> As one advances through graduate school and beyond, computers become an > indispensable part and parcel of learning and research. Undergraduate > students are taught the theory of the subject "by doing everything > long-hand" and the computer is often not used as a tool to further > learning. It appears that the author's opinion is purely based on his > experience as an undergraduate student and should be discounted for being > ill-formed.
Disclaimer: I am not a mathematician, I am only a theoretical physics graduate student. I think the author is actually right about this. I always found this argument about "seeing inside the code to beleive a mathematical proof" weak. For me, the major point about Sage is: * open source (free) alternative to Mathematica/Maple/Matlab * you can implement you own favourite thing that you need (be it number theory, or some other things, or something in calculus, or whatever) and Sage will include it, if it works and it's useful * done be people, who now how to run opensource projects - release early, release often, easy to install, easy to run, discussions in public, etc. etc. I don't like the whole tone of the article though. Maybe Sage is complex, but it's best as it could be and especially better than anything else out there (opensource). So either we can do nothing and continue using non-free Mathematica, or we can actually try something. Ondrej --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
