Area 51 » Science

181

followers

Announcements

This is a proposal to explore whether it'd be useful to create a separate TheoryOverflow site dedicated to research-level questions in theoretical computer science, broadly interpreted to include algorithms, complexity, approximation, randomness, quantum, algorithmic game theory, computational geometry, computability, and the like. Please follow the discussion if interested, suggest examples for good and bad questions, and add your thoughts on whether or not such a site would be useful for the theory community. – Anand Kulkarni Jun 23 '10 at 2:38

What about type theorists, programming language semanticists, automated reasoners and the like? Are they all included? Similarly, George's point is a good one: compiler design and operating system design often overlap extensively with TCS. How wide a topic is theoretical computer science going to be considered? – Dominic Mulligan Jun 23 '10 at 11:47

My inclination would be to take a broad view of theory and encourage theory questions from these domains. The main criteria I'd use in deciding whether a question seemed suitable would be first, whether the question could be better answered on Stack or MathOverflow, and second, whether the question would be of interest to or answerable by the theory community. Suggest some sample questions from these areas! – Anand Kulkarni Jun 24 '10 at 8:12

show 4 more announcements

9 Closed Questions (show all)

active oldest votes

up vote 2 down vote

added by JeffE Jun 24 '10 at 16:01

closed as off topic by Anand Kulkarni, goldsz, user6092, SamiD, Ryan Williams Jun 25 '10 at 23:53

This question does not relate to the topic of the proposal.
It was closed as part of an automated migration of off-topic to close votes on September 29, 2011.

This is another good example of a question that would be too elementary, since it's covered by a suitable Wikipedia article / Google search. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_position – Anand Kulkarni Jun 25 '10 at 0:14

up vote 0 down vote

added by Suresh Jun 23 '10 at 5:46

closed as off topic by Anand Kulkarni, andreypopp, Sindri Traustason, Chris W. Rea, ire_and_curses Jun 23 '10 at 16:05

This question does not relate to the topic of the proposal.
It was closed as part of an automated migration of off-topic to close votes on September 29, 2011.

this would be an example of an off-topic post. Actually I just took it from stackoverflow :). But I'd expect lots of posts along these lines, and they would not be appropriate – Suresh Jun 23 '10 at 5:47

much as I appreciate the upvotes, I'd prefer that any upvotes at this point be redirected to other good questions to get them above 20. – Suresh Jun 26 '10 at 7:45

up vote 0 down vote

added by bdonlan Jun 23 '10 at 17:33

closed as off topic by Suresh, ShreevatsaR, Dominic Mulligan, Daniel Egeberg, asalamon74 Jun 24 '10 at 16:58

This question does not relate to the topic of the proposal.
It was closed as part of an automated migration of off-topic to close votes on September 29, 2011.

up vote 0 down vote

added by Jacques Carette Jun 24 '10 at 1:56

closed as off topic by ShreevatsaR, Anand Kulkarni, Dominic Mulligan, JeffE, Chris W. Rea Jun 24 '10 at 18:33

This question does not relate to the topic of the proposal.
It was closed as part of an automated migration of off-topic to close votes on September 29, 2011.

the thing about this is that it falls under the umbrella of applied programming language theory... eg this could be reformulated as "how do I turn specfications of my code in theorem prover proof goals?" – Carter Tazio Schonwald Jun 25 '10 at 22:50

up vote 0 down vote

added by goldsz Jun 25 '10 at 0:22

closed as off topic by Daniel C. Sobral, John Moeller, Gianluca Della Vedova, Daniel Trebbien, Alan Hogue Jun 26 '10 at 1:03

This question does not relate to the topic of the proposal.
It was closed as part of an automated migration of off-topic to close votes on September 29, 2011.

I'm not sure if this is the right wording for it. But should this topic include meta questions about the field of computer science? – goldsz Jun 25 '10 at 0:23

This would be a better question (with a different answer?) if it said theoretical computer science. – JeffE Jun 25 '10 at 3:56

up vote 0 down vote

added by Suresh Jun 25 '10 at 17:18

closed as off topic by JeffE, SamiD, Zeyu, Parasaran, Carlos Scheidegger Jun 26 '10 at 15:28

This question does not relate to the topic of the proposal.
It was closed as part of an automated migration of off-topic to close votes on September 29, 2011.

I actually intend this as an off-topic question, just to keep out the cranks. – Suresh Jun 25 '10 at 17:18

Actually if we stomp out the proof on TheoryOverflow, it would save time for the editors and reviewers of JACM/STOC/FOCS/etc. Not everyone who comes up with these things are necessarily cranks, either ;) – Ryan Williams Jun 25 '10 at 18:29

he he. crowd sourced crank control. I like it. And I think the phrasing of the question "it's your job to find my bugs" usually demarcates the cranks from the serious researchers :) – Suresh Jun 25 '10 at 19:40