In which way is computer science the opposite of commutative rings?

Find out in this month’s issue of the notices of the AMS

5 thoughts on “In which way is computer science the opposite of commutative rings?

  1. Yeah, but look how badly computer science does in figure 2. Only astronomy ranks lower.

    What this indicates to me is that the selection of journals that the Zentralblatt database indexes is more diverse than what one would traditionally consider as “mathematics” papers.

  2. @ Doug Tygar: actually, as the caption of Figure 2 says, “The journal had no papers about the one subject at the bottom”, i.e., Astronomy. Same story for Figure 3.

    @ Luca: within CS, isn’t the same as “formally generalist” flagship conferences (no names necessary), biased toward a small (someone might want to ironically say “well-guarded”) set of topic?

  3. Doug, why do you say “but”? The low ranking in figure 2 is the answer to the question in the title of the post.

    I think that the reason for the low number of computer science papers in the proceedings of the AMS is simply that it wouldn’t occur to most of us to send a paper there, and the same may be true of other under-represented areas. I don’t think that the author is suggesting that the editors of those “generalist” journals are biased, but rather that the journals present a biased (in the statistical, not judgmental, sense) picture of the mathematical landscape.

  4. Everyone knows that algebraic geometry is at the top of the math hierarchy and combinatorics is at the bottom.

    Sheesh. Get with the program already!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s