Ondrej Certik wrote: >> 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 >
+1 cheers to the sage developpers (including you and me ;)) Jaap --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
