replace mathematics completely and totally by mma programming. can it be done?
steve_H
Wolfram said in:
http://www.graphica.com/defined/
<Start of quote>
"When I created Mathematica my goal was to build an environment
in which one could easily set up programs of essentially any kind.
And indeed the language that underlies Mathematica is based on
concepts more general and more fundamental than even those of
standard logic or mathematics. And by using these concepts it
is possible to create programs that correspond to the kinds of
rules that seem to operate in nature--or in anything like nature."
<End of quote>
Note specifically the part where he says:
"the language that underlies Mathematica is based on
concepts more general and more fundamental than even those
of standard logic or mathematics."
This made me think, is it possible to have something more
logical than logic?
And if the mma language is trully more fundamental than mathematics,
does this mean we if we use the mma language we might be able to
solve the Riemann hypothesis or Andrew Wiles might have been able
to proof fermat last theorem much more easily than he did by only
using regular mathematics?
I do not understand the above quote (I am not saying it can be wrong,
It might be true, I do not know enough about the mma language (or
mathematics itself for that matter) to judge, but I just do not fully
understand the consequences if it is true.
I've heared from some who say that functional programming is more
powerfull and general than procedudral programming, could this have
something to do with the above?
Steve
Richard Fateman
Wolfram is saying anything profound. It is just marketing hype.
To anyone who has thought about it,
programming languages and the processes
that execute computer programs can be described completely,
although very tediously, by logic and mathematics.
While I am a fan of functional programming, it is clear
that procedural programming can in fact this be used to
implement functional programs.
RJF
David Park
Stephen Wolfram is not known for his modest claims. It is not for me to say
how well they will all be borne out, but they are not total bunkum either.
I would think that any study of structure and patterns is a part of
mathematics. If it is a new structure it is just new mathematics. Maybe the
key word in the Wolfram quote is "standard" as in the applied mathematics
taught to physicists and engineers a few decades ago.
There are a lot of good mathematicians who would never use computers at all,
Andrew Wiles among them. I wish I had a mind like their's. They seem to be
able to easily visualize complicated relations in their head. The rest of
us need help. But there is no command in Mathematica that will prove the
Riemann hypothesis.
Mathematica is built on a rather powerful principle, "Everything is an
expression", and on functional programming, which seems to me to be nothing
more than the best concepts from algorithmic theory.
The functional programming constructs, such as pure functions, Map,
MapThread, Nest, Fold, Inner, Outer and others are both powerful and
efficient. Once you get used to thinking in terms of them you will never use
procedural programming again. (Well, hardly ever.)
But, Mathematica's clean design does not carry through to everything. The
graphics seems to be built around a collection of set-piece plots. Curves
and surfaces are treated differently than Lines and Points. They don't
adhere to a principle "Every graphical thing is a graphical primitive". As a
result it is fairly complicated to combine a lot of plot objects together in
a natural and consistent manner. On the other hand, Mathematica is powerful
enought so that I could write my own package to do graphics the way I want.
There is one other comment I would like to make about Mathematica, and
probably all CASs. They are not tools for doing mathematics. Rather they are
metatools for making the tools for doing mathematics. Mathematics and all
its applications is just too vast for any general computer system to have
all the commands to directly solve every problem in the form that each and
every person might wish. If some system was built that could do that, there
would probably be millions of commands and you couldn't find the one you
wanted. So, any serious subject of study or application is going to take a
certain amount of programming and customization. Many beginning users balk
at that and are disappointed if they can't immediately solve their problem
with a few simple commands. But the plain hard fact is that, whatever CAS
system one may have, it will be necessary to learn it and practice it to
make effective use of it.
David Park
dj...@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~djmp/
"steve_H" <nma...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8db3d6c8.04040...@posting.google.com...
JJS
> And if the mma language is trully more fundamental than mathematics,
This is just more crap from Wolfram, who long ago stopped being a
scientist in order to devote his efforts to peddling rubbish in order to
expand his bank account.
AC
> Please read this:
>
> Wolfram said in:
>
> http://www.graphica.com/defined/
>
> <Start of quote>
>
> "When I created Mathematica my goal was to build an environment
> in which one could easily set up programs of essentially any kind.
>
> And indeed the language that underlies Mathematica is based on
> concepts more general and more fundamental than even those of
> standard logic or mathematics. And by using these concepts it
> is possible to create programs that correspond to the kinds of
> rules that seem to operate in nature--or in anything like nature."
>
> <End of quote>
All that is a stinking marketing lie. He was only one of many
developers of what is now known as Mathematica. He mostly stole it
from his colleagues. He claims Mathematica is a computer language but
the grammar in nowhere to be found. His statement tries to sneak-in
Mr. Tungsten's bankrupt crack-head production "A New Kind of Science".
Mathematica's kernel is essentially a home made mixture of subsets of
Lisp, Miranda, and number of others with some syntactic sugar added.
If you look into textbooks on programming languages, such as the one
by R.W. Sebesta, there is no mention about Mathematica. That is surely
another proof of conspiracy of jealous, narrow minded computer
scientists. :-)
In late ninetieth, there was an interview with Mr. Tungsten in PBS. He
was asked what is actually new and special about Mathematica. Mr.
Tungsten's only answer was that before Mathematica people had to use
number of different program to accomplish the same goal.
Mathematica's mathematical typesetting is a remarkable achievement,
but the author is Neil Soiffer not Mr. Tungsten.
AC
steve_H
>
> As a
> result it is fairly complicated to combine a lot of plot objects together in
> a natural and consistent manner. On the other hand, Mathematica is powerful
> enought so that I could write my own package to do graphics the way I want.
>
mapping in 3D and it is really cool. mma does not come with such things
as your package can do. Maple comes out of the box with functions for
doing 2D and 3D conformal mapping.
mma graphics are neat, but it has no 3D live rotation as maple
has build into it. in maple, any 3D plot can be rotated and moved
with the mouse. It is amazing that mma with all the claims about
how good its graphics are (and it is good) but it still lacks such
a very basic functionality.
Another thing missing in mma when it comes to graphics, is the
ability to zoom using a mouse. This is also missing in maple.
Here matlab has both maple and mma beat hands down, as in matlab one
can both zoom and rotate 3D plots with the mouse.
Now for mma, one can download and install an external package called
mathGL3D, which is an amazing package, which allows one to do 3D
rotation, but it is not integrated in mma and does not allow zooming
and I am not sure what the future status of that package will be.
Worlfram shoud get this package (buy it or whatever) and integrate
into mma.
Another nice thing in maple graphics which mma does not have, is the
ability in maple to modify some of the plot attributes using
a pull down menu by right clicking on the plot after it is displayed,
This is really nice since one does not need to reissue the plot
command each time just to modify the axis type for example. Matlab
is the best once it comes to this, matlab plots can be modified in
many way using menu options as well.
I do not know much about the internal of the graphics, but I think
maple uses openGL, and mma is more postscript based for its plots?
Steve
Thomas Richard
> [...]
> Another thing missing in mma when it comes to graphics, is the
> ability to zoom using a mouse. This is also missing in maple.
That's right, but you should take a look at the JavaViewLib package:
http://www.mapleapps.com/powertools/javalib/javalib.shtml
> [...]
> I do not know much about the internal of the graphics, but I think
> maple uses openGL, and mma is more postscript based for its plots?
Maple uses OpenGL by default, but in Classic Worksheet you can also
access an older driver via plotsetup(gdi). The GDI driver does not
allow realtime 3-D rotation with the mouse; you rotate an empty bounding
box instead.
--
Thomas Richard
Maple Support
Scientific Computers GmbH
http://www.scientific.de
Jens-Peer Kuska
> Now for mma, one can download and install an external package called
> mathGL3D, which is an amazing package, which allows one to do 3D
> rotation, but it is not integrated in mma and does not allow zooming
> and I am not sure what the future status of that package will be.
> Worlfram shoud get this package (buy it or whatever) and integrate
> into mma.
there is a "View Point editor" and you can just click the "synchron
main"
window check box and lower the distance to the object.
Mail me if you wish to get the latest MathGL3d code.
Regards
Jens
David Park
"AC" <anc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:41f43bd0.04040...@posting.google.com...
> developers of what is now known as Mathematica. He mostly stole it
> from his colleagues.
Look under "Credits" in the About Mathematica section of Mathematica Help.
David Park
news:<Y_3cc.12156$yN6...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
>
> ability to zoom using a mouse. This is also missing in maple.
>
Mathematica does have the ability to rotate and zoom 3D graphics with the
mouse, at least on Windows (I think Mac also but I'm not certain).
If you have made a 3D plot, and saved it as plot1, say, then just use
<< RealTime3D`
Show[plot1]
<< Default3D`
You can then click on the resulting display and rotate the figure with the
mouse. If you hold down the Ctrl key you can zoom in and out with the mouse.
This is not perfect since graphics directives used in the plot, such as
colored surfaces, are thrown away.
Another problem with Mathematica graphics is that 3D rendering of surfaces
sometimes introduces spurious lines. This does not always occur and is minor
but still can mar a picture-perfect plot.
I hope that some day soon we will get a "Graphics Version" of Mathematica
that will significantly improve the graphics. I think they are probably
working on it, but I don't know when we'll see it.
The reason that the MathGroup moderator, and perhaps Wolfram, doesn't like
the use of mma instead of Mathematica is that it is unlikely to be used in
web searches. This doesn't seem to me to be sufficient reason to throw out
such postings, but I guess he does because he got tired of editing them. But
if people can write out Maple and MatLab, instead of using ml and mp, say,
they could probably also write out Mathematica.
David Park
AC
That is completely consistent with my claims.
The first edition of the Mathematica book (1988) lists as developers
Stephen Wolfram, Daniel R. Grayson, Roman E. Maeder, Henry Cejtin,
Theodore Gray, Stephen M. Omohundro, David Bellman, Jerry Keiper
The original developers decided to sue Wolfram, who usurped the
ownership of Mathematica, but the solidarity of the original group
broke. Some of them (Maeder, Keiper, Gray) decided, under skilled
pressure of Wolfram, to back off. These names will be mentioned in
future as the contributors. Grayson and others decided to go with the
litigation-their names will be erased.
The second edition of the book (1991) lists a second tier developers
whose contributions were much less substantial than the original group
and puts the number of lines of code of Version 2 at one-third of
million. There is a short comment saying "Version 1.0 of Mathematica
contained code by David Bellman, Henry Cejtin, Daniel Grayson, Jerry
Keiper, Roman Maeder, Stephen Omohundro, and Stephen Wolfram." The
message translated into plain English is clear: "Maybe there were some
guys participating in the first version, but the code has been
re-written anyway." There is another small detail. The original
developers were co-owners, the second tier were just employees.
The third and later editions of the book (1991) list just people
involved with the book publication, there is no mention about the
program authors.
Since Mathematica 3.0 on-line credits include practically anybody in
the company including sales and marketing people. The list is attached
to this e-mail.
Why Wolfram, who credits so generously so many people, does not list
Grayson and others original developers? Also, if he truly thinks of
all these people are contributors, why he frequently repeats "I
created Mathematica"?
The reason is simple, by listing a big crowd of people, majority with
marginal or none contributions, he completely dilutes the role of true
developers. His own role is constantly emphasized, and in the best
tradition of Goebbels, public sees him as THE creator.
AC
Attachment: The current Mathematica credits.
Original concept by:
Stephen Wolfram
Front end concept by:
Theodore W. Gray
Kernel language design by:
Stephen Wolfram
Version 5.0 kernel lead developers:
Jeff Adams
Anton Antonov
Brett Champion
Andrew de Laix
Todd Gayley
Roger Germundsson
Unal Goktas
Yifan Hu
Rob Knapp
Zbigniew Leyk
David Librik
Dan Lichtblau
Peter Overmann
Schoeller Porter
Mark Sofroniou
Adam Strzebonski
David Terr
Tom Wickham-Jones
Additional senior kernel developers:
Victor Adamchik
Alexei Bocharov
Ulises Cervantes-Pimentel
Birk Huber
Jerry Keiper
Bo Liu
Roman Maeder
Oleg Marichev
Sirpa Saarinen
Bruce K. Smith
Hon-Wah Tam
Aurel Trandafir
Quoc-Nam Tran
Michael Trott
Robby Villegas
David Withoff
Stephen Wolfram
Software technology director:
Peter Overmann
Front end language design by:
Theodore W. Gray
Neil Soiffer
Stephen Wolfram
Front end development manager:
John Fultz
Windows lead developers:
John Fultz
Chris Hill
David Librik
Patrick Rice
Macintosh lead developers:
Theodore W. Gray
Bobby Hoggard
Peter Overmann
Rob Raguet-Schofield
Unix lead developers:
Peter Overmann
Schoeller Porter
Steve Pritchett
Kai Xin
Additional platform developers:
David Arcoleo
John Brewer
Steven Bytnar
Chris Carlson
Thomas Chin
John Cwikla
Karen Fernsler
Ron Fisher
Todd Gayley
Scott Goodrich
Jason Harris
P.J. Hinton
David Ingram
Susan Kapitza
Tim Lottes
Don Neufeld
K. J. Paradise
Bryan Prusha
Mike Rasberry
Leland Ray
Andy Ritger
Tom Sherlock
Doug Stein
David Stes
Toby Weingartner
Expression formatting lead developers:
Jason Harris
Neil Soiffer
Additional expression formatting developers:
P.J. Hinton
Robby Villegas
Tom Wickham-Jones
MathLink lead developer:
Steve Wilson
Additional MathLink developers:
Tom Hildrich
Kevin Leuthold
Alex MacAulay
Shawn Sheridan
Lead XML developers:
Jason Harris
Chris Hill
Imran Rashid
Additional XML developers:
David Arcoleo
P.J. Hinton
Lead J/Link, .NETLink developer:
Todd Gayley
Additional software component developers:
Jeff Adams
P.J. Hinton
Dale Horton
Chris LaReau
Steve Pritchett
Terry Robb
Chris Williamson
Chris Willett
Steve Wilson
Standard packages development coordinators:
Louis J. D'Andria
John Novak
Lead package developers:
Roger Germundsson
Jerry Keiper
Roman Maeder
Steven Skiena
Mark Sofroniou
Adam Strzebonski
David Withoff
Additional package developers:
Victor Adamchik
Jeff Adams
Alexei Bocharov
George Beck
Ian Brooks
Michael Chan
Arun Chandra
Serguei Chebalov
Barbara Ercolano
Todd Gayley
Damrong Guoy
Jason Harris
Yu He
Dale Horton
David Jacobson
Jason Kastner
Robert Knapp
Dan Lichtblau
Matthew Markert
Emily Martin
Kevin McIsaac
Rolf Mertig
Marko Petkovsek
Erwann Rogard
Sirpa Saarinen
Anwar Shiekh
Michael Trott
Vu Kim Tuan
Ilan Vardi
Stan Wagon
Eric Weisstein
Audra Wenzlow
Tom Wickham-Jones
Stephen Wolfram
Lead demo developers:
George Beck
Michael Trott
Stephen Wolfram
Version 5.0 release director:
Roger Germundsson
Version 5.0 release manager:
Peter Overmann
Version 5.0 lead project manager:
George Beck
Version 5.0 project managers:
Sarah Duensing
Louise Holubek
Leigh Ann Miller
Kelli Wendt
Additional project managers:
Catherine Boucher
Susan Kittivanichkulkrai
Cindy McKendall
Melanie Mohler
Version 5.0 design overseers:
George Beck
John Fultz
Roger Germundsson
Theodore W. Gray
Tom Wickham-Jones
Stephen Wolfram
Design analysts:
John Novak
Robby Villegas
Jerry Walsh
Software quality assurance manager:
Arnoud Buzing
Quality assurance lead engineers:
Jeanne Balbach
Rachelle Bergmann
Bhuvanesh Bhatt
Shiral Devmal
Theresa Fulton
Kurt Gimbel
Darren Glosemeyer
Jay Hawkins
Shiho Inui
George Kambouroglou
Devendra Kapadia
Bill Landis
Keitaro Matsuoka
Anna Pakin
Krishnan Ranjani
Cindie Strater
Malgorzata Strzebonska
Angela Thelen
Robby Villegas
Jay Warendorff
Carlos Ylagan
Additional quality assurance staff/contributors:
Abi Akanbi
Nate Anthony
Bill Austin
Bryce Austin
Mukund Bhagavan
Catherine Boucher
Scott Brown
Larry Calmer
Cynthia Compere
Erik Burd
Eric Bynum
Louis D'Andria
Emre Demiralp
Karen Fernsler
Anna Fridman
Jon Hall
Pacia Harper
Matt Kohner
Sang-Hyun Lee
Kevin Leuthold
Tim Lottes
Anna Marichev
Cindy McKendall
Matthew Markert
Nadya Markin
Patty Merkin
Scott Midler
Ilya Milshteyn
Bob Naiman
Uchenna Ndulue
Sangyul Pak
Hyungkoo Park
Jamie Peterson
Eric Rimbey
Bruce Rogers
Monica Shaw
Anwar Shiekh
Jill Smith
Rob Theis
Paula Voegel
Eric Weisstein
Courtney Wirth
Bill Wood
David Zych
Prerelease test coordinators:
Eric Bynum
Misty Moseley
Additional senior technical staff:
Igor Bakshee
Ian Collier
Alan DeGuzman
Andrew de Laix
Yu He
David Hillman
Brenda Hunt
Steve Hunt
Michelle Koranda
Scott Koranda
Rory Murtagh
Eric Weisstein
Lucy Zamiatina
Primary documentation by:
Stephen Wolfram
Documentation managers:
Andy Hunt
Andre Kuzniarek
Pavi Sandhu
Kristin Schar
Caroline Small
Additional documentation by:
George Beck
Philip Boyland
Victoria Bush
Brett Champion
Todd Gayley
Roger Germundsson
Joe Grohens
P.J. Hinton
Dale Horton
Steve Peter
Pavi Sandhu
Jerry Walsh
Jay Warendorff
Paul Wellin
Document production:
Larry Adelston
Todd Akers
Greg Martel
Shaun McCance
Richard Miske
Buddy Ritchie
David Rogers
Tony Sarno
Glenn Scholebo
Chad Slaughter
Philip Wall
Jay Warendorff
Bill White
Document quality assurance:
Suzanne Bachmann
George Beck
Renee Besel
Rebecca Bigelow
Julie Davison
Christian Dean
Amy Earl
Emilie Finn
Mary Jane Harshbarger
Louise Holubek
Susan Kittivanichkulkrai
Marcia Krause
Richard Martin
Connie Neil
Marian Peden
Jennifer Peterson
Alexandra Pfeifer
Jan Progen
Rebecca Ritger
Carlene Roberts
Kristin Schar
Lynda Sherman
Kathy Shigeta
Caroline Small
Renee Smith
Jerry Walsh
Additional publications staff:
Marsha Brofka
Madhav Chari
Rita Disroe
Belle Drake
Julia Guelfi
Joe Kaiping
Laurie Kaufmann
Kurt Kessinger
Angela Latham
Wendy Leung
Amy Megginson
Carol Ordal
Glenn Scholebo
Jennie Scott
Lorraine Selander
Timothy Williams
Internationalization managers:
Christophe Deplace
Andreas Lauschke
Yoshiaki Takezawa
Internationalization:
Caron Allen
Yuko Barnes
Catherine Brassac
Nora Chaal
John Garvey
Laurent Gasquet
Olivier Gerard
Joe Grohens
Takako Halteman
Marcia Krause
Kosaku Nagasaka
Yusuke Nakane
Motoko Nakazato
Kazumi Ohira
Steve Peter
Minako Sasaki
Mayumi Shimabukuro
Jennifer Stallard
Akihiko Takahashi
Natsumi Takezawa
Makoto Tanabe
Nicole Thesz
Lianne Wyschka
Tetsu Yamaguchi
Design director:
Jeremy Davis
Lead 5.0 graphic designers:
Naoko Hinoshita
Jody Jasinski
Heidi Kellner
Alberto Navata
Samantha Son
Kara Wilson
Graphic designers:
John Bonadies
Andre Kuzniarek
Linda Kwon
John Lee
Jennifer Lofgren
Ann Maroso
Kimberly Michael
Wendy Morgan
Mark Pierce
Meadow Sabelko
Malgorzata Zawislak
Lead graphic image creators:
Igor Bakshee
George Beck
Michael Trott
Lead font designers:
Andy Hunt
Andre Kuzniarek
Additional font design by:
Gregg Snyder
Galapagos, Inc.
Glenda de Guzman
Type Solutions, Inc.
Lead marketing manager:
Lars Hohmuth
Strategic 5.0 marketing managers:
Jeff Bryant
Yezabel Dooley
Brendan Elli
Valerie Funk
Jon McLoone
Anu Sandhu
Additional strategic marketing staff:
Cynthia Compere
Andrea Gerlach
Kristin Kummer
Julie Moon-Benner
Silve Parviainen
Kurt Peckman
Debra Pierce
Julie Pitney
Todd Stevenson
Melanie Traxler
Paul Wellin
Cecilia Zanini
Information channels director:
Jean Buck
Information channels 5.0 lead staff:
Maryka Baraka
John Caparoon
Lisa Denlinger
Lori Goodman
David Lartigue
Carol Ordal
Ben Wilson
Additional information channels staff:
Heather Albright
Kathy Bautista
Tony DaGiau
Carrie Driscoll
David Gehrig
Leslie Hammer
Judith Quinlan
Daryn Sharp
Matt Talbott
Christy Uden
Eileen Yeoh
Lead international managers:
Conrad Wolfram
Alan Skillman
Strategic and international development:
Conrad Wolfram
R&D management:
Roger Germundsson
Overall management:
Stephen Wolfram
Jean-Michel Collard
As to MMA it's a great piece of software , a "mixture" of C , Lisp, Prolog ;
in fact a huge Lisp-Machine.Nothing new under the sun.
Cheers.
JM
Vladimir Bondarenko
SH> And if the mma language is trully more fundamental than
SH> mathematics, does this mean we if we use the mma language
SH> we might be able to solve the Riemann hypothesis or Andrew
SH> Wiles might have been able to proof fermat last theorem much
SH> more easily than he did by only using regular mathematics?
There is a nice Technical Report 93-50, Risc-Linz Institute,
Johannes Kepler University, 1993 written by Bruno Buchberger
http://www.risc.uni-linz.ac.at/people/buchberg/
Mathematica: A system for doing mathematics by computer?
Upon reading the report you will see many interesting points.
Vladimir Bondarenko
http://www.cybertester.com/
http://maple.bug-list.org/
http://www.CAS-testing.org/
................................................................
steve_H
> Mathematica does have the ability to rotate and zoom 3D graphics with the
> mouse, at least on Windows (I think Mac also but I'm not certain).
>
> If you have made a 3D plot, and saved it as plot1, say, then just use
>
> << RealTime3D`
> Show[plot1]
> << Default3D`
>
> You can then click on the resulting display and rotate the figure with the
> mouse. If you hold down the Ctrl key you can zoom in and out with the mouse.
>
Thanks, that helps. I heared about RealTime3D` and used it, but did
not know about the zooming part.
> This is not perfect since graphics directives used in the plot, such as
> colored surfaces, are thrown away.
>
Also the axis labels (the ticks) and I think title of the plot disappeared.
But at least it is better than nothing.
>
> I hope that some day soon we will get a "Graphics Version" of Mathematica
> that will significantly improve the graphics. I think they are probably
> working on it, but I don't know when we'll see it.
What is taking them so long?? Matlab had this stuff for ever. mma has
been around for almost, what 20 years now??
>
> The reason that the MathGroup moderator, and perhaps Wolfram, doesn't like
> the use of mma instead of Mathematica is that it is unlikely to be used in
> web searches. This doesn't seem to me to be sufficient reason to throw out
> such postings, but I guess he does because he got tired of editing them. But
> if people can write out Maple and MatLab, instead of using ml and mp, say,
> they could probably also write out Mathematica.
>
> David Park
The name mathematica is stupid.
It is so close to mathematics and it is long.
I will not injure my hand having to type so many letters each
time just that Worfram is happy.
He should have picked a small easy name to type. Abbreviaton
always come along when a name is too long to type. life is too short
to spend it typing long names when one can type 3 letters instead
and get the same result. maple is small name, so need to shorten it,
and matlab is short. I think the crtical length is about 6 letters,
after that people will abbreviate things. 3 letters is perfect.
mma is a good easy name. I suggest Wolfram company changes mathematica
name to mma effective immediatly.
Richard Fateman
steve_H wrote:
>\
>
> mma is a good easy name. I suggest Wolfram company changes mathematica
> name to mma effective immediatly.
HAHAHA
When I wrote a system that had the same syntax as mathematica (2.0),
I called it MockMathematica, and they threatened to sue. So I called
it MockMMA. If they change their name, maybe I could threaten to sue
them!
RJF
Wayne Brown
Now *there's* a lawsuit I'd like to see! :-)
--
Wayne Brown (HPCC #1104) | "When your tail's in a crack, you improvise
fwb...@bellsouth.net | if you're good enough. Otherwise you give
| your pelt to the trapper."
"e^(i*pi) = -1" -- Euler | -- John Myers Myers, "Silverlock"
Vladimir Bondarenko
RJF> HAHAHA
RJF> When I wrote a system that had the same syntax as mathematica
RJF> (2.0), I called it MockMathematica, and they threatened to
RJF> sue.
Gee, that's totally new for me! I must admit that I am very
surprised to hear this. Do you think you could provide more
details? Particularly, what in your opinion, could be the
rationale behind such an unusual action?
RJF> So I called it MockMMA. If they change their name,
RJF> maybe I could threaten to sue them!
R O O O T F L!! I feel a different man now, I am feeling 10
years younger - much thanks!
Vladimir Bondarenko
...................................................................
Bill Rowe
nma...@hotmail.com (steve_H) wrote:
> The name mathematica is stupid.
> It is so close to mathematics and it is long.
> I will not injure my hand having to type so many letters each
> time just that Worfram is happy.
This is nothing more than the "arrogance" others accuse Wolfram of in a
different form.
> He should have picked a small easy name to type. Abbreviaton
> always come along when a name is too long to type. life is too short
> to spend it typing long names when one can type 3 letters instead
> and get the same result. maple is small name, so need to shorten it,
> and matlab is short. I think the crtical length is about 6 letters,
> after that people will abbreviate things. 3 letters is perfect.
If it truly is too difficult for you to type Mathematical instead of
mma, then simply use on of the various software tools that automatically
expand abbreviations as you type and be done with it.
--
To reply via email subtract one hundred nine
Edwin Clark
"Vladimir Bondarenko" <v...@cybertester.com> wrote in message
news:0enob97poe3y@legacy...
> On 4 Apr 2004 16:56:28 -0700, steve_H wrote:
>
> There is a nice Technical Report 93-50, Risc-Linz Institute,
> Johannes Kepler University, 1993 written by Bruno Buchberger
> http://www.risc.uni-linz.ac.at/people/buchberg/
>
> Mathematica: A system for doing mathematics by computer?
>
What is the link for this paper. I didn't see how to download it from
Buchberger's site.
Vladimir Bondarenko
EC> "Vladimir Bondarenko" <v...@cybertester.com> wrote in message
VB>> Mathematica: A system for doing mathematics by computer?
EC> What is the link for this paper. I didn't see how to download
EC> it from Buchberger's site.
Actually, it was also published in DISCO'93 papers as
Invited Talk at DISCO'93, Gmunden, Austria, Sept. 1993.
and reprinted in
A. Miola, M. Temperini (eds), Advances in the Design of Symbolic
Computation Systems, Springer Wien - New York, 1997, pp. 2-29.
I have made an attempt to find a file over the Internet but it
seems there is no simple solution there. So I have just asked
Prof Buchberger to add this paper to his site; usually he acts
fairly quickly.
A decade ago Tudor Jebelean send me a printout of it; I have no
file; anyway, this a copyrighted stuff and I am a lawful citizen :)
So right away I am sending you an abstract; I hope you will be
able to download the file in the very near future.
Abstract
This paper is presented in the form of a Mathematica notebook.
This fact should be conceived as a symbolic gesture that
expresses my high appreciation and admiration for the wholistic
oeuvre of Stephen Wolfram with its many facets: mathematics,
language design, algorithms, software and system design,
teaching and publication tools, applications, and -- yes --
business, marketing, popularization. I like his way of doing
and succeeding in doing things many of us were only speaking
or dreaming about.
Hence if, in the present paper, I will criticize the basic
tenet of Mathematica this is not meant to decrease the
invaluable merits of Stephen's work. Rather, it is my
sincere hope and wish that my analysis might help to make
soon further progress in achieving, asymptotically, the
goal of "doing mathematics by computer". Also, my proposal
will show that this goal may well be achieved by suitable
modifications and extensions of Mathematica and similar
systems.
Best regards and wishes,
Vladimir Bondarenko
.................................................................
A N Niel
> expresses my high appreciation and admiration for the wholistic oeuvre
> of Stephen Wolfram with its many facets:
When you use show-off words, you should at least spell them properly.
Vladimir Bondarenko
BB>> expresses my high appreciation and admiration for the
BB>> wholistic oeuvre of Stephen Wolfram with its many facets:
ANN> When you use show-off words, you should at least spell
ANN> them properly.
I was wondering have your ever read the whole paper?
("Mathematica: A system for doing mathematics by computer?")
I assure you that Prof Buchberger's English is rich and
impressive and I can bet my bottom dollar on the fact that
he certainly can spell this your 'holistic' correctly.
So why 'wholistic' ?
My interpretation: it might be a subconscious typo; in other
words, BB might banter with SW (subconsciously, without ever
noticing this!)... compare... "His Britannic Maiesty"
Then this mock 'w' conveys a droplet of veiled sneer, a
vestige of tongue-in-cheek candour.
Personally, while reading this paper I cannot help feeling
an intangible touch of kind of this...
Maybe to see BB's point more clearly you may wish to read
some papers by Douglas Lenat (on AM, Eurisko, CyC etc)
Best wishes,
Vladimir Bondarenko
>In article <8db3d6c8.04040...@posting.google.com>,
> nma...@hotmail.com (steve_H) wrote:
SH>> The name mathematica is stupid.
Personally, though you and me do not much like to type 'Mathematica'
and additionally am toooo lazy to write a macro :) I find this name
to be pleasing and deep, it caresses my ears. Why? I do not know,
it is like poetry, someone likes Shakespeare, someone prefers Conan
Doyle. But there is a hidden point I enjoy a lot and would like to
share with you as I see you passion for symbolic computations and
your bright venturous mind.
Please consider the ultimate goal of SW, (actually, only one of his
ultimate goals, www.stephenwolfram.com ):
Mathematica: A system for doing mathematics (!) by computer
This IS a formidable challenge and a noble intellectual task nobody
before SW had set before himself (at least to SUCH an extent) and a
very important and I would say lucrative industrial task and in case
of success a genuine jewel for all us the math fans.
I believe, the very name Mathematica is a tool, a reminder for SW
himself to keep really focused on 1 of his ultimate lifetime goals.
In my opinion, SW is one of the world's best top managers, in the
highest sense of this word. He is also an excellent practical
psychologist, too.
On a personal note: just for the same reason, I acquired from WRI
nice coffee mugs I like a lot. Every time I sip coffee (which I do
quite often, so to say, industrial engineering :) I think again and
again about Mathematica and how to improve it in the fastest and
the most inexpensive way.
You see, the proud word 'Mathematica' is a kind of Royal Standard.
To christen his flagship environment Mathematica is like to raise
the standard of revolt against boredom of routine daily calculations
and far much more.
In Stephen Wolfram, it strikes me, if I think at times his move
is not the best, more than one time I have seen that in the long
run this ostensibly weak move was just a step to a stronger move.
But I did not see this second move, so I could infer erroneously
that he had been wrong.
About SW, remember, he seems to have an almost fantastic habit and
ability to optimize globally, and strategic planning seems to be an
integral part of his thinking process.
Stephen Wolfram is a highly intuitive person, too. Like any strong
mathematician is.
SH>> It is so close to mathematics
Why, sure! Why, of course that was it!
SH>> and it is long.
Complain to Pythagor :)
BR> This is nothing more than the "arrogance" others accuse
BR> Wolfram of in a different form.
Keith Geddes is a very polite person. But what is the good of being
polite if Maple is getting more and more buggy? ;)
Also, about this much discussed "arrogance". There were many many
hundreds variegated comments on A New Kind Of Science, but it seems,
an important point was not still voiced.
As I can see it, A New Kind Of Science is, apart from many other
considerations, a kind of an outstanding work of fiction; a saga,
or, a poem.
By the way, this is why SW did not add references, that's why he
use "I" etc.
Do you think you would like to read a kind of the following
....
To be[8113], or not to be,
That is the question[8114]
Whether[8115] it is noble[8116]
:)
Even more important that by publishing A New Kind Of Science
Stephen Wolfram has established a new empire bearing hopefully
a terrific potential yet not understood properly.
Stephen Wolfram wages a war, a war for intelligence, a war for
himself and for us, do you really realize it?
Publishing A New Kind Of Science as a single book seems to be
the best move possible as being scattered over years and over
many papers as SW points out himself would degrade the brilliancy
of the dyes, would blunt the effect, would reduce tension, and
would unloose the grip one needs to set forward.
The empire is huge and now a crucial issue is to control it, and
this task is almost intractable just in view of the very fact that
the terrain under control is unseen in scope, the most penetrant
eye cannot take in the whole scene of operations and its beyond
human powers however the warlord is puissant and wise, to see all
the details and not all is perfect currently over this empire and
its Mathematica kingdom; on which account I will add some comments
soon.
Best wishes,
Vladimir Bondarenko
...................................................................