Computer science is not an exact science.

JonMyrlennBailey

Active member
I believe this because the Trainz Railroad Simulator software has certain inconsistencies. This includes occasional failure of drivers to execute commands or execute them in a correct fashion. This also has to do with lack of accuracy or precision. A train may stop at a different spot on the track each and every time when told to DRIVE TO a given track marker repeatedly. So, software operation might be unpredictable at times.

People of scientific mind who like perfection, quantitative measurability, consistency and predictability might like chemistry and physics as scientific disciplines as opposed to other hit and miss sciences as biology, medicine, meteorology and computer science. Mother nature is very fickle about weather and living organisms, including human bodies. Some individual persons can be successfully treated for cancer while others are not so lucky.

I don't know why computers can be so inconsistent in operation at times because they should be governed strictly by laws of physics including the principles of electronics and mathematics.
 
As someone once said, "Computers aren't smart, they just think they are".
I have also read that it is assumed there are from 15 to 50 errors in every 1000 lines of code.
Add to that that they are trying to code for multiple versions of Windows (and Mac!), which itself probably adheres to the error stats above, and multiple graphics cards with multiple driver versions.
It's a small miracle it all works together as well as it does!
 
"Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence."

"Computer science is the study of computation, automation, and information"

Computers generally work in binary or off and on switches. There is a certain amount of probability involved most memory cells a collection of electrons and we know from studying physics that we can either predict where they will be or when they will be but not both. Note here physics uses probability as well. So we can say most of the time computers will remember their state correctly. Chemistry certainly uses things like probability or yields but you might not have covered this at school.

Then you get to computer programming which is a little different. I think what you are trying to say is that it is difficult to write a computer program that has no bugs. True enough but think of the complexity.

For TS22 there are roughly 24,464,000 switches or memory states or 2 to the 24,464,000 which is a very large number. Getting it to work at all is quite hard work.

Cheerio John
 
I found this definition of EXACT SCIENCE in my dictionary and got to thinking: I have an AS in CIS, networking management with Microsoft concentration. I am all too familiar with the fickle nature of computers.


exact science


noun
a science, as chemistry or physics, that deals with quantitatively measurable phenomena of the material universe.


I would have to say arithmetic and mathematics fall into the category of exact sciences as well. Numbers and their computations are absolutely perfect and infallible. The expression 9 multiplied by 5 is equal to 45 is universal and unchanging. The calculations never lie. I would have to say much about computer error is attributed to human error as in the faults of software engineers. I knew a man who was a chemist and claimed that only physics and chemistry were PURE natural sciences.

 
I found this definition of EXACT SCIENCE in my dictionary and got to thinking: I have an AS in CIS, networking management with Microsoft concentration. I am all too familiar with the fickle nature of computers.


exact science


noun
a science, as chemistry or physics, that deals with quantitatively measurable phenomena of the material universe.


I would have to say arithmetic and mathematics fall into the category of exact sciences as well. Numbers and their computations are absolutely perfect and infallible. The expression 9 multiplied by 5 is equal to 45 is universal and unchanging. The calculations never lie. I would have to say much about computer error is attributed to human error as in the faults of software engineers. I knew a man who was a chemist and claimed that only physics and chemistry were PURE natural sciences.


I don't know which dictionary you are using but science is the study of things. Neither Chemistry or physics are exact especially as you get into more detail. There is an expression that we use lies to explain science to children to simplify things for them we save the more complex explanations to people who have more knowledge and framework and even then we use approximate lies according to their knowledge.

Even mathematics sometimes we think know that an algorithm but finding the proof is a different matter.

9 by 5 using base 12 would give you 39 by the way. Other bases would give you a different result.

Cheerio John B.Sc.
 
I would have to say arithmetic and mathematics fall into the category of exact sciences as well. Numbers and their computations are absolutely perfect and infallible.

Well, no. Arithmetic may be predictable** - 2 + 2 always equals 4 (unless you are using the trinary number system in which case 2 + 2 = 11 :D) - but mathematics is not.

Warning: Cerebral "stuff" ahead.

In 1931 a mathematician, Kurt Godel, published his Incompleteness Theorem in which he demonstrated that there were statements (formal theories or axioms) in mathematics that could never be proven. This was followed by the work of other mathematicians including Alan Turing who proved that in computing there was no way of determining if a program would halt or run forever - today this is usually taken to mean that there is no way to prove beforehand that a program has "bugs", or not.

** One of the mathematicians that followed on from Godel's work was able to show that "truth" in arithmetic cannot be defined using arithmetic - so I guess that not even arithmetic is an exact science.

My thoughts.
 
Last edited:
I don't know which dictionary you are using but science is the study of things. Neither Chemistry or physics are exact especially as you get into more detail. There is an expression that we use lies to explain science to children to simplify things for them we save the more complex explanations to people who have more knowledge and framework and even then we use approximate lies according to their knowledge.

Even mathematics sometimes we think know that an algorithm but finding the proof is a different matter.

9 by 5 using base 12 would give you 39 by the way. Other bases would give you a different result.

Cheerio John B.Sc.


Oh, here is the link to my dictionary:

Exact science Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
 
Instead of moaning like you always do may I suggest channeling that frustration and energy into helping N3V improve their product by joining them as a remote working member.

Software engineering is outside of my realm of knowledge. Game sims are only as intelligent as their human writers. Any software governing the operation of autonomous transportation in the real world would have to be of a much higher caliber than that of the AI feature in this N3V game. Hardware should be bar none to boot. There was a case back in the 1970's when a BART regional transit train in California was involved in a deadly collision due to a computer screw-up. I think that was the earliest application of autonomous transportation.
 
I believe this because the Trainz Railroad Simulator software has certain inconsistencies. This includes occasional failure of drivers to execute commands or execute them in a correct fashion. This also has to do with lack of accuracy or precision. A train may stop at a different spot on the track each and every time when told to DRIVE TO a given track marker repeatedly. So, software operation might be unpredictable at times.

People of scientific mind who like perfection, quantitative measurability, consistency and predictability might like chemistry and physics as scientific disciplines as opposed to other hit and miss sciences as biology, medicine, meteorology and computer science. Mother nature is very fickle about weather and living organisms, including human bodies. Some individual persons can be successfully treated for cancer while others are not so lucky.

I don't know why computers can be so inconsistent in operation at times because they should be governed strictly by laws of physics including the principles of electronics and mathematics.

Computing qualifies as an exact science. With Trainz you have to deal with assets that may not be well formed, and can cause leaks. The assets are instructions for the core program to run. A building or a structure of some kind, that is just a static piece of scenery, is just an instruction set. Just a bunch of characters read by part of the core program called the renderer. Many asset creators try to bend the limits of the core, or the assets were made in the past when the core was different. Everytime the core is updated, it may cause some assets to behave differently from how they did in the past.

Then add an asset with a script with a random number generator, now you just added chaos, which may visually add realism to the planar core. Doing so may change the cores timing on other events, like drive to trackmark. As you say it may never land on the same spot twice. The two things are totally unrelated for the user of the sim, but the core knows that some other asset did something for a random amount of time, and waiting till done to execute the drive to trackmark reached destination check. Oh ya, TurfFX uses random stuff. Maybe a blade of grass could effect the timing of something else (most likely does not happen visually, ie only the core knows)

Then you have a route with 1000's of assets competeing for the core's 'clock'. A better CPU and GPU may handle all this better, but even the best may 'break' at some point. Then comes the finger pointing...

I have been a computer programmer and network engineer since the 80's. These are just my takes on this subject and open to ridicule
 
@ Christopher824 Nicely put.

AI:
Having dabbled in programming AI for an aborted attempt at making a game back at the turn of the century, it isn't easy, often one step forwards equals two steps back hours of testing and examining code to see where the typo is etc. and things were a lot simpler back then! I gave up and decided just to stick to making utilities for myself and mods for games and spent a few years alpha and beta testing for a Linux Distro, far easier looking for other peoples errors than your own!

Game Coding:
Far easier if you have a couple of hundred or more coders to cross check everything but even then high end games get released with bugs, personally given the small size of N3V I think they do pretty well, even if it's not quite right all of the time.

Hardware:
Never going to be perfect IMO.
Given the number of issues the likes of Intel and AMD have with processors with various faults, flaws and exploits, variations in quality of motherboard components and construction, not to mention poor quality control in some cases, it's pretty clear to me that there is no exact science, more of a best fit scenario for a given purpose and it's probably impossible to test for every eventuality.

Science:
Often based on unproven facts, example being the Big Bang, doesn't wash with me as you can't get something from nothing, if there even was a Big Bang there must have been something in existence to have caused it, personally I'm inclined to think that the Universe is either infinite or there are many of them.
 
The other issue with trainz is it tries to get things done in a certain time frame. 30 fps means the time for the program to render things is limited which means sometimes things get done and sometimes not depending what else is in the scene.

Cheerio John
 
...Science:
Often based on unproven facts, example being the Big Bang, doesn't wash with me as you can't get something from nothing, if there even was a Big Bang there must have been something in existence to have caused it, personally I'm inclined to think that the Universe is either infinite or there are many of them.

Basic physics;

Matter can change form through physical and chemical changes, but through any of these changes matter is conserved. The same amount of matter exists before and after the change—none is created or destroyed. This concept is called the Law of Conservation of Mass

I see FTL in 10 more years
 
Basic physics;

Matter can change form through physical and chemical changes, but through any of these changes matter is conserved. The same amount of matter exists before and after the change—none is created or destroyed. This concept is called the Law of Conservation of Mass

I see FTL in 10 more years

Fusion and E=MCsquared

As I said earlier we use lies in science sometimes to explain a simplified concept.

John
 
I have been building, programming, and using computers since 1963, I've never been completely sure they were going to do what I wanted them to do despite the exquisite care I took in programming the dang thing. As we used to say: Bug is bugs and they'll always be there.

Bill
 
Interesting philosophical directions this thread is taking.

Computing qualifies as an exact science. ..... now you just added chaos.... Maybe a blade of grass [TurfFX] could effect the timing of something else...

I don't think that anything really qualifies as an "exact science" and you have hit upon one of the reasons - chaos. There are many examples in physics where we know all the laws of motion that govern the behaviour of a system but we are unable to predict its "state" (position, speed, appearance, etc) at every point in the future. The "3 body problem" in astronomy is one well known example. The universe is not the perfect clockwork system that scientists thought it was at the end of the 19th century. There are other examples in mechanics such as the chaotic motion of a double pendulum system.

Science: Often based on unproven facts, example being the Big Bang, doesn't wash with me as you can't get something from nothing, if there even was a Big Bang there must have been something in existence to have caused it.

Correct. It is a common misconception that the Big Bang Theory states that the universe came from nothing. It states that it came from "something" that existed prior to "the event" but, with our current understanding, we cannot know exactly what the "something" was (and may never know). Interestingly, modern quantum theory does allow for "virtual particles" to simply "pop in and out of existence" from "nothing", or more correctly, the "vacuum energy field" that permeates the universe. This field has been experimentally observed and explains phenomena such as the Casimir Effect and the Lamb Shift. Stephen Hawking theorised that black holes will eventually disappear because they radiate the virtual particles created from the vacuum energy field in a process now known as Hawking Radiation.

My contributions to the "chaos".
 
Last edited:
One must also keep in mind that a THEORY, is just that. It is not accepted as proven fact (except by some scientists who can be as religious about their theories as theologians can be about religion), but it is based on enough information to make it a possibility or probability. It is something upon which further research can be undertaken. One of the big bang theories surmises that it may have resulted from a former universe that collapsed into itself until it became nearly a single point so dense it caused the big bang. Take it with a grain of salt. I have also read that scientists can extrapolate what happened from a millionth of a second after the big bang, but that first millionth of a second is still a mystery.
 
That first millionth of a second is where new theories of physics will be "born" because it is where the current theories (general relativity and quantum theory) seem to break down.
 
Basic physics;

Matter can change form through physical and chemical changes, but through any of these changes matter is conserved. The same amount of matter exists before and after the change—none is created or destroyed. This concept is called the Law of Conservation of Mass

This statement was made in a earlier post. It is mostly true for chemical reactions. But not true in general. At relativistic speeds, mass increases or transitions to energy.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top