On Nov 2, 4:07 am, David Kirkby <david.kir...@onetel.net> wrote:
> > It would be rather embarrising for Steven Wolfram if Sage could do the > stuff in Mathematica 1000x faster. Not really. In this regard he would show ease of programming and neatness of display, not speed. > > > Their importance in Mathematica per se is probably for curiosity. No > > applications except as a random number generator. > > Well, there are a number of things for which no applications currently > exist, but are useful from a theoretical point of view. Several seem > to think the fact Steven Wolfram's rule 110 is Turing complete, i.e., > capable of universal computation, is important. This is irrelevant to a computer system. Either rule 110 is Turing complete or it is not. It doesn't change the program, or anyone's use of it. .. snip.. > > > You can bet that if there were significant applications, there would > > be > > support for CA in Matlab. > > MATLAB seems to be aimed at solving practical science/engineering > problems, rather than theoretical issues like Turing machines. So it's > no surprise to me that MATLAB does not have this. As I just said, "solving" theoretical issues is irrelevant to Mathematica users. > > "Hypercube" said Cellular automata have proved to be a useful tool > for modeling discrete systems in various applications, According to ??? Hypercube seems to have no first-hand experience. > so he thought > it could be useful to a wide scope of researchers. I've got no idea > how true that claim is, but if true it would suggest it would be > useful in Sage. Certainly unlikely, given past history. > -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
