Why do CS graduates specifically love talking outside their area of expertise as if they know everything? Engineering, math, soft sciences, you name it, they are going to be super wienery and arrogant

Skip to content
# Why do CS graduates specifically love talking outside their area of expertise as if they know everything?

###

Why do CS graduates specifically love talking outside their area of expertise as if they know everything? Engineering, math, soft sciences, you name it, they are going to be super wienery and arrogant

>fake things like infinite sequences

>believes the integers exist

???

Evidently he thinks a finite number of integers exist. LMAO

>Cantor's Diagonal Argument 2@@

He's playing magic.

I think he's taking the ancient greek view that the integers continue without end, but it doesn't make sense to talk about 'all integers' as an entity. If you said "the set of the first n integers," they would agree that the number of elements in the set could grow to any size, but if you said "the set of all integers" they'd toss you overboard.

This distinction makes no practical impact whatsoever.

This entire debate is completely pointless and entirely impractical

The practical difference is you can't work with infinite sets if you can't group "all of them" into one set

Robinson arithmetic.

So what you're saying is he can meaningfully talk about integers, but not about their cardinality

Usually it's humanists who are smugly incorrect and endlessly proud of their bachlero's degree.

1. Hotz isn’t a CS grad

2. Set theory and diagonalization is used extensively in complexity theory you dumb undergrad homosexual

t. CS grad

>he thinks cantor's diagonalization proof is same as matrix diagonalization

if you are an cs-postgrad then this should tell you all you need to know about cs

https://dassencio.org/81

This is just an example of the many theorems in CS that use Cantor's diagonalization. Imagine being so smug and so wrong, pathetic.

Not CS

>computability theory is not CS

interesting cope, better luck next time

by the same metric there is only 1 theorem that uses diagonalization, which is Cantor's. All the other just employ the "consequences of uncountability"

>by the same metric there is only 1 theorem that uses diagonalization, which is Cantor's. All the other just employ the "consequences of uncountability"

yeah. you don't use the proof for fundamental theorems of analysis, you use their consequences.

proofs in general (especially foundational ones) are very pure mathematically speaking and are beyond anyone else outside of math. you just use the consequences.

some parts of CS are pretty much just math, however it's dishonest to use a very small marginal part of CS to represent the entirety of the field when it suits you.

that's literally just cantor's diagonalization. Most text books use binary instead of decimals to make the proof easier to see.

You haven't demonstrated how diagonaliztion is used in CS. how the frick would it?

>This is just an example of the many theorems in CS that use Cantor's diagonalization.

The consequences of uncountability are used almost everywhere in the sciences, that's not diagonalization.

>You haven't demonstrated how diagonaliztion is used in CS. how the frick would it?

The most well-known use of diagonal arguments in CS is to prove the halting problem.

yeah, that's definitely something your average cs monkey is "using extensively". can't go a day without proving the halting theorem when programming buttons for a mobile app.

reeetaaard

>no argument

cantor's diagonalization=halting problem

Why does anyone who earns even a modicum of recognition above the average person behave as if they know everything? This is very common.

Even people that don't have recognition can act like that. It has more to do with personality.

CS students have it hammered into them that computability is all. They really believe they have the keys to the universe.

Those keys would be crack cocaine and a high end prostitute

ill take computer simulation of physics laws than academia and their quantum delusions

>CS students have it hammered into them that computability is all

In reality, most CS students would not be able to tell you what computability is. Worse yet, a large percentage of CS students graduate without even knowing how to program.

Un-ironically, ask any have math major that has taken Nummerical Analysis. They be able to tell you the imprecision of int, float, double, and long the go about way computer handles it. They can tell you how the computer inaccurate a matrix function is, trigonometric, and etc. CS student takes things for granted and worfully believe the illusion of perfect computing implemented by the great of Donald Knuth and so on.

everything is a computer. everything is computation. everything is symbol manipulation on tapes

Holy shit this almost convinced me to forgive Cantor

didn't he suffer enough near the end of his life?, or would you have wanted somehow more?

based finitism chad. holy frick this is the first time I've seen a finitist come out in real life.

high iq

we are polymaths and tower over you low level plebeians therefore we are free to comment on anything you are working on as experts

Infinity exists

Debate me

It doesn't really matter what he believes. it's a definition. If he doesn't like it he can simply not use it. Idk what belief has to do with anything

Probably because the never interact with experts in those fields, thus never see their flaws

id say its engineers in general

you a learn a lot of stuff in uni very quickly, so suddenly your horizons have expanded dramatically.

Certainly something to be proud of, but even then, theres so much more they dont know that they dont know.

And because of all the new knowledge, they have a massive new toolset to analyse things.

But the problem is that if you only know how to use a hammer, then all your problems seem like nails.

Then they grow wienery and arrogant because suddenly so many problems can be fixed with a hammer.

They can unlock doors by smashing it and feel proud. Proud because its a door they couldnt have dreamed of opening before.

But little do they know there are better tools specific to the task.

If you can break down the door with the hammer to get where you want to go why wouldn't you use it? They still get the right answer in the end

>why wouldn't you use it? They still get the right answer in the end

No thats aposteriori justifications. What you're saying is that so long as the outcome is satisfied, the method is irrelevant. Thats technocratic thinking, and is inherently inefficient.

Just because you can sort a list in O(n^3) time doesnt mean you shouldnt look for something better.

By the same reasoning, just because we can open doors with hammers doesn't mean we should insist on it. Its obviously inefficient. Let someone else with a different skillset open the door for you with a key.

All of a sudden people no longer have to waste energy smashing door every single time they wanna pass one(and then rebuilding them). But this requires a skillset/knowledge the person with the hammer does not have.

Obviously there is room for innovation and mixing of ideas, like a hammer-shaped keyhole(or a key-shaped hammer), but this requires the cooperation of the hammer-bearer and the keymaster.

You smash the door with the hammer if you really need to. Insisting on it makes you arrogant and/or stupid(especially if you know that keys already exist).

There is a time and a place for technocratic thinking, but applying it universally(like ONLY opening doors with hammers) only leads to devaluation of the human condition. Imagine soviet style life but even much more extreme. Only enough food/shelter/etc... to keep you productive and nothing more. Why have fun? why try different foods? it is unnecessary in pure technocratic thought. Consequently its very inefficient. A happy cow produces more milk for the same food, but the unhappy cow will not.

Nah, engineers often get shit very, very wrong. Shitting on rigour will only get you so far

He's just arguing for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_(philosophy_of_mathematics) but he's being a homosexual about it

See Joscha Bach for a non-homosexual take on this

he's not arguing for anything since he knows frick all about math to begin with

>disproportionately high salaries for effort

>low barrier of entry and little to no credentialism in software industry

programming culture, or at least the idealized version of it, revolves around constantly throwing yourself into shit you're not qualified to do and shitting out results anyways

I think it's accurate to intuit cantor's diagonal proof as an exploratory walk in an N-space lattice, starting at the origin. For integers, it's a single dimension, so the walk is trivial. For rationals, it's 2 dimensions, still pretty simple to come up with ways to exhaustively explore every point on the lattice. A 4-component number could be rational complex numbers, and same story just spiral out from the origin however you like. Then the reals are infinite-dimensioned, so you'll never complete a single lap through the dimensions.

Autistic people generally are not very smart

>You can’t take the set of all real numbers!

>Why not?

>You……………… just can’t!!!!

Yeah it's basically just autism

>You can’t take the set of all real numbers!

my guy, finitist argue that not even the set of the naturals can be made

The real numbers are obtained by a never ending process of limits. You simply cannot "take" the set of all real number because you never reach it

>mfw

dunning cracker or something

By nature of the discpline of being the "truly" applied math you end up wetting your dick in other disciplines and working with people of other fields.

This gives you a (hopefully informed) opinion about other areas.

PHD posers get mad because, most of the time, the labour of 5 years of phd reaserch can be summarized in 30 pages.

This of course shouldn't be a reason to be mad, that's the point of how knowledge is build upon.

But oh well.

Nature will keep its course.

CS grads will talk about everything even if they don't know what the frick they are talking about and "small phd syndrome" people will keep malding.

>.. wait until you read this one

And then I stopped reading. Teehee