Alexander McLin <alex.mc...@gmail.com> writes: > This looks quite promising, I'm liking the progress and examples so > far.
Thanks for your feedback! > I have personal interests in computational science and executable > biological models, rewriting some classical papers' models into the > Leibniz notation would definitely be a good aid for study and > understanding. Indeed. What would be such classical papers from your field? > One thing I'm wondering about; for a long time I've been curious about > the idea of using proof assistants to help explore logical > consequences of different equation choices in some modeling problem, I have vaguely played with that idea myself, but I don't know the capabilities of today's proof assistants well enough to judge how they could be used in the evaluation of scientific models. Do you have a concrete application in mind? Something that could be done today if the learning-curve issue could be overcome? > I'm not sure how practical that would be, it's too early in my > understanding of Leibniz's benefits, there's still more to read, > including Maude documentation. BTW, semantically Leibniz is a subset of Maude, so automatic translation into Maude should be straightforward. If there are tools from the Maude universe that you would like to use, that could be worth trying. - Konrad. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
