On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 4:18 PM, Maurizio <maurizio.gran...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I don't get it... > > how should this make SAGE easier? From my point of view, I don't even > remember anymore (my bad I know) what a ring represent, but this is > not slowing down my SAGE learning, I think. > > But what if tomorrow or the day after, I do need those? > > I'm sorry, I just don't get the point of removing stuff for engineers, > how could this help them (I should say, us)? I think good examples and > documentation would be SO MUCH better to have!
+10 William > > My 2 cents > > Maurizio > > On 25 Mar, 16:09, rjf <fate...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I think that you probably miss the point. Most engineers are not >> trained in number theory, group theory, advanced algebra, etc. Leaving >> these parts out of Sage would potentially make it easier to use. But >> then maybe the engineer should use Maxima, or one of those other >> systems that either ignores the central "pure math only" computational >> parts of Sage, or relegates them to some less-prominent position. >> RJF >> >> On Mar 25, 6:32 am, Stan Schymanski <schym...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > I am an example for someone that does use both modes. I do symbolic >> > derivations and transformations and then apply them to data, so I fancy >> > a system where both symbolic evaluations and numerical approximations >> > can be done transparently. If one is only interested in numerical >> > evaluations, why not use e.g. Octave? In my opinion, installing only a >> > set of numerical tools or only a set of symbolic tools in Sage would >> > amount to crippling a great piece of software, so if such an option was >> > made possible we should make sure that a message is plastered all over >> > the interface to make sure people don't confuse this with the real Sage. >> >> > I apologise in advance if I misunderstood the context of this thread. >> >> > Cheers >> > Stan >> >> > Pablo Angulo wrote: >> > >> It's all about acquiring a bigger audience in the applied fields. >> > >> There is certainly the impression out there that Sage is MAINLY a CAS >> > >> system (as opposed to a numerical system), and more geared towards >> > >> pure mathematicians than engineers, physicists, and applied >> > >> scientists. A separate and clear way to configure or to download an >> > >> engineering version (say through a separate webpage), that is well >> > >> advertised, would go a long way in helping Sage as a whole. Just my >> > >> humble opinion. >> >> > > I found some of sage features a bit of a mess the first times I did >> > > numerical computation in sage, like using Reals and Integers instead of >> > > float or ints, or using rationals and symbolic expressions for radicals. >> >> > > But I think a numerical mode would be a better choice. Selecting python >> > > in the drop list gets you closer to that, but it still yields the >> > > symbolic sqrt(2) instead of the numerical approximation, for example. >> >> > > Just loading math.sqrt instead of sqrt and taking similar choices of >> > > loaded packages would be enough for me, with same interface and package >> > > base. Like me, I think many people would use one mode or the other, >> > > depending on the task, so installing both the standard and the applied >> > > versions would not be saving any space. >> >> > > Regards >> > > Pablo >> >> > > > -- William Stein Associate Professor of Mathematics University of Washington http://wstein.org --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
