User talk:Powo/Archive1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page (new message).

Using user talk pages

When you leave a comment on a user's talk page, please do not insert it at the top of the page. Doing so has a disruptive appearance and makes it hard to follow the chronology of comments. Instead, please create a new section at the bottom of the page, and leave your comment there.

You can also use the built-in "Post a comment" link to do the same; it will insert the subject line of your comment as both the section headline and the edit summary. Thank you! --FOo 13:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Science Intro

Hi there. I'm not sure I see your reasoning for the change to the Science intro. Science is not a list of facts (despite what it seems like in high school), its theories evolve as more data is gathered (as it says further on in the intro).

Therefore the statement "Science is an attempt to develop a body of knowledge" is better I feel, because it reflects the evolving nature of science, as opposed to "Science is a body of knowledge" which seems to say it is all settled. --Spondoolicks 10:27, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

--

Ok! I agree with you on this. I was realy trying to stop a starting revert war (somebody reverted your add). I thought your modification followed a strong scientific relativism point of view: science is an attempt to do (bla bla)... where as one could argue its not an attempt, its a succes (scientism point of view?). I misunderstood you, and I agree with you, now that I understood what your aim was. Could it be that other (slow) people like me could misunderstand you like I did? If so, maybe the formulation could be changed...--Powo 12:18, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, how about "Science is a constantly evolving set of theories..."? Except that it's not just the theories, it's the data gathering as well. Er... "Science consists of two main areas - data gathering and the formation of theories to fit that data..." or is that too long winded? Oh I don't know, what do you think? --Spondoolicks 13:27, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Computation

Hi, User:Readams is currently rewriting the article on theory of computation, you might want to talk to him to prevent the articles computation and theory of computation having too much overlap (as was the case before he changed it into a redirect). I also see that you have experience in both math and CS, so you might want to take part in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Computability, recursion theory. Finally it seems you haven't been properly welcomed to Wikipedia yet to you might want to have a peek at {{welcome}}. Cheers, —R. Koot 23:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EQ

You were easy to talk to until you started to say "poor english" and about the level of a computer scientist. I took this out of context:

A few more tips on polite discussion

Always make clear what point you are addressing, especially in replies.
- Quoting a post is O.K., but stating how you interpreted it is better. Before proceeding to say that someone is wrong, concede you might have misinterpreted him or her.
Don't label or personally attack people or their edits.
- Terms like "racist," "sexist" or even "poorly written" make people defensive. This makes it hard to discuss articles productively.

The above (unsigned) remark is from user Dzonatas. Apparently, he does not like my style!... I admit he pushed me to the limits while discussing something (something very confuse...) on the theory of computation talk page --Powo 07:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

computer science and such

Hi, I just read the discussions at Talk:Computer science and Talk:Theory of computation. Given the silly arguments User:Dzonatas makes, I doubt he has a degree in CS. He also seems very persistent in pushing his POV, though. In such situations it may be best to write a proposal on a temporary subpage first and then have some other people comment on it. After that it can be instated through community consensus or an RfC. Cheers, —R. Koot 02:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there some rule against a peer review on an wikipedian's article to gain a source for an article?

If I was so persistent on POV, why is it that I have changed and reworded my views to best fit a neutral view. Lets look at the history of the article because and it reveals a much more persistent form of POV that is not from me. — Dzonatas 11:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dzonatas, you say: Isn't there some rule against a peer review on an wikipedian's article to gain a source for an article? I have no idea what this means, but since it is not even adressed to me, could you please keep such sentences off my talk page? Thank you. --Powo 16:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematical foundation

Powo, I've pointed to reputable and verifiable sources, but you don't want to accept them. Instead of a constant search and explaination you've put me on, I would like you to write some content about the mathematical foundations of computer science you have stated. Go ahead and assume that I'm not an expert like you, and explain it to me. If you can't do this, nobody will understand you or your claim. A simple assertion in the opener requires the body content to back it up. The opener is like a summary of the content. We need the content. That is the effort I expect. — Dzonatas 22:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Back when computers where people??? This sounds pretty much like arguments of Mr. Ballard... Could you and him be the same person? Anyway, computers we are talking about now are not people, and mathematics are not just simple arithmetics. Thus, computers do not do maths. At least, if they do it is in very special cases. This statement in the opener relies on a understanding of computers in an archaic sens and on a wrong understanding of what mathematics are. E.g., whene a computer uses clever techniques to compute the product of two numbers in less than $log(n)^{2}$ , it doese not "use mathematics", it uses clever arithmetic algorithms. I think it is very unprecise to say that this is "mathematics in use by the computer". This statement is bad, out of the opener it should go. Out of the article in fact! No?--Powo 18:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh? I wonder what it is you mean by "use." From Turing's work, he used people to perform individual steps of instructions, prescribed by Turing as anything a human clerk can do with pencil and paper without ingenuity. How did they perform mathematics? — Dzonatas 19:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gee... Do you mean: In his work, Turing used people to perform individual steps of instructions prescribed by him. He described their task that as "anything a human clerk can do [...] without ingenuity. Is this what you mean? Because I still have to guess half the sentence (and the one of the importants verbs: describe...)! If this is so, your question how did they perform mathematics is already answered by Turing: they did not, since their task requires no ingenuity. On the contrary, you will agree that mathematics require quite a bit of ingenuity... So what the hell is your point in the end???--Powo 22:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whereas, there is no ingenuity in the steps, as you have claimed in the previous paragraph; therefore, there is no roots, or foundation, in mathematics, and you have contradicted yourself. — Dzonatas 03:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[No ingenuity in the steps] -> [no roots in mathematics]???, Please explained what logic brings you to this implication! --Powo 07:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR

You have been reported for your reverts on Computer science. — Dzonatas 21:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi powo,

I'm new to editing wikipedia, and I'm not sure if I'm following the proper etiquette by posting a reply here, so I apologize in advance if my manners are bad.

I said: If we are going to cover the modern science of computers, we should start with people like Shannon, von Neumann, and Cook

You said: Well, I dont disagree. I suppose, from what you say, that you would also agree that if we are to define modern computer science, then it is probably more appropriate to call it the modern science of computing than the modern science of computers. No? Best regards. --Powo 08:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

You bring up an excellent point, one that I have been pondering since I read about the Computer Science article debate. I don't have an answer, but here's my opinion:

When I first saw the discussion over "computer" vs. "computing" science, I instinctively sided with those calling it "computing", probably because it's so extremely important to recognize that most of what is called "Computer Science" deals exclusively with the study of the abstract process of computation, and not the hardware itself.

However, I can now think of two clear examples of fields where the scientific study of computers is tied the the physical implementation. One is networking -- researchers are likely to develop abstract models data traffic, and then test their accuracy against data collected from real operating networks. The other is human computer interaction (HCI) -- researchers use scientific methods borrowed from psychology to accurately measure the way that humans interact with both computer software and hardware.

From what I've read of your comments, I think we can both agree that it's important to distinguish the real science of computing from all the other things that "Computer Science" has come to mean to some people. Calling it "computing science" would be a big step in clearing up the confusion, but also might introduce some inaccuracy, slight as it may be.

P.S. I have no objection in calling Cook, von Neumann, and Shannon computing scientists, as their most important research was purely in the abstract realm. --Jonovision 10:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation of Computer Science

Greetings, User:Dzonatas requests mediation over the definition of Computer Science. I have provided some initial observations and comments at Mediation Cabal:Computer Science. I respectfully request your input to this issue, and your response will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Steven McCrary 17:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I noticed a comment of yours at Talk:Computer science. "This sounds pretty much like arguments of Mr. Ballard... Could you and him be the same person?" For what it's worth, User:Dzonatas and User:JHballard also share the same interest in Joan of Arc with remarkably similar prose and editing styles. I share your opinion that User:Dzonatas makes use of spurious sources. Durova 01:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TCS page

As one of the theory people that I almost disparage :-) in theoretical computer science, you might like to expand on it a bit. In particular, I leaned heavily on the SIGACT site, dunno if they're still representative of the field (I was troubled to note that many of the links from their site were dead...) Stan 13:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that you may be blocked for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thanks,

Your edit summary that states "bad style" suggests a personal attack. — Dzonatas 14:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I obviously ment bad style of the content, not bad style of the contributor! --Powo 22:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP CS

Hi! I just noticed that you have signed on to WikiProject Computer science, and wanted to welcome you aboard. Looking forward to collaborating with you further. --Allan McInnes 15:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Powo 16:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CS and PS

Traditionally, physical science is described as the branch of the natural sciences which deals with the non-biological world independent of particular technological developments. While one can speak of the physical science regarding technologies, the technologies are not prerequisite.

Traditionally, computer science is the study of numerical computation as an empirical application of discrete/finite mathematics. Unlike the natural sciences, there is a technological prerequisite to its empirical application (a computer). There are no computers (that I am aware of) which occur independent of technology.

These distinctions seem to me to be arbitrary, but it is important that we get it right here in this encyclopedia. I haven't ever found computer science listed under a division of physical sciences at a college or university, for example. This indicates to me that most people see a bifurcation of the subjects. I am willing to listen to alternative opinions on the matter, however.

--ScienceApologist 21:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of the differences between the technological components of computer science versus chemistry or physics is that computer science is, in point-of-fact, only applicable in a technological setting while the subjects of chemistry and physics apply regardless of venue. As to the science of information, that would be information science, conceivably one could call that subject the "physical" component of computer science as it may be seen as a branch of thermodynamics or statistical mechanics. However, I would say that computer science is considerably more than just information science. --ScienceApologist 10:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So informatics is physical component of computer science. Cool. Shall we include this on the physical science page?

No, I don't think so. Since informatics is technically a sub-branch of physics, it doesn't bear individual mention. As you can see on the physics page, informatics is already mentioned, but on physical science, physics is technically the sub-branch. Keeping informatics off the physical science page is best as we try to keep things as summary as possible. If we included informatics, we should also include all other subfields of physics like fluid mechanics, aerodynamics, and particle physics. --ScienceApologist 13:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Information science/informatics is not the sum-total of computer science. As such, the study of information as a physical entity is indeed part of the broader endeavor of the study of physical entities (physics) even while it is a subdiscipline of computer science. Think of it in the same way that biophysics is simultaneously a subdiscipline of biology and physics. The way that computer science relates to physical science is through information science which is necessarily through physics in the same way that biology can relate to physical science through physics (biophysics), chemistry (biochemistry), or even astronomy (astrobiology). These are subdisciplines of branches of physical science. Computer science, however, is not a branch of physical science. --ScienceApologist 14:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someday we may very well look on information science as a subdiscipline of physical science including the physical parts of computer science, cognitive neuroscience and quantum information science. However, right now the distinction is made aribtrarily to force computer science into a slightly different category. Find some source that supports your side and maybe we can write about it on the physical science page (or at the very least on the computer science page). Cheers, --ScienceApologist 17:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vever/y

This was entirely a misunderstanding. My notes when I took the photo say Vever, but this was probably a mistake on my part. When I saw your change to the file name I thought that you had simply overlooked the Caption name, so I "corrected" it (therefore minor change). But I was wrong, sorry. What to do now? Well, tonight, I will reupload the photo with its correct name, mark the old for quick deletion, & fix the Lake Geneva page. You can't change file names in Commons once uploaded. Thanks for your interest. GrahamBould 07:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]