On Jan 2, 2:14 pm, "Dr. David Kirkby" <david.kir...@onetel.net> wrote:
> http://www.math.bme.hu/~jtoth/FelsMma/mma.review.pdf > > but it is one of the most negative, biased "papers" I've ever seen. Could you be more specific? Is there a particular statement that you believe to be false? After all, that paper was reviewed by referees. In my view, many of the comments are pertinent to the current version as well as the version that was reviewed (like version 2 and 3). I have heard that others hold the belief that all the problems I found have been corrected. I can believe that some of the minor bugs have been fixed, but I suspect that every one of the major mistakes (under the guise of "features") remain. But this is perhaps not best place to discuss Mathematica bugs. My point regarding Mathematica licenses and Wolfram Alpha is that there is a simple solution that involves not using Wolfram Alpha. Not everyone needs access to Mathematica, as you continue to claim. A few. And if UW refuses to allow you to log in to some machine with a license, you could mail your file to someone at UW. -- 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
