Message from discussion Two articles of interest to Sage in latest Notices
Received: by 10.50.213.101 with SMTP id nr5mr2577793igc.1.1327247164428;
Sun, 22 Jan 2012 07:46:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.50.154.193 with SMTP id vq1ls5179713igb.1.canary; Sun, 22 Jan
2012 07:46:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.50.42.199 with SMTP id q7mr1495039igl.4.1327247164128; Sun, 22
Jan 2012 07:46:04 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: ls.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of
fate...@gmail.com designates internal as permitted sender)
Received: by y5g2000pbk.googlegroups.com with HTTP; Sun, 22 Jan 2012 07:46:03
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 07:46:03 -0800 (PST)
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:9.0.1) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/9.0.1,gzip(gfe)
Subject: Re: Two articles of interest to Sage in latest Notices
From: rjf <fate...@gmail.com>
To: sage-flame <email@example.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Jan 21, 11:47=A0pm, Dima Pasechnik <dimp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Basically, if one cannot finish off a difficult proof, one can still inse=
> an obviously wrong lemma somewhere,
I am not really concerned about misleading articles about matroids,
the conclusions might be true or not, but the proof is defective.
> and use it to go on to become a Clay
> Scholar etc etc.
The Clay Institute, last I looked, relied heavily on carefully chosen
> (And it will take a lot of persistence from someone to
> force this one to acknowledge the wrong: seehttp://arxiv.org/abs/0709.129=
> yet, there is no better model known, in science or in software.
No, I think there are other models. Google uses one to determine the
of a web page to a query. EBay uses a model to determine the
a seller. I sometimes use a model that says if a piece of code is in
that it is worth looking at.
> alternative of peer-reviewed code is to get software from a commercial
> provider, who will do whatever it takes to shut you up if you found an
> error in it...
No, a vendor will attempt to convince you that its program is the best
the market for a purpose, so you will buy it rather than the
Ideally, at least. This assumes a fair market, disclosure, and the
existence of competition, assumptions that may not be correct