As seems to be the case all too often, Wolfram is full of himself.... As almost all the comments below the article point out. You cannot use a tool properly or do advanced work with it, if you don't understand what it is doing or at least have a way to evaluate the result.
For mathematics it is necessary to understand. For some uses of mathematics, such as making pretty pictures, where the accuracy of the result is less important, knowing the details matters less. I suppose it could be argued that math software is somewhat like a word processor. Most people do not have to understand how the software works, but they do need to understand the language they are using to achieve anything with the word processor. Mathematics (and by association all quantitative sciences) require understanding the language and models used to reach valid conclusions. That means we may not have to teach the details of how we actually handle mathematical expressions in SAGE, but users must understand at least some way of doing what SAGE does to use it appropriately. Jonathan On Dec 4, 9:11 am, Hector Villafuerte <hecto...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > some of you might find this article by Conrad Wolfram interesting: > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/6719451/We-need-to-base-maths-le... > > Best, > -- > Hector -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-edu" group. To post to this group, send email to sage-...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-edu+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-edu?hl=en.
