.Williams Ramesh -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- ARPA: ramesh@cvl.umd.edu | If I had had more time, I could SPRINT:(301) 927 6831 | have written you a shorter letter. UUCP: ramesh@cvl.uucp | -Blaise Pascal
eugene@pioneer.UUCP (09/17/87)
Not a science yet, but as Mike Shafto pointed out. Denning will have
column in American Scientist on this (I am reviewing) Nov. maybe. I will have
two papers on this in ACM Software Engineering Notes (positive
suggestions for improvements), and I also suggest reading the paper
by Knuth in 1985 Amer. Math. Monthly on the differences between
Mathematical and Algorithmic thinking (Computation != math),
and oh yes, Simon's "Sciences of the Artificial" especially the
chapter on Empiricism (and his Turing award lecture).
Summary and concesses? It aspires, it's different from other sciences,
it can be improved. Need we say more?
From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
--eugene miya
NASA Ames Research Center
eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA
"You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
"Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize."
{hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugenelitow@uwm-cs.UUCP (Dr. B. Litow) (09/17/87)
In article <2474@cvl.umd.edu>, ramesh@cvl.umd.edu (Ramesh Sitaraman) writes: > In article <737@elmgate.UUCP> ram@elmgate.UUCP (Randy Martens) writes: > >I am of the firm opinion that there is NO such thing as > >computer science. > > Unfortunately you are totally wrong!!! The scientific part of CS > deals with unravelling the nature of computation. This is the > object of study of theoretical areas such as Complexity theory, > recursive function theory, programming language semantics etc. > Computation is an abstract process but unlike other abstract > formalisms is immediately applicable and can be realised through > physical computers. Thus there has been such an overwhelming > growth in computer applications that the applicational aspects of CS are > more evident to an *outsider* than the theoretical core. I agree with this poster. I fact I would go on to say that the design of programming languages,systems and such things as network protocols,etc. are also just applications. I earlier posted my belief that CS is an entirely new branch of mathematics so that in a way CS is indeed not a science in the sense that physics is a science. However, there are profound issues at the border of CS and physics,for example which I take as a sound indication of the depth of CS. The confounding of CS with its applications can only impede progress especially in the matter of new applications. The failure to consider 'TCS' as real CS is becoming a serious matter and I think that the current accreditation issue for CS in colleges must be resolved in a manner that places sufficient emphasis on computation theory. I close with an example. The emergence of NC and related parallel computing models out of alternating Turing machine studies of the late 70's is a clear indication of the power of good theory.
spf@clyde.UUCP (09/17/87)
In article <2474@cvl.umd.edu> ramesh@cvl.UUCP (Ramesh Sitaraman) writes: >In article <737@elmgate.UUCP> ram@elmgate.UUCP (Randy Martens) writes: >>I am of the firm opinion that there is NO such thing as >>computer science. >Unfortunately you are totally wrong!!! The scientific part of CS >deals with unravelling the nature of computation. This is the >object of study of theoretical areas such as Complexity theory, >recursive function theory, programming language semantics etc. Fair enough. But I think if you examine these (and others, such as automata and graph theories), you'll find that they really are specialties of mathematics. And (in my view of the universe), mathematics is either (a) language, or (b) philosophy, or (c) both. But not science. My requirement is stricter than most dictionaries will give you (but dictionaries follow contemporary usage, so that's not surprising). I require that science study nature (I actually prefer the term "natural philosophy"). And I don't subscribe to the Platonic view that things like numbers and trig functions are part of nature. I think they are linguistic inventions. Most real sciences USE mathematics to describe their observations and hypotheses. Steve Frysinger ** "The nice thing about philosophy is that everybody can be right."
shafto@aurora.UUCP (Michael Shafto) (09/21/87)
Alfred North Whitehead called mathematics the "science of abstract forms." If that's too Platonic, then call it "the science of abstract descriptions." I think if you adopt the position that Real Science is about Nature, and that mathematics is not Real Science, then you'll eventually end up (with no further help from me) saying either (a) mathematicians don't make discoveries, or (b) they make discoveries about the properties of formal systems or systems of abstract descriptions, and that THESE are not part of Nature. If you follow (a), then you confine yourself to a limited group of discussants who share your idiosyncratic notion of 'discovery'; if you follow (b), then you put the content of mathematics somewhere outside Nature. Exactly where, I don't know. Someone (perhaps Lakatos or Feyerabend) said that scientists know about as much about science as fish know about hydrology. This is well illustrated whenever scientists quit DOING science and start talking about it. Mike Shafto
eugene@pioneer.arpa (Eugene Miya N.) (09/22/87)
Oh yeah, one more reference thought on the way to lunch: W. Daniel Hillis The Connection Machine, MIT Press, 1986, Last Chapter entitled something like "Why Computer Science is No Good" Says CS lacks scale, symmetry, and locality of effect. --eugene
marty1@houdi.UUCP (M.BRILLIANT) (09/22/87)
In article <1073@aurora.UUCP>, shafto@aurora.UUCP (Michael Shafto) writes: > .... I think if you > adopt the position that Real Science is about Nature, and > that mathematics is not Real Science, then .... either > (a) mathematicians don't make discoveries, or (b) they > make discoveries about the properties of formal systems > or systems of abstract descriptions, and that THESE are > not part of Nature. If you follow (a), then you confine > yourself to a limited group of discussants who share your > idiosyncratic notion of 'discovery'; if you follow (b), then > you put the content of mathematics somewhere outside Nature. But formal systems are a product of the human mind, and the human mind (as a feature of _Homo_sapiens_) is a part of Nature. Science, mathematics, literature, and other intellectual activities are things humans do because of our innate capacities and social norms. > Someone (perhaps Lakatos or Feyerabend) said that scientists > know about as much about science as fish know about > hydrology. This is well illustrated whenever scientists > quit DOING science and start talking about it. There are scientific disciplines (mostly less formally developed than other disciplines like physics) that deal with the study of human activities. One example is anthropology. I think the question "Is computer science a science?" belongs to one of those disciplines. Our problem when we work with computers is less abstruse. All we have to know is whether we can succesfully communicate if we use the term 'Computer Science'. Obviously we can. Nobody complained that the title question ("Is Computer Science Science") is ambiguous. We all understand that the word "science" in the phrase "computer science" is not the same as the word "science" standing alone. M. B. Brilliant Marty AT&T-BL HO 3D-520 (201)-949-1858 Holmdel, NJ 07733 ihnp4!houdi!marty1
jsnyder@uw-june.UUCP (Hei Yu) (09/23/87)
In article <2835@ames.arpa> eugene@pioneer.UUCP (Eugene Miya N.) writes: > >W. Daniel Hillis The Connection Machine, MIT Press, 1986, >Last Chapter entitled something like "Why Computer Science is No Good" >Says CS lacks scale, symmetry, and locality of effect. As I recall, Ehud Shapiro's dissertation "Automatic Debugging" (MIT Press) included some similar kind of grousing about CS having a "flat" structure with lots of incomparable elements. jsnyder@june.cs.washington.edu.arpa John R. Snyder {ihnp4,decvax,ucbvax}!uw-beaver!jsnyder Dept. of Computer Science, FR-35 University of Washington 206/543-7798 Seattle, WA 98195
lishka@uwslh.UUCP (Christopher Lishka) (09/24/87)
In article <1318@houdi.UUCP> marty1@houdi.UUCP (M.BRILLIANT) writes: >In article <1073@aurora.UUCP>, shafto@aurora.UUCP (Michael Shafto) writes: > >> Someone (perhaps Lakatos or Feyerabend) said that scientists >> know about as much about science as fish know about >> hydrology. This is well illustrated whenever scientists >> quit DOING science and start talking about it. > >Our problem when we work with computers is less abstruse. All we have >to know is whether we can succesfully communicate if we use the term >'Computer Science'. Obviously we can. Nobody complained that the >title question ("Is Computer Science Science") is ambiguous. We all >understand that the word "science" in the phrase "computer science" >is not the same as the word "science" standing alone. > I've only caught the tail-end of this discussion, but I'd like to insert a few comments of my own here. This discussion about whether or not Computer Science is *Science* or *Real*Science* reminds quite a bit of a local (and not so local) phenomena in politics here in Madison. A lot of liberals (hey, I like them better than conservatives, generally) go around toting themselves as *Politically*Correct*, and label those who do agree with their views as not begin *Politically*Correct*. It seems to me that this is where this kind of discussion leads. Someone will go up to a Comp. Sci. person and say I'm a *Real*Scientist*, but your not!" My comment is "why bother?" Why put labels on another person like that? I like to think that research which I will do in the future will be in the realms of science and scientific inquiry, and that my friends and other C.S. people are also doing useful scientific work. Granted, what I am doing now is not really scientific 'cause I'm just programming for a living (to get through school), but you can find that kind of work in any of the traditional *Sciences*. A final note: I heartily agree with the two comments I've included above. As long as the label "Computer Science" works and serves its purpose, why not leave it alone. It would seem that time spent bickering about this sort of thing was much better spent doing research, or programmning, or whatever. I would suspect that the people *really* doing scientific research (whatever that means) don't care what you call them, but would rather work at the answers they are trying to find to the unanswered questions around them. Disclaimer: my thoughts are my own and noone else's, except maybe my Cockatiels'. -Chris -- Chris Lishka /lishka@uwslh.uucp Wisconsin State Lab of Hygiene <-lishka%uwslh.uucp@rsch.wisc.edu \{seismo, harvard,topaz,...}!uwvax!uwslh!lishka
eugene@pioneer.arpa (Eugene Miya N.) (09/24/87)
Status Quo? Hopefully a short note:
The reason why you have to make some clear distinctions care partially
be read in the latest CPSR [Computer Professionals for Social
Responsibility] Newsletter. It appears in the halls of places like
Ames, JPL, DOE Labs, the NAS (Natl. Acad. Sci), NSF, etc. Basically if
you are not a science, you don't get funding from those Science
Agencies.
This is a difference in Geography (seen as an art) and Geology.
I studied remote sensing for several years. The fact that it was in a
geography --->cartography -->graph --> "art" department was a big
minus. RS is pretty respectable in some circles, and like AI, disreputable
in other circles. (arrows for Mike Shafto ;-)
The level of funding CS in non-military work is dropping. This is okay
if you don't mind working on ALVs, Pilots Associates, etc. I believe
AI should be funded, but for it's improvement, not rediscoveries and
rehashes hashes of things done 20 years ago. You are more than welcome
to do AI-research/CS-research, so long as you have money.
P.S. I mentioned JPL because I took one noted scientist to a CS lab
(graphics) and he came away saying, "Nice pictures, but what's the use?"
From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
--eugene miya
NASA Ames Research Center
eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA
"You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
"Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize."
{hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugenelindsay@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Lindsay Groves) (09/30/87)
In article <5068@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> ed298-ak@violet.berkeley.edu (Edouard Lagache) writes: >>> >.... Does Computer Science have any laws? >>> >>"Anything that can go wrong will go wrong." >> ... > > Hey those aren't laws from Computer Science, they are from the > Science (Religion?) of Murphyology.! > > E.L. The August issue of the Communications of the ACM contains an article by C.A.R.Hoare and eight others, entitled "Laws of Programming". One of their laws (4) is: ABORT U P = ABORT where ABORT (which they denote by an upside down T) is a statement that can do anything ("It places no constraint on the executing machine, which may do anything, or fail to do anything; in particular, it may fail to terminate"), and U is nondeterministic choice. The text explaining this law says: "This law is sometimes known as Murphy's Law, which state, "If it can go wrong it will"; the left-hand side describes a machine that CAN go wrong (or can behave like P), whereas the right-hand side might be taken to describe a machine that WILL go wrong. But the true meaning of the law is actually worse than this: The program ABORT will not always go wrong -- only when it ismost disastrous for it to do so! THe abundance of empirical evidence for law (4) suggests that it should be taken as the first law of computer programming." It seems that being part of "Murphyology" doesn't preclude something from being a law of Computer Science -- this one is given a very precise statement and interpretation as a law of programming, which must also count as a law of Computer Science. Given that Computer Science draws heavily on such fields as mathematics, logic, linguistics (Chomsky's hierarchy has far more relevance to Computer Science than it does to lingusitics!), electrical engineering etc., it is not surprising that laws in Computer Science should bear similarity to laws in other areas. Lindsay Groves Logic programmers' theme song: "The first cut is the deepest"
eugene@pioneer.UUCP (09/30/87)
Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (National Office) 646 Emerson St. Palo Alto, CA 94301
ross@ulowell.UUCP (10/01/87)
Oh, that's easy. Stay Alert. Trust no one. Keep your demo ready. Ross -- csnet: ross@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu uucp: ross@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu || ...harvard!ulowell!ross Trust the computer. The computer is your friend.
del@homxc.UUCP (D.LEASURE) (10/01/87)
In article <7397@ism780c.UUCP>, jimh@ism780c.UUCP (Jim Hori) writes: > can you, or anyone, post the address of this > newletter? [CPSR] CPSR, Inc. PO Box 717, Palo Alto CA 94301 415/322-3778 $30/yr $10/yr for student -- David E. Leasure - AT&T Bell Laboratories - (201) 615-5307
rd@umich.UUCP (Rajiv S. Desai) (10/07/87)
in this context I am reminded of a witty clip I saw
a few years ago:
Two scientist/philosophers were contemplating the advent of
computersi, when one posed the rhetoric to the other,
"Is Computer Science ?". And so a new science, called
computer science was born !
- rajiv desai
Rajiv Desai
Internet: rd@eecs.umich.edu
UUCP: {umix,ihnp4,mit-eddie}!umich!eecs.umich.edu!rd