/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10893539
Nah. I double majored in math and CS at a school that was top 20 for both, and now I’m in grad for TCS. It’s literally just a math department with some extra funding since there are collabs with every discipline under the sun. CS is a good place if you like pure math

>>10874921
But getting into industry is a much lower bar for entry..
That and entry level industry work isn’t exactly the hardest position in the world. Especially in engineering industry, where you trade math and science for “good business relations with the clientele.” Engineering is just the new business tech degree with math slapped on that companies don’t even really want to use outside of R&D...which is full of PhD’s doing the actual engineering and undergrads + masters doing the implementation work.
t. did industry for 2 years and then went to grad and found it way more interesting

>>10849725
>Church did most of the math
No he didn’t. While TM’s and lambda calculus are both equivalent in computing power, they express computation in two distinct ways that reveal important results. Lambda calculus was important in the field of compilers to understand computation as a set of rules on symbols (think the y combinator and its role in specifying recursion and fixed point phenomena). Turing machines modeled instructions as data, gave a intuitive way to represent mechanical computation and physical realizability of the computer. Both of them showed with these models that the halting problem is undecidable via diagonal arguments. They were both prolific logicians
Von Neumann was a brilliant scientist, but he had his name attached to a lot of things he really didn’t contribute much to. The “von Neumann architecture” was literally just an electrical specification of turing’s model, except incredibly inefficient since there was only one bus that that could only read or only write in a specific step. The model we use is actually the Harvard architecture, which had dedicated read busses and write busses.
Also, neither Church nor Turing were the biggest hard hitters in TCS despite being named fathers of modern CS. Cook, Lovasz, Kolmogorov, Sipser, Rabin, Karp, Dijkstra, Komlosh, Zemereti, etc. are all people who pushed the field way forward to the point where theory is way more sophisticated than the simple models that church and Turing devised. A good number of those TCS researchers and current ones are lgbt, funnily enough, but they’re better at mathematics than you and I would ever be, and as far as I can tell, they didn’t get there on “diversity points.”