/sci/ insists that CS is bad and math is good

>>8607609
You obviously don't know the first thing about computers, they're pretty stupid. They can only compute what you've taught them to compute, and they can't compute mathematics unless taught mathematics. Computers are only a tool to be used by smarter people. That's like giving all your credit to a paper manufacturer because you used a piece of paper to write down a calculation.

>>8607633
this.
>>8607609
OP what is CS
is that meant to be C# for amerifags ?

>>8607609
honestly, math is one of the professions less likely to be replaced by computers. there's a big element of muddy artistic "intuition" to it at the high level

>>8607609
you do know that Watson had internet connectivity at the time, right? or at least I seem to remember hearing that. Watson would literally just scour the internet like wikipedia to find the answer, but it could do this very fast.

if it was standing alone I do not think it would have won.

>>8607677
Apparently not actually, it said that it had a large database, but no internet connectivity.

>>8607609
first order logic is undecideable, so there is no decision algorithm that can do mathematics for us, ergo computers cannot replace mathematicians

>>8607609
Nice meme.
Also mathematicians are the ones who program computers to try and replace mathematicians.

File: 5672a3f3066c9.jpg (18KB, 549x480px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 549x480px

>>8607609
oh boy im so glad computers have already proved the abc conjecture
oh wait :^)

>>8607708
You don't have to decide in a smart way. Think of something like brute forcing all possible combinations of math symbols.

>>8607708
we can propose a new first order logic. "Principles of Mathematics Revisited" check this out

>>8607708
You don't need to decide everything, just find useful theorems.

In the worst case you can simulate a mathematician's brain (hypothetically)

>>8607699
oh, I see. that actually is interesting, but it must have taken a lot of work to compile that database. so really the work was just shifted from Watson to the people making the database.

if Watson could learn, and create its own database, that would really be something.

>>8607768
>>8607798
where is the schema for this? how can you decide some arbitrary "useful" (defined by what?) formula? I only used first order logic as an example of the limitations of computation because it is so primitive, higher order validity is even worse

It is also a pretty big assumption to assume that a "simulation of a mathematician's brain" is remotely possible, if you are willing to suppose that humans are essentially computers (which they must be for a true simulation), then your conclusion that everything can be replaced by computers is trivially true, namely because we are computers

>>8607872
Inputs come in and inputs come out. If the current computing model is inadequate to do the same kind of information processing as a human brain, it should still be possible to build something that can (we know this is possible since human brains exist).

Before you complain that this wouldn't be a "real computer", the point of this thread is whether doing math can be automated away, and it doesn't really matter if the automation is done by something resembling today's computers, or something radically different.