Disputatio:Scientia computatoria

Unienda?

An "Scientia computatralis" et "Informatica" synonyma sunt necne? Oportet statuere, quia ambas paginas ad eandem rem Vicidata adnectere non possumus. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:06, 2 Iulii 2023 (UTC)

These are different concepts, held by some (e.g., French, German, Italian, Russian) to be synonymous but considered distinct enough to have separate articles by the largest & most comprehensive wiki in the world, not to mention some other major wikis: in Spanish, for example, the one is "Ciencias de la computación o ciencias de la informática," and the other is just plain "Informática"; likewise in Portuguese ("Ciência da computação" vs. "Informática"); likewise in Japanese ("計算機科学（けいさんきかがく、英: computer science)" vs. "インフォマティクス（英語：informatics))"; likewise in Indonesian ("Ilmu komputer" vs. "Informatika"). Some pertinent distinctions are explained here and in related passages most aptly put under the heading of "Informatics," rather than "Computer science." The article that's on the 10,000-word list at Meta is "Computer science"; hence, as a practical matter, leaving the link at "Informatica" would cost Vicipaedia one point among the wikis ranked according to their treatment of the expanded sample. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:28, 2 Iulii 2023 (UTC)

Discussion of the same distinction was long ago had in the English wiki here. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:36, 2 Iulii 2023 (UTC)

I see that this is a heated debate also in the English Wikipedia. As mentioned in Informatica, according to Informatics Europe the two English terms “informatics” and “computer science” are synonyms. However, despite this top-down bold statement, we should ask ourselves two questions:

1. Is that actually really the case in everyday spoken English?
2. Even more importantly, what do other languages, especially Romance languages, have to say?

I can be wrong, but computer science and informatics do not overlap in my mind. And to understand this point it can be useful to make a list of languages that normally call Alan Turing an “informaticus” (well, the equivalent in those languages…). Because that does not happen in Italian and French: for these two languages Turing was indeed a scientist, but not an informaticus. More precisely, scientistae ≠ informatici; unless a more niche definition of informaticus is adopted, one cannot be an informaticus by only writing books and papers but without possessing/experimenting with a computer, at least in Italian or French. Ornil elsewhere said something about not beeing a science; that is what I feel about informatics: I feel it is closer to artisanship than science. --Grufo (disputatio) 14:52, 3 Iulii 2023 (UTC)

I really don't think English terminology is determinative here. We should rely on Latin sources. The weird thing is that I have a degree in CS and a Latin-language diploma, but I don't remember what it says (and too lazy to go look for it). I am sure it doesn't say informatica, but then it's a US diploma, so of course it wouldn't. I vaguely remember that maybe it says "scientia computatoria". I would imagine Latin-language diplomas from Europe would say informatica.

Computer science is not a science, just like social sciences are not sciences, but Latin scientia does not mean science like in English either, so both computer science and informatics are a kind of scientia (knowledge). I would love to see something from e.g. the Vatican which is likely as neutral a source as we could find. Ornil (disputatio) 18:21, 3 Iulii 2023 (UTC)

Well, let's keep looking. To help us choose between "Informatica" and "Scientia computatoria", we have sources for both: Brown University (see below) and the two scientific journals using the title "[Acta] Informatica". We have no source as yet that expresses a preference between the Latin terms. Whichever term we eventually choose for the pagename, clearly "informatica" and "scientia computatoria" should both appear as lemmata in the first sentence ("scientia computatralis" also if a good source is found for that).

So, meanwhile, should there really be two pages? My impression is, no there shouldn't. Any other brief opinions on this question? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:10, 6 Iulii 2023 (UTC)

I think there should definitely be one page for this page. Grufo's argument about Italian and French may apply to a practitioner, which we can discuss separately, but the subject is fr:Informatique. Interestingly, the French page discusses various English equivalents, but it interwiki-maps to en:Computer Science. Ornil (disputatio) 01:50, 7 Iulii 2023 (UTC)

One more source, actually: From https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/la/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_30121987_sollicitudo-rei-socialis.html, Section 28:

Proindeque facultas multiplicium beneficiorum realium, quae his proxime actis temporibus scientia et technica disciplina effecerunt, re addita, quae « informatica » dicitur, non homines ex omni eripit servitute.

Corresponding English:

Nor, in consequence, does the availability of the many real benefits provided in recent times by science and technology, including the computer sciences, bring freedom from every form of slavery.

Ornil (disputatio) 02:01, 7 Iulii 2023 (UTC)

Scientia computatoria

Besides the doubts about the distinction with informatica, I see another problem, which is the choice between scientia computatralis (i.e. related to the computer, the machine) and scientia computatoria (i.e. related whatever computes, be it a machine or a human, a computatrum or a computator or a computatrix). For me the second one (i.e. computatoria) is more appropriate, because the theory does not change if who computes is a machine, a human or an alien. And we have at least one official attestation here:

SCHOOL OF COMPUTING
APPLICATION FOR CONCURRENT PROGRAMME:
BACHELOR OF COMPUTING (COMPUTER SCIENCE)
AND
GRAD SCIENTIAE MAGISTRI (SCIENTIA COMPUTATORIA (BROWN))

I am sure that with a bit of research several other attestations of scientia computatoria will pop out. --Grufo (disputatio) 14:30, 3 Iulii 2023 (UTC)

I think it's a more logical term than computatralis, because the field should have been called "computing science" or something along these lines, but the fact is that it isn't, in English. Ornil (disputatio) 18:23, 3 Iulii 2023 (UTC)

Since the word computer in computer science is an objective noun, the concept in English seems more like scientia computatrorum than scientia computandi (which might indeed be 'computing science'). Scientia computatoria seems conceptually more like 'computational science' and clearly applies to the process of computing, not to the hardware that might carry that process out. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:35, 5 Iulii 2023 (UTC)

Between these two adjectives let's look at the sources we've got.

1. Morgan's disctionary Sylva treats computatorius and computatralis as synonyms.
2. Brown University uses "scientia computatoria" for the subject we're talking about.

So, up to now, it's a win for "scientia computatoria" because Brown University uses the term in modern Latin officially. That's a reliable primary source. Morgan supports this win by treating the two alternative adjectives as synonyms. That's a tertiary source, but respectable.

If one wanted to reach a different conclusion, a dictionary that demonstrated "computatralis" to be a better choice for the subject we're talking about would help; evidence of current use of "scientia computatralis" as a Latin phrase, in a reliable primary or secondary source, would help even more. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:59, 6 Iulii 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Andrew. I think that our word should remain untied to the hardware, because the discipline deals in general with computing per se. Consider also that strictly speaking the word “computer” in “computer science” could be any kind of computer, also a human one. --Grufo (disputatio) 18:18, 6 Iulii 2023 (UTC)

If we go for this type of name and don't go for informatics, I would support using scientia computatoria. Ornil (disputatio) 01:51, 7 Iulii 2023 (UTC)

For 'computer' as an adjective (presumably = an objective noun, as in 'computer science'), Traupman gives Latin ordinatralis (p. 499). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 02:25, 7 Iulii 2023 (UTC)

That's one we hadn't noticed, or at least I hadn't. However, if people these days don't often use "ordinatr ..." for "computer ..." -- and that's my impression -- we might consider Traupman outdated in this field which has very largely been developed after he wrote. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:02, 7 Iulii 2023 (UTC)

I moved the page. In case arguments in favour of “scientia computatralis” arise we can bring the topic back to this talk page. --Grufo (disputatio) 13:56, 16 Iulii 2023 (UTC)