Is physics important for computer science

Forum: Training, Studies & Career Computer science studies and physics





hi, do computer scientists need physics during their studies? I have already looked at the plans at some universities and colleges and physics is seldom taught there, is it the case that the computer scientists do not need physics, control engineering, etc.? I always thought that it wouldn't work without it. I also don't understand one thing, why is such a subject as programming often taught at universities of applied sciences. The mechanical engineers, also at the FH, don't learn how to repair a car.



beck's wrote:> Some universities and universities looked at the plans and physics is seldom taught there.> Look for technical informatics (sometimes computer engineering). Work is carried out closer to the hardware and physics and electrical engineering are often involved. Beck's wrote:> I also don't understand one thing, why is such a subject as> programming often taught at universities of applied sciences. The mechanical engineers, also at the FH, do not learn> how to repair a car. Insane remark.



Beck's wrote:> I also don't understand one thing, why is a subject such as> programming often taught at universities of applied sciences. The mechanical engineers, also at the FH, do not learn> how to repair a car. If you cannot program as a computer scientist, then you are only half a computer scientist. That sounds a bit provocative, but that's not what I meant. What I want to say is that nowadays you have to program something very often; as an e-technician and as a computer scientist. Greetings, Mark



beck's wrote:> Do computer scientists need physics during their studies? I have already looked at the plans at> some universities and colleges and physics is seldom taught there, is it the case that the computer scientists do not need physics, control> etc.? I always thought that it wouldn't work without it. In my time, the Inf degree had to include a minor subject, such as linguistics, traffic engineering, energy technology - and for the very hard-nosed also electrical engineering. The topics you address are not central to the basic topics of computer science, but at most concern individual focal points. Where should physics (as a course content) play a role? The chips are produced by the e-technicians, not the infs.



Mark wrote:> If you cannot program as a computer scientist, then you are just> half a computer scientist. Or half a mathematician ;-). There are areas of application in which programming does not play a role. For example in the more theoretical area, but not only there. Basics of programming are part of the course, but that doesn't make graduates capable programmers, only people who have a rough idea of ​​what it is. Often that is enough in the job, many computer scientists program little or not at all. But of course there are also among the Infs those who should be able to do it, but whose results should only be appreciated with a vomit bag.



A. K. wrote:> The topics you mentioned are not central to the basic topics> of computer science, but concern at most individual focal points. Where> should physics (as course content) play a role? The chips> produce the e-technicians, not the infs. yes, but things like control engineering, information theory and coding, signal processing should be done by every computer scientist, regardless of whether it is technology, economics or general. The electrical technicians also learn computer science (1-3), software engineering, software engineering with patterns ... and the above-mentioned subjects anyway. e.g. in Rgb http://www.hs-regensburg.de/fileadmin/fhrweb/files/fachgebiete/fb_et/pdf/modulhandbuch/1_Modulhandbuch_BA_EI_14.07.2010.pdf



Beck's wrote:> I also don't understand one thing, why is such a subject as> programming often taught at universities of applied sciences. Because program creation does not play a central role for everyone in the job, but it does for many. Different areas of study have to do with it to different degrees. And programming is something that almost everyone thinks they can do that too. But the result is not necessarily something that someone else willingly wants to do with. "Programming" is also a far more general term than "building cars". "Real-time programming", for example, would be more comparable. And something we have taught very well. If it then turns out that the term "programming" is to be found more often in the course catalog of universities of applied sciences than in universities, then this is more due to the classic division of roles between practice and fundamentals. At universities, there is also programming in the course of study, but it is spread across other subjects and sometimes just sounds nicer. ;-)



beck's wrote:> yes but things like control technology,> signal processing Why should that be for everyone Inf be interesting? These are quite specific areas that are wasted time for people specializing in databases or computational linguistics. > Information theory and coding, Gabs under this name in my time, but IIRC not mandatory for everyone, but depending on the focus. Possibly appears in shortened form in some other subjects today, because: You shouldn't forget that the student has to finish at some point. If you take all the topics that seem absolutely relevant to you, and if you take a number of different people together, you end up with a minimum study duration of 25 semesters or, alternatively, a 40-hour day.

of MINTAcademic (Guest)


a computer scientist who cannot program has a very difficult time in the job market. Crazy theory is rarely needed in practice, but even then this theory has to be implemented. At least a computer scientist should know the basics. Even if more and more good jobs for computer scientists go a little further away from programming, it is also good as a consultant or project manager if you have programmed, for example, to be able to estimate costs and risks



MINTAkademiker wrote:> At least a computer scientist should know about the basics. Correct, he should. But in my opinion he can hardly get around formally, for example thanks to mandatory courses and programming-related aspects in a number of lectures. How much of it sticks if he doesn't like that, that's another question.



A. K. wrote:> Why should that be interesting for every Inf? These are pretty> specialized areas that are wasted time for people specializing in databases or> computational linguistics. There is no such thing as a degree program such as "focal points like databases", i.e. the fundamentals should be taught. How should a computer scientist work in aerospace engineering or at nuclear power plants if he has no idea about control technology, signal processing, etc. For me, it's just the basics that a computer scientist should know. Otherwise the computer scientist is only good for DB, .NET, Java, WEB, SAP and OOP, otherwise useless. Even with game programming, simulations and and and things like physical engine and physical fundamentals are very much needed.



Beck's wrote:> There is no such thing as a degree program such as "focal points such as databases",> that is, fundamentals should be taught. I didn't call it a course of study either, but "focus". That was what it was called back then. Today Stuttgart calls this "specialization line", and in 2009 I found, in addition to the general database basics lecture: "specialization line databases and information systems: data warehouse, data mining and OLAP technologies". And now tell me why someone with this line of defense needs control technology. > How should a computer scientist> then work in aerospace engineering or at nuclear power plants> If he has immersed himself in "Distributed AI and Image Understanding", then that could actually stand in the way of an application for use in the control area of ​​a nuclear power plant. On the other hand, your trained signal and control technician may not have a clue about 3D programming in the field of graphics systems. Ergo: You cannot have everything in a finite degree with finite receptivity. That is exactly why there are these specialization lines. > Even with game programming, simulations and and and things like physical engine and physical fundamentals are very much needed. But that in turn does not need data mining or OLAP and can also ignore the compiler construction.



Beck's wrote:> There is no such thing as a degree program such as "focal points such as databases",> that is, basics should be taught. But what basics? is "physics" a basis beyond Abitur? or rather mathematics? or maybe chemistry? Or should the basics of social pedagogy be integrated into the infomatics course? (Wouldn't do some Inf. Not bad ...)> How should a computer scientist> then work in aerospace technology or in nuclear power plants> if he has no idea about control technology, signal processing> etc. That is why the nuclear power plant (or the manufacturer of its control technology) should employ a computer scientist who has learned exactly that. And the MRT / CT builders grab a computer scientist who's more focused on signal and image processing. > For me it is pure basics that a computer scientist should> know. Then just study it like that. But don't expect everyone (especially HR managers) to see it that way. > Otherwise the computer scientist is only good for DB, .NET, Java, WEB, SAP and> OOP, otherwise useless.> Even with game programming, simulations and and and things like physical engine and physical fundamentals are strongly needed. That's why you use a team of physicists and programmers for game programming. Computer scientists are less needed there.



Edding wrote:> That is why the nuclear power plant (or the manufacturers of its> control technology) should hire a computer scientist who has> learned exactly that. Provided that a more suitable, affordable candidate can be found. But not everyone works where they studied. Studying means: "he can (hopefully) learn", not: "he already knows everything he needs to know for the job". And so just one company is looking for someone who fits exactly and is willing to pay accordingly. The other is looking for someone who fits into the tight budget and is ready to try it with someone who does not arrive ready-made. > That is why you use a team of physicists and> programmers for game programming. Computer scientists are less needed there. Somewhat suitable math basics shouldn't hurt either. See the specializations "Graphic Engineering Systems" and the "Visualization and Interactive Systems" in http://kvv.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de/chapter.php?user=741820&term=2009.2&lang=de&id=inhdv.



A. K. wrote: >> That's why you use a team of physicists and >> programmers for game programming. Computer scientists are needed less than that. >> Somewhat suitable mathematical basics shouldn't> hurt either. Yup, it was a bit exaggerated. Although, nowadays you click on PhysX and you're done;) A. K. wrote:> Studies means:> "He can (hopefully) learn", not: "He already knows everything that he> has to know for the job". This is how it should be ... It depends a lot on the university and the chosen subjects (I'm now trying to avoid the compulsory FH <> UNI Flamewar) and there is pretty much everything from "Java programming courses with a little additional theory "up to" Mathematics studies with elective exercise subject Haskel programming ". And afterwards everyone is allowed to scold each other (qualified) computer scientists. I can't say anything about the new Bachelor / Master computer scientists, there are still no finished ones in the vicinity.



Computer scientists certainly don't do physics. Physicists do that better. Physicists are certainly better at programming in this regard. As a computer scientist you should do what the others can't, e.g. databases, web, etc.



A. K. wrote:> Many computer scientists program little or not at all. The opposite is my experience. From PL onwards you no longer program; until then, however, is the work that has to be done. Edding wrote:> That's why you use a team of physicists and> programmers for game programming. Computer scientists are less needed there. You certainly don't need physicists for this. Programmers, computer scientists, sure - what physics can currently be implemented for a game is not particularly complicated - anyone who can program can program that. Anything else would be nonsense. Some abstract model has to be programmed in the end - the programming is far more complicated and intellectually more demanding than the physical model - every engineer can write that down while half asleep - but maybe not program it. This myth of computer scientist ~ = programmer is told to the new students - but the reality is different, namely in such a way that anyone who cannot program is also not a computer scientist. That would be comparable to an electrical technician who cannot even solder in a new resistor.



Mini Nilp wrote:> Computer scientists certainly don't do physics. The physicists do that better.> The physicists are certainly also better at programming in this regard. As a computer scientist you should do what the others> cannot do, eg databases, web, etc. Web? What defines computer science and what sets the computer scientist apart from the common programmer is his knowledge of complexity theory, algorithms, relational algebra and all that. The computer scientist has to correct his colleagues in a targeted manner. But: not all computer scientists are the same. Those from the university can't get around the complexity theory. At the FH, it differs from institution to institution. I once met a graduate of the Kaiserslautern University of Applied Sciences who knew nothing about graph theory. But I also know a BA student who knew halfway that there was something with knots and edges. It differs from institution to institution. If I had to decide whether or not to hire someone, I would pay very close attention to whether they are familiar with the subject of theoretical computer science. Those who do not drill thick boards during their studies remain a thin board drill. Lectures on "web technologies" are a real headache. To the original topic. Computer science is closer to mathematics than some students would like. The technical part is available, but on a more abstract level in the form of And-, Nand-, Or-gates, etc. Anyone who has electrical engineering as a minor will then get to know more. Computer science / physics is a very interesting combination that I would also have liked to have done. Wasn't offered by us, as if I was doing electrical engineering. We were the elite, so to speak. The dropout rate among computer scientists was high; some of them were never seen again very quickly. But the core of electrical engineering as a minor was always retained and the course was completed quickly and successfully. In the computer scientist, infinitesimal arithmetic inevitably withers because one mainly practices algebra and mainly works with whole numbers. Hopefully, as a physicist, you will be bombarded with integrals.



Philip wrote:> In computer scientists, infinitesimal arithmetic inevitably withers away> because one mainly does algebra and mainly works with integers. As a physicist, you will hopefully be bombed with integrals>. should I understand it to mean that more algebra than analysis is done in computer science? Complexity theory or not, it will quickly become superfluous in your job. Most inf. Program anyway and in practice often the non-specialists or IT specialists are better programmers than IT themselves and without having ever heard of complexity theory, computability theory and automaton theory.



Heinrich wrote: >> Many computer scientists do not program much or not at all. >> The opposite is my experience.> From PL you no longer program; until then, however, is the work> that has to be done. Assuming you work in a job that is essentially about creating programs. Hence, personal experience is such a thing. There are also companies that do not live from the creation of programs and that can still need IT specialists. Then it can easily happen that programming only has a relatively small share (one of them is one of those, but I know even more of them). > Anything else would also be nonsense. Any abstract model must ultimately> be programmed - the programming is far more complicated and> intellectually more demanding than the physical model - every engineer can write this down> while half asleep - but maybe not> program. Especially when you look at what today's graphics solutions look like and what is planned for the future in them. Massive concurrent programming is not something you shake off your sleeve. Something like the not quite fresh cell processor of a PS3 needs to be understood and mastered first. I'm not saying that physicists can't do it. But if they do, it is not because they are physicists, but because they are good and because they have the talent for modeling the processes. As an Inf, you have a real chance of having already encountered the basics in not-too-past study times.