On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 10:48 AM, Dr. David Kirkby
<david.kir...@onetel.net> wrote:
>
> There was an discussion on sci.math.symbolic, which like many on
> newsgroups, often go off the subject into something more intersting (or
> more boring)!
>
> It was started by me under the title "Wolfram Alpha claims to be a
> primary source"
>
> A point was then made by Professor Fateman about this statement on the
> Wolfram Reserach web site.
>
> http://reference.wolfram.com/mathematica/tutorial/TestingAndVerification.html
>
> "The standards of correctness for Mathematica are certainly much higher
> than for typical mathematical proofs."
The most basic standard of correctness for a mathematical proof is
that it at least be available for people to read -- even cranks make
their proofs available to read. Because Mathematica is closed
source, I don't consider Mathematica to be in the same league as any
mathematical proofs. Perhaps a more worthwhile statement to discuss
might be:
"The standards of correctness for Mathematica are certainly much
higher than for typical mathematical conjectures."
William
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
