Talk:Theoretical computer science
|Theoretical computer science has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Mathematics. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as C-Class.|
|WikiProject Computer science||(Rated C-class, Top-importance)|
|WikiProject Mathematics||(Rated C-class, Top-importance)|
Since the term is sort of a grab-bag for a variety of researchers, I think this article would do better as a description of the people and organizations doing theory, pushing off technical bits to specific topics (which already mostly seem to have article, yay). Bits to be added here could include joint conferences and joint projects with "practical" CS people, something about the "genealogy" (SIGACT has a nifty page on this) that name-drops the most notable theory people, and ideally a few catty remarks by and against theory people (I've heard them personally, but that's not verifiable, heh-heh, what can we find in print?). Stan 13:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
The anon's edit of 22 January is well-meaning, but it goes exactly opposite to what I just said above, reproduces material better-described elsewhere, and makes a few unsourced generalizations. So I intend to revert nearly all of it, but will wait to hear counterarguments. Stan 00:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC) Insert non-formatted text here
Illustration in "Scope"
Regarding the illustration in Theoretical computer science#Scope: Sure, it looks nice and it would be great to have something like this. But what does it actually mean? Why is it there, and exactly what does it try to represent? If it tries to represent the sub-fields or topics of TCS, then I'd argue that we need to revise it thoroughly (it omits obvious things like "computational complexity theory" and "algorithms"; it is incompatible with the SIGACT quotation above the figure; and there are no references). If it is something else, then an explanation is needed. (The same illustration appears in Computer science#Theoretical computer science; in that context it makes more sense, as we have some missing topics in other subsections like Computer science#Theory of computation and Computer science#Algorithms and data structures.) Any comments? — Miym (talk) 10:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- You could just add any major omissions, such as Theory of Computation and Algorithmics Ben 1220 (talk) 04:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
- I thought algorithms was its own branch of CS? (see my section below)--Joanna Bryson (talk) 09:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- I haven't a clue what the illustration tries to depict. This whole article is in need of a rewrite. Unfortunately, writing on a topic as broad as TCS can be hard. Most people probably wouldn't even agree on what is part of TCS. It would be good if we could find surveys or good references explaining what TCS is. For instance, I found this set of slides by Sanjeev Arora. An article would have been better though. --Robin (talk) 15:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
The Computational complexity theory page is a lot better than this one. Maybe they should be merged? Or are there more branches of CS theory than just complexity? (Maybe I should be asking this question anonymously... but I did get an "A" in theory and it seemed mostly about complexity at the time.)--Joanna Bryson (talk) 09:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well, at the very least TCS also includes computability theory and algorithms, which are outside complexity theory. --Robin (talk) 15:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Second sentence choice of fields
The second and third sentences of the article read: "These divisions and subsets include analysis of algorithms and formal semantics of programming languages. Technically, there are hundreds of divisions and subsets besides these two."
The statement is true but they're rather specific choices. Obviously fixing anything to enumerate is difficult but I'd suggest things which cover bigger chunks of TCS, i.e. "... theory of computation and complexity, syntax and semantics, and mathematical logic". 22.214.171.124 (talk) 23:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)