A lovely theory, and yet the field is called "computer science".
Also, while I am not an expert, I suspect it is frequently useful to understand how telescopes actually work when you're trying to do astronomy with them.
Also, while I am not an expert, I suspect it is frequently useful to understand how telescopes actually work when you're trying to do astronomy with them.
I don't think the author is "wrong" about the gap between theoretical discussions computation and the actual design constraints of building usable computers. I don't know if that's really a general refutation of proving new things mathematically though. The word "computer" doesn't appear once in the paper OpenAI released, nor do they make any claims specifically about "computer science": https://github.com/openai/math/blob/main/preprints/An-explic...
It's a novel bit of math. Whether or not it means anything in the context of writing software realistically is an interesting conversation, but it doesn't have much bearing on the substance of the result itself. OpenAI is pretty explicit that they view these as research results in the domain of mathematics.
Within computer science, there is a clear mathematical tradition, an engineering tradition, and a social science tradition. There are also plenty of applied computer scientists who use computer science to study topics in other fields.