

Are top CS theorists nice people?  Would they even talk with you?  (comment 25) - amichail
http://blog.computationalcomplexity.org/2009/09/why-you-shouldn-not-go-to-focs.html

======
yalurker
Wow, I had the luck of meeting Aaron a few years ago. I have actually
referenced him as when I learned the limit of my own intelligence - I had a
4.0 gpa as a CS major and thought myself quite bright, until I was simply
blown away by the orders of magnitude greater ability to think about complex
problems that he possessed.

It's incredibly disheartening to read that post. It seems tragic that someone
like Aaron would be shut out due to not attending the right school.

------
davidw
I met Simon Peyton-Jones at a dinner once, and he came across as a really nice
guy. He seemed interested in what I was doing, even though it's leagues away
from what he does, and not nearly so 'interesting'. Highly recommended.

~~~
amichail
He is not a member of this community.

~~~
oconnor0
SPJ's not a member of the top CS theorists?

~~~
amichail
His research has nothing to do with what is considered CS theory in the US and
Canada.

~~~
jamesbritt
"His research has nothing to do with what is considered CS theory in the US
and Canada."

So what _is_ considered CS theory in the US and Canada?

~~~
amichail
See:

<http://rjlipton.wordpress.com>

<http://blog.computationalcomplexity.org>

Also check out the STOC, FOCS, and SODA conferences.

~~~
gdp
So your assertion is that theoretical computer science is complexity theory
and algorithmic analysis?

How about any of these?

Semantics

Concurrency theory

Theories of refinement

Type theory

The Curry-Howard Correspondence (and results derived from it)

(Finite) automata

...

Shall I go on?

Those are all "theoretical CS". Programming language theorists qualify as
"theoretical CS" practitioners in most cases. Simon Peyton Jones certainly
qualifies.

I think you have a strange, narrow definition of theoretical CS that isn't
shared by many people.

~~~
slackenerny
_I think you have a strange, narrow definition of theoretical CS that isn't
shared by many people._

You're wrong in the "not shared by many" part.

[http://weblog.fortnow.com/2009/03/lets-congradulate-
gerard-h...](http://weblog.fortnow.com/2009/03/lets-congradulate-gerard-huet-
who.html)

~~~
gdp
> _You're wrong in the "not shared by many" part._

At least the first dozen comments on that link support my position that
programming, logic and semantics are all "theoretical computer science". You
appear to have produced an example of one person questioning whether his
definition of TCS is too narrow, and then pages of comments from people
telling him that it is.

What was your point, again?

~~~
slackenerny
_What was your point, again?_

You obviously didn't read the thread.

Highlighted therein is the contrast between TCS scenes in US and Europe. That
is the amichail's point. These are two separate communities scarcely
communicating with each other.

In the "first dozen of comments" you have Mitzenmacher, member of program
committee of leading US conference comparing your field's importance and
utility for TCS (as defined in the US) with that of e.g. chemistry's.

~~~
gdp
I did read the thread, thanks.

The "contrast" is being highlighted, but I can't see anyone in there seriously
advancing the idea that all of the things I've described aren't "theoretical
CS" - they just suggest that there aren't many people in the US doing them.
One commenter rightly notes that there are plenty of people doing the kind of
"theoretical CS" I'm talking about at CMU, for example (and I can think of a
handful of other places doing similar work in the US).

So I stand by my original assertion: the definition of TCS as being exactly
complexity and algorithmic analysis is a particularly narrow definition that
is inconsistent with the way in which most people use and understand
"theoretical computer science".

~~~
slackenerny
I won't argue about semantics of theoretical in theoretical computer science.

It is my experience that people in casual conversations automatically assume
topic to be complexity theory, despite I'm in Europe.

Or maybe I will, just a bit ;) Because in fact, in casual conversations noone
seem to be insiting, or in fact using adj. theoretical when talking about
languages, semantics, logic, universal algebra, category theory. This is
computer _science_ after all, no need for special adjectives. It would be a
bit like calling category theory a "theoretical mathematics".

Fact is, major part of the community uses term exclusively in the meaning we
talk about. It could be argued if rightly and people outside may justifiably
think in broader sense. Maybe better words could be found instead of
theoretical, such as "analytical", and in fact I recall one of European
departments reorganizing into two institutes, one for "Analytical CS".

~~~
gdp
I think the distinction is useful as it stands. Given that a lot of computer
"science" is an applied "science" (I use scare quotes deliberately because I
think some of the "science" content is dubious), the "theoretical" distinction
makes it obvious that you're talking about a _theory_ of computer science, not
the application of those theoretical concepts to create things.

> _It is my experience that people in casual conversations automatically
> assume topic to be complexity theory, despite I'm in Europe._

What one community decides to define itself as isn't really a concern of mine.
I'm also in Europe and I've found that "theoretical computer science" is
pretty widely understood to mean the kinds of things I'm arguing that it
means.

> _It would be a bit like calling category theory a "theoretical mathematics"_

So why would it make any more sense to apply it to complexity theory? It's not
like work on languages, semantics or logic are any more "applied" than
complexity.

~~~
slackenerny
_What one community decides to define itself as isn't really a concern of
mine._

Ehh, then I won't be able to convince you that it's not true that what you
called crazy view on TCS is in fact common view. Not that I was able to do
that anyways; I'm not that eloquent.

Amichail said SPJ is not member of that community and that's perfectly true.
You opted to that on ontological grounds. Fine. I've shown that leaders of CS
theory in US doesn't give a flip about that ontology and just mind their own
business. TCS community is fragmented in two disjoint ways.

Why T in TCS then at all? Maybe because most of people are not linguists and
doesn't care. Mathematicians for example doesn't care at all about naming.
Most common path of least action is just call the thing by the surname of
whomever was loudest shouting about it. They rightly assume it's just
irrelevant anyways even if troublesome at times. By the Arnol'd principle name
almost never reflects of who actually made the discovery anyways and the rest
of msthematics' ontology and semantics is horrendous,
[http://cornellmath.wordpress.com/2007/07/12/unfortunate-
math...](http://cornellmath.wordpress.com/2007/07/12/unfortunate-mathematical-
names/). I can perfectly imagine category theory being more relevant to
programming than resolving PvsNP. Conversely TCS is about computation and
computability and rest are further abstractions, so this can be argued any way
one wants.

~~~
gdp
> _Amichail said SPJ is not member of that community and that's perfectly
> true._

My argument was that it is impossible to exclude SPJ from any sensible
definition of "theoretical computer science", unless you are taking those
words and re-defining them to mean something other than what they actually
mean as a collection of words.

I accept that there may be a group of people who call what they do
"theoretical computer science", and who believe that nothing else is
"theoretical computer science", but in that case, the onus is on those people
to remember to translate "theoretical computer science" as a term into
"complexity theory" when they talk to people outside the complexity theory
community, because the rest of us have a much stronger claim to the general
meaning of the term, which encompasses both this idiosyncratic use of "TCS" as
well as all of the other things that it can correctly be taken to mean.

Allow me to make my argument entirely concrete:

Let's say that I do "organic chemistry" and I go to organic chemistry
conferences with other organic chemists. Obviously there are other sub-
branches of chemistry. If I decided to stop calling what I do "organic
chemistry" and start calling it just "chemistry" instead, to the exclusion of
any other kind of chemistry, you can understand why people would be very
confused (and probably a little annoyed) when I start telling them that Alfred
Nobel wasn't a chemist.

I will go even further to say that the test for a sensible definition of
"theoretical computer science" is probably which people it includes, and SPJ
would probably be on that list, IMHO (along with Hoare and Milner and
countless others who are excluded by this supposedly widely-held definition).

And I really don't think it's widely-held _outside of the community that calls
itself the TCS community_ , which by definition, doesn't make it a "widely
held view", does it?

~~~
slackenerny
_impossible to exclude SPJ from any sensible definition of "theoretical
computer science"_

Yes, there is. Vide my last sentence above.

Proving that is futile because you want to argue anywas and as I said I'm not
that eloquent.

Nobody takes away from SPJ of what he is.

Edit: you expanded your argument after I wrote above. I don't feel like I have
anything useful to say. Not that I felt that in the first place, I just gave a
counterexaple showing of how world stands. Next time I'll run into someone
I'll first ask what school he attends and who is his advisor instead of
arguing about what he semantically meant describing his field. Then it would
be evident what he works in and if we have anything to learn from eachother
insetad of wasting our both time for idle argument.

~~~
gdp
> _Next time I'll run into someone I'll first ask what school he attends and
> who is his advisor instead of arguing about what he semantically meant
> describing his field._

If you actually meant the reverse of that, then I agree that would be a far
superior topic of conversation than school of origin or advisor.

~~~
slackenerny
No, superior way would be to refrain from talking with people at all when I
clearly see I'm not up to challenge. Especially to refrain from meta
discussions.

As Richard Hamming said, one may either just do research accepting things as
they are, or changing people's minds, but not both.

By the way, last time I checked there was no satisfactory definition of
"computer" amongst various theoretical computer sciences. Thank god it's not
my problem.

------
coliveira
I do research in an area that is tangent to CS theory. My experience with
meeting some of these people is exactly this: they will not pay attention to
you if you are not from their clique.

Also, every time I visit this blog I see comments on the same theme: that
theory-oriented conferences are managed by a clique, that others don't feel
welcome... So, my general feeling is that they have deep problems in their
community (and I don't mean theoretical problems).

~~~
gdp
That's actually true of computer science in general. Ever turned up to a web
conference? Or an OO conference? or a Java conference? I guarantee you that I
feel as out of place and excluded in any of those forums as I'm sure you do in
a theory conference.

The thing about any "community" that is well-defined enough to justify having
its own conferences is that it has its own set of foundational assumptions and
jargon, and conventions. If you don't know these things, you're going to have
trouble participating at a high level.

I don't think it's so much that people will not "pay attention" to you - it's
probably just that what you are saying isn't very interesting. The thing about
non-theory CS people interacting with theoretical CS people is that they
usually present exactly the same arguments/problems/ideas that everyone else
does. Believe me, you get _really_ bored by the seventeenth time you have to
address the question "but what if the theorem prover has bugs in it?!",
pronounced with the swagger of someone who believes they have just hit upon a
novel idea.

I imagine that if I turned up to a gathering of high-energy particle
physicists, I don't think they would pay much attention to my thoughts on the
subject either.

It's not dismissive behaviour, either. It's actually just a common mistake
within CS to believe that you can turn your hand to any part of CS - you're
essentially participating in a very high-level discussion.

To answer the original question, I've found people in the top echelons of
theoretical CS to be extremely patient and friendly.

I asked some really silly questions of top researchers (in one-on-one or small
group situations) as an undergraduate that probably _deserved_ to be answered
with disdain - I still cringe in retrospect. The most biting retort I ever got
was "Oh, that's covered in <such-and-such-a-paper>, which is worth reading if
you're interested in this". Hardly a telling-off. For the most part, people
have always taken the time to explain things from first principles, or re-
state them in ways that I could understand.

The idea of the ivory tower is a bit of a misconception. You're talking about
very, very smart people who are usually more than accommodating when it comes
to answering genuine questions or just engaging in discussions. I would jump
at the chance to talk to them about anything and everything - it'll be
interesting to say the least, and they are some of the nicest people you'll
meet in CS.

~~~
yalurker
Clarifying point - although coliveira's comment was as something of a true
outsider, the original comment in the linked article was from a published phD
student in theory who felt snubbed based on his response to "What school do
you go to?"

~~~
gdp
Oh, duly noted. That wasn't obvious to me from my initial reading of the
article.

That said, that's certainly contrary to my experiences. Most smart people are
suckers for interesting research, and if you're doing something interesting,
people will feel like discussing it.

Of course, most people often like talking about their own work more. If that's
really a concern, just school up on the work of a few people and ask them
about their research in a semi-intelligent way. It's just human that we're
often much more interesting to ourselves than other people are.

------
psyklic
Much of this is likely psychological -- in casual conversation at conferences,
I definitely ask people about what school they go to rather than what their
research project is. Whenever I ask someone about their research project, they
launch into an often lengthy synopsis which typically requires ten minutes of
clarifying questions to even understand. Then, they may offer to forward me
their paper which I must accept or feel callous.

~~~
derefr
How about "what are you working on, in ten words or less?" it sounds mean, but
it really _is_ what you want from the other person, isn't it?

------
me2i81
It's important to understand that when you're young, it can be difficult to
tell the difference between elitism and social awkwardness.

~~~
sketerpot
That still doesn't explain why conferences in _other_ CS fields felt so much
more welcoming to the OP.

------
me2i81
Complaining about "Ivies" in the context of CS theory is a bit goofy.
Princeton is in the top echelon for theory, but I'm not sure the other Ivies
would crack the top 5.

~~~
kobs
'Ivies' is used (erroneously)* as a blanket term to descibe a number of elite
institutions (think Stanford, MIT, Caltech, Berkeley, top LACs, etc.)

... connotation.

~~~
carterschonwald
the correct term is "top tier" or "tier 1" schools. The "ivies" are a sports
league of schools that all happen to be good at academics: dartmouth, harvard,
brown, columbia, yale, princeton, upenn, cornell.

~~~
kobs
I'm well aware of this. I was simply remarking on how it is sometimes used.

------
endtime
Rajeev Motwani was a very nice guy and would certainly talk to you. He's the
only top CS theorist I've met.

------
amichail
If it is indeed the case that many of them are dismissive to those who are not
likely to be useful to them in research, is this logical behavior?

CS theory requires the highest IQ of any subfield of CS to succeed at the
highest levels, so perhaps this behavior is reasonable.

~~~
unalone
I spent a month at Princeton this summer, working alongside current Princeton
students and a handful of the people that work at Princeton.

Princeton people are usually very bright. Not all of them are—many of them are
capable of regurgitating academically and not much more—but overall it's a
community of smart people. It is _not_ , however, particularly brighter than a
handful of other communities. Perhaps there's less riffraff, so you only have
people above average there, but there's this perception that you have to be a
genius to be Ivy and that's simply not true.

Until my stint at Princeton, I was a "Princeton child". I grew up loving
Princeton, I wanted to have a Princeton degree on my resume and live in the
enormous castles that Princeton calls dorms. After staying there, I came away
with the perception that Princeton's a great college, but it's not head-and-
shoulders above any number of other great colleges, and there's nothing
special about the people that go there. (They also put up fake ivy on new
buildings, which I consider false advertising.)

Another way of putting it: The smartest group of people I've ever worked with
was a group of twelve writers who I met when I was sixteen. They were all
pretty remarkable people. Of that group, two went to Princeton, one went to
Brown, a handful went to schools like Vassar and NYU, and a few went to shitty
NJ public schools like I did for a year. So when you're talking to people from
shitty public schools, remember that there're people there who could put half
of Princeton to shame. Not everybody there's going to be brilliant, but not
everybody at Princeton's brilliant either.

