6 ms·

"widely held view" ;) No. But it makes it "shared by many", your original quantification. You see, you're misreading for the numerous time. First you didn't

"widely held view" ;) No. But it makes it "shared by many", your original quantification. You see, you're misreading for the numerous time. First you didn't care to read what OP linked and went into generalisations having nothing to do with the case. [[BTW I just don't know what you're arguing with me about since it's the same thing you observed in that comment. I just feel like being trolled, I agree with your comment I'm responding to now and I agree with the comment #837189, http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=837189 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=837189 ]] Then you didn't read mine, or decided to start petty argument supposing it's isolated incident of just Gasarch not knowing a thing about logic and verification scene where there was a common agreement in the thread that fields became separated to a point of sillness. Now your changing from ontological view to my position that communities define fields by what they call themselves (TCS is what SPJ does). Never mind changing quantifiers suggesting that I want to argue about who has holy right and the majority. It was just a point it's not isolated view. Of course america is isolated, in a sense, by the sea. If SPJ defines TCS then he still has nothing to do with whole TCS community. Because TCS forms no consistent community besides having to do with computers. I'm prone to trolling.

gdp 17y ago
I'm really not trolling. The only reason I started arguing this point is that it was with some irritation that I saw the suggestion from amichail that the definition of "Theoretical Computer Science" excluded theoretical computer scientists. An alternative name for what SPJ does was even offered, to make it distinct (once again) from "theoretical computer science". The original article comments may have been talking about a specific community that happens to be called "the theoretical computer science community", hence my point that it is up to members of that community to remember to mentally translate into words that the rest of the universe can understand when talking to people outside their community (which I view as a sub-group of theoretical computer science, for the record). For some reason you picked up the argument which was only directed at amichail's original comments. Basically, the framing of the question should actually have read "Are people who go to conference X friendly?" - the actual discussion point was buried in the comments. The question annoyed me, and amichail's even stronger re-statement of this same viewpoint annoyed me further. And then it just got silly, because now we're arguing about the meanings of words like "many" (my word), or "common" (your word), when really the use of quantifiers in this is really not necessary. My point was not that there are only a small number of people who use this definition of TCS that I'm complaining about (although I do believe that to be the case) - my point, illustrated with my example about chemistry above, is that it is completely bonkers to use it in this way outside of that community.

gdp 17y ago

I'm really not trolling. The only reason I started arguing this point is that it was with some irritation that I saw the suggestion from amichail that the definition of "Theoretical Computer Science" excluded theoretical computer scientists. An alternative name for what SPJ does was even offered, to make it distinct (once again) from "theoretical computer science". The original article comments may have been talking about a specific community that happens to be called "the theoretical computer science community", hence my point that it is up to members of that community to remember to mentally translate into words that the rest of the universe can understand when talking to people outside their community (which I view as a sub-group of theoretical computer science, for the record). For some reason you picked up the argument which was only directed at amichail's original comments. Basically, the framing of the question should actually have read "Are people who go to conference X friendly?" - the actual discussion point was buried in the comments. The question annoyed me, and amichail's even stronger re-statement of this same viewpoint annoyed me further. And then it just got silly, because now we're arguing about the meanings of words like "many" (my word), or "common" (your word), when really the use of quantifiers in this is really not necessary. My point was not that there are only a small number of people who use this definition of TCS that I'm complaining about (although I do believe that to be the case) - my point, illustrated with my example about chemistry above, is that it is completely bonkers to use it in this way outside of that community.