I think he means textbooks that would be good for a CS major to read, not ones that talk about an area that is exclusively CS, so graph theory is fair game due to the huge overlap between CS and Math in it.
>>7841733 What CS major thinks they invented graph theory? It's merely useful for CS.
Besides, the book covers things like computational complexity and many algorithms that are due to CS. Even the preface says there is a huge overlap and that CS has made significant contributions to the field.
what is this stupid bickering. have any of you really studied graph theory or encountered a real-life graph problem?
well let me tell you, it sucks, bigtime.
do you guys even know how weak the modern theory of graph truly is?
to be able to say vitually anything of interest about a graph you first have to compute some autismal, contrived property like the diameter, genus or set of primitives (if it even has one) which is virtually impossible to compute even for ridiculously tiny graphs.
even if the graph has a lot of intrinsic structure, like regularity or bipartiteness, youre basically SOL unless you know these retarded, contrived values. otherwise pretty much all you can say
> its um... er,, uh... its a graph...
EVeryone in the world who wants to study a large graph wants to find communities/clusters in it for dimensionality reduction......... except there is literally a paper that says you CANNOT formulate a precise idea of this https://www.cs.cornell.edu/home/kleinber/nips15.pdf
one of the MANY other MAJOR FAILURES of the theory is that there is virtually NO CONCEPT of 'graph nearness.' If you know a lot aboutone graph, then swap around only a few vertices or edges, you are instantly CRAPPED and know nothing about the new graph. its a completely different animal. and an ugly one too, because it is a GRAPH
even spectral clustering techniques (note the word TECHNIQUE not 'theorem' or anything that really says anything) work simply on the dubious basis that 'hurr, durr, matrices with similar rows are usually close to singular'
the theory of graphs is LITERALLY TOO WEAK to handle ANYTHING people in the year 2016 are trying to apply it to. it has utterly FAILED to accommodate its most important use case. there are simply too many pathologies for the idea of 'graph' as it currently exists today to have any meaningful contribution to humanity
>>7841540 Today Ive seen there's gonna be a free 1 week conference/workshop in Bonn
From the abstract of Vladi, seems he's trying to build a model of HoTT in ZFC to make it more attractive for the mainstream people. He's been complaining about too few mathematicans (as opposed to type people) being involved in that for a while.
I totally feel you on the lack of math students in HoTT. All of the pure math stuff I'm actually interested in seems to be in the comp sci department. Meanwhile most of the pure math studied in the math department seems to just be applied math in disguise (the courses and material covered are very much determined by applications to science or finance which I care nothing about).
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.