Programming에 대해서 그리고 Blah Blah .... :-)

안녕하세요 저는 처음 이글을 썼던 사람입니다. 죄송하지만 이다음 문장부터는 영어로 쓰겠습니다. 제가 영어를 잘쓴다는 것이 아니라 저는 외국에서 학부를 나왔던 만큼 컴퓨터 용어를 쓸때 우리나라 용어를 잘 모르겠습니다. (예를 들면 저는 array는 아는데 이게 한국말로 뭘로해야할지 모릅니다.)

First of all, I would like to thank all of you who replied my "blah blah". At the same time, I am sorry for late correspondence.

1) re: for "약간 이상한 점이있는것 같아"
How do we know one program generate correct output? It maybe possible to know it by "looking" at it, but not automatically. If one person generate a test program that waits 100 minitues to check if an original program outputs correct one. Then, I will make another programm that generate correct after 102 minutes. This is what I meant.

2) re: for "나중에 시간이 되면"
My answer is consistent to 1). It is not about memeory but time. Can we make a test program that checks if one program terminates? I would say no.

3) re: for "functional vs OO 도 이상한 점이 있군요"
i) I am not sure what the point is. Of course, it is not problem of hardware. It is about our intellectual possibility. P?=NP is still open problem. Of course, many people belives it is P != NP, including me :).

ii) I said I thought it is not science. Of course, you can freely think computer science is science. For me, it is no. Since you mentioned AI, I would bravely say here that the level of AI is now level of cockroach. Yes, you are right. AI measures how much it can measure "learning" and so on. In my point of view, AI is still in very primitive level. Do AI programs solve NP-complete problems? Definitely no. AI programs solve NP-complete problems under many practical input. But, Steven Cook wrote a paper that one can generates hard SAT solving instances. And, most of AI programs takes exponential time to solve such inputs with respect to the size input. Even many mathematicians say mathematics are "Art". Well, computer science is definitely not harder science than mathematics. (Sorry for analogical arguments here, but I emphasize that writing proof for theorems is an art not science.)

iii) I agree that theoretical computer science is a stream of mathematics. Alan Turing was mathematician and many greate theoretical computer scientist have been from mathematic fields.

4) re: for "CS 강국".
That was actually my assumption. And, yes you may be right. I want to know why professors do NOT update their pages. If we look up others' web sites, actually many good computer scienctists update their publications. I would say the reasons are following: First, it is transparent. Professors are subsidized by government where we pay tax. Their main duty is to do research. How do we know they do research? Or, just playing around with their kids? (Sorry for extreme guess). Secondly, publication transparency is very important to people who intend to go for MS or Ph.D. Third, I would like to know the reason why they don't update. Why NOT? I don't personally buy arguments such as "because it is not important" or "we are just lazy ..."

5) re: for "실례지만 theory라고"
Alas, it is difficult question. Generally, theoretical computer science includes the following areas.
a. Algorithms, Lower Bounds, Graph Theory, Coding Theory, Probabilities (Generally, Discrete Mathematics)
b. Some things that related with above. Even database people may have to know some of above. They are interested in "Petri Net", "Indexing Structures" and so on. Let me tell you this Google's success is based on their page ranking algorithm which is heavily related to stochastic processes, where one has to probability well ...

6) At last, I would like to finish my writing apologies. Please, correct me if there is any suspicious point and you feel that I "attacked you". I wrote my writing basically within philosopy of "to find out what is right" but NOT "who is right". Another apology will be based on the fact that I am coming this site not very "often" and actually I am kind of newbie here. Thank you very much your time and attention to my writing. Have a good day!