What is the definition of "Computer Science"?

[farzad didehvar]

How do you define Computer science?

Is there any definition.

 

Let we start from the following definition (if you wish):

 

Computer Science is the science of Algorithm, machine and effieciency, and the relations among these three subjects(1 plus 2 is Theoretical Computer Science),

besides its vast applications in different branches of science as: (a very large list)... (The third is Applied Computer Science).

 

The agendas are:1. "Various types of Computation" and making models for Mind and brain abilities.

 

What are the possible flaws of this definition?

How do you define Computer science?

Is there any definition.

 

Let we start from the following definition (if you wish):

 

Computer Science is the science of Algorithm, machine and effieciency, and the relations among these three subjects(1 plus 2 is Theoretical Computer Science),

besides its vast applications in different branches of science as: (a very large list)... (The third is Applied Computer Science).

 

The agendas are:1. "Various types of Computation and modeling" and making models for Mind and brain abilities.

 

What are the possible flaws of this definition?

Edited October 15, 2013 by farzad didehvar

[Ophiolite]

The answer is dependent upon the purpose for which you wish to classify it. Such classifications are artificial and are designed to help make sense of our environment and to facilitate data gathering and decision making. So, in what context are you wishing to arrive at a definition?

[farzad didehvar]

As you said:

 

"The answer is dependent upon the purpose for which you wish to classify it."

 

First, I wish to know is there any definition that satisfies different views and angles or not?

 

In this respect, Me, myself have a critical stand poit to this definition:

What about "Prograaming" and "Hardware designing of Computers"?

 

Respect to we know them in or out of the definition we should change a little bit the definition, specially about programing the problem seems more critical,

and possibly we should accept it in, possibly instead of algorithm we should put 'Algorithm and Programming" and to know "Hardware designing of Computers" in the subject of machine(seemingly so natural).

Second, we have as usual a categorization of "the subject" and "The related subjects".

Here we know some important subjects like Logic and Domain Theory, Related subject(or so related subject if you wish), although in some of their applications these two subjects have so many overlaps.

 

So, the question is, are these definitions are satisfactory in any angle?

If not, we go to your question.

[AtomicMaster]

Computer Science has a very solid definition, it does not depend on how you classify the purpose of the definition, the purpose has nothing to do with the science of computing, that would be computer philosophy.

 

Like all sciences, there is an exact, encompassing definition; it is the study of the principles and use of computers. Computer scientists use the scientific approach to computation and it's applications to create or design computational systems.

 

$.02

[farzad didehvar]

Atomic Master,

 

By definition usually we wish to go more deep in the subject, to know the branches.

To know better what are in the umberella of computer science, what is tightly related and what to be considered as out of the subject.

Your definition is nice for start, but when the questions arise we need more elements to be in definition, and the purposes would be important.

For example in management the courses, the funds,decision makings... the priorities would be so important.

If we reach to such conflicts to have a conclusive definition would be so important and helpful.

Unfortunately, some deviate and sabotage everything to have position and funds.This could be a trying to control and to prevent it,

means we are persuded to be more exact about the subject.

Edited October 19, 2013 by farzad didehvar

[Enthalpy]

"Computer Science" is a paradox in two words, just like "military music".

[WWLabRat]

AtomicMaster is right. The definition for Computer Science is objective, not subjective. And on top of that, the definition becomes more narrow the more specialized the field within Computer Science.

 

Enthalpy, please explain how exactly Computer Science is a paradox... It seems to me that science, being a logical series of steps arranged in such a way to gather data, is expressed clearly within computers. As for "military music", I fail to see how either of those terms are exclusive. Military music exists in many forms, originally the beat of a drum to help large armies keep in step when marching in rank and file, bugle calls that would signal orders from the CO, and celebratory music used for military ceremonies.

[AtomicMaster]

Atomic Master,

 

By definition usually we wish to go more deep in the subject, to know the branches.

To know better what are in the umberella of computer science, what is tightly related and what to be considered as out of the subject.

Your definition is nice for start, but when the questions arise we need more elements to be in definition, and the purposes would be important.

For example in management the courses, the funds,decision makings... the priorities would be so important.

If we reach to such conflicts to have a conclusive definition would be so important and helpful.

Unfortunately, some deviate and sabotage everything to have position and funds.This could be a trying to control and to prevent it,

means we are persuded to be more exact about the subject.

 

The provided definition is concise and exact, if you wish to go deeper into some area of the subject, those would be fields of computer science, each a specific part of computer science, each with it's own definition, none affecting the definition of computer science because there could be a nearly infinite amount of fields or areas of computer science to study, but they are all, ultimately, combined together, the study of computing or computer science.

 

In order to define physics ("the study of nature"), for example, we needn't delve into the fields of physics spanning from quantum to celestial (or astro), there are many fields, all of which have their specific definitions that are all encompassed inside the much broader definition of what physics is. None of the fields affect the definition of physics, none of the ways to study, or subjects of attention affect the definition of physics, and the definition of physics is already as exact as it needs to be.

 

The question of "why" is not a question for the science to answer, because it implies that there is a purpose. This is an understandable question, as humans we look for purpose everywhere and so we naturally ask this question, but "why" is not the question that science solves, because honestly there is no evidence to show that there is purpose to everything that we didn't create; science answers "how". "Why" is the domain of philosophy and religion (also history and a hand-full of other fields).

Edited October 24, 2013 by AtomicMaster

[danston]

i'd define it as the science involved in developing means to store, process, send and retrieve digitial information.

 

so if the IETF releases a new (say) Application Layer protocol, or the IEEE approves a new OSI Layer 1 format, then computer scientists had to analyse and test the new formats based on theoretical concepts.

[AtomicMaster]

Not necessarily computer scientists, danston. Hardaware layer can be conceptualized by theoretical physicists, designed, analyzed and tested by chemists, applied physicists and engineers, who are all qualified for their respectful positions. Computer scientists will likely not touch this new hardware layer until it is already shown to transfer signals with some reliability...