Anton Vredegoor wrote: > Paul Rubin wrote(>>): [...]
> All of the books writers seem to have not caught up with the idea of > hyperlinks and continue to dwell in neolithical paper dreams :-) > > If they only woke up and let someone like me write some Visual Python > code to illustrate the algorithms or even let me just write Python > implementations of the algorithms to accompany the books, I'd probably > have work for years to come. > > >>Math is a beautiful subject, and is not at all secret or inaccessible. >>Try to broaden your horizons a bit ;-). > > > I hope you're not trying to outexpertize me. You seem to be thinking > that you know more about math than me, probably because you have a > formal education in the subject? > > If so, you're proving my point, and thank you very much. > > Anton > Well, to me it is not a matter of formal education, or math, or Python. There should be a *fresh thought/idea* how to handle the unknown reality. The existing (formal) language, being helpful, was created hundreds years ago and of course needs an update. But again, the point is not a new tool, even very flexible like Python. I think the *direct* sensor/data-driven techniques based on parsing/understanding observations (images, fields, etc) might be a step in promising direction. Any thoughts? respectful-ly y'rs, val -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
