You have brought up prolog, unification, etc .. and knowing this is the
Haskell board, just wondering what anyones thoughts on the hybrid haskell
based language CURRY, for these kind of problems. It seems that it's
development is stalled... and sorry ahead of time if I am wrong on that
point.
On 6/2/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(... and showing an example of a simple-minded simplifier
and symbolic differentiator. The unification was presented as a powerful
pattern-matcher, being able to instanciate logic variables, and test the
coherence within patterns sharing t
Andrew Coppin responds to my rhetorical question :
Really, haven't heard about Maple???
http://www.maplesoft.com/
Last I heard, Maple is simply another fast number-chrunking engine.
Heavens!
Now, as a professional teacher, I should not get nervous too fast, but,
sorry to say, you become a
Andrew Coppin writes about my objection on the Mathematica price he
mentioned :
...And there's no need for "debious truths" - anybody that
wants to can check the price right now:
http://store.wolfram.com/view/app/mathematica/
Mmm, that *is* interesting... The price has indeed changed to £2,035
On 6/1/07, Chaddaï Fouché <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
2007/6/1, Andrew Coppin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I looked, I didn't find anything interesting.
Well maybe you should look one more time with your brain on...
Even my years old TI-89 calculator with a paltry Z80 processor and a
few hundred K of
-- Forwarded message --
From: Chaddaï Fouché <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 2 juin 2007 00:00
Subject: Re: [Haskell-cafe] Implementing Mathematica
To: Andrew Coppin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2007/6/1, Andrew Coppin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I looked, I didn't find anyth
Jacques Carette wrote:
Andrew Coppin wrote:
Lennart Augustsson wrote:
Why do you seem so in awe of Mathematica?
Oh, well, I guess it is only the most powerful maths software ever
written... no biggie.
No, it is one of several. In very little time I can find 20 things
that Maple does better
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
PS. Somebody (A. Coppin?) said that Mathematica not without reason costs
1.
Welll, less than 2000, and for students there are much cheaper
possibi-
lities. I am the last to make free ads for Wolfram, I recommend the usage
of Axiom and Maxima to my students, but
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew Coppin cites me and asks:
I find that statement interesting. I have never come across *any*
other package that can perform _symbolic_ mathematics.
(Sure, there are packages that can perform specific operations -
solving certain kinds of equations, transforming
Andrew Coppin wrote:
Lennart Augustsson wrote:
Why do you seem so in awe of Mathematica?
Oh, well, I guess it is only the most powerful maths software ever
written... no biggie.
No, it is one of several. In very little time I can find 20 things that
Maple does better than Mathematica. In t
On Thursday 31 May 2007 20:56:47 Andrew Coppin wrote:
> Jon Harrop wrote:
> > If you write a simple, numerically-intensive program that runs in the
> > Mathematica rewriter then its performance is about 100-1,000x slower than
> > that of a native-code compiled language like Haskell. Mathematica is
Jon Harrop after myself:
The semantic pattern-matcher within an algebraic package, is worlds
apart from the syntactic/structural pattern-matcher of Haskell.
Can you elaborate on this?
I would imagine that the pattern matcher in a term-level Haskell interpreter
would be quite similar to on
OK, so you're saying that in 4 days you wrote something that
out-performs Mathematica, a program that has existed for decades and has
a vast, highly-funded R&D effort behind it featuring some of the
brightest minds in the field?
If you want some amusement, just search for "Jon Harrop" in
com
Andrew Coppin cites me and asks:
jk wrote:
... The World had many
symbolic math packages: Reduce, Macsyma, Schoonschip (beloved by high-
energy physicists), Maple, Scratchpad2/Axiom, later MuSIMP/MuMATH for
small platforms, etc.
I find that statement interesting. I have never come across *any
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The conditions of its career were far from obvious. The World had many
symbolic math packages: Reduce, Macsyma, Schoonschip (beloved by high-
energy physicists), Maple, Scratchpad2/Axiom, later MuSIMP/MuMATH for
small platforms, etc.
I find that statement interesting. I
Jon Harrop wrote:
If you write a simple, numerically-intensive program that runs in the
Mathematica rewriter then its performance is about 100-1,000x slower than
that of a native-code compiled language like Haskell. Mathematica is often
30x slower than interpreted OCaml bytecode.
Is this b
Lennart Augustsson wrote:
Why do you seem so in awe of Mathematica?
Oh, well, I guess it is only the most powerful maths software ever
written... no biggie.
It's just another language with a good set of libraries. Claims that
it is the best, fastest, etc comes from Wolfram advertising, no
On Thursday 31 May 2007 11:39:14 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> ...
> Mathematica changed a bit the perspective, along - perhaps - the same
> lines as Schoonschip, where the fundamental stuff was *rewriting/
> transformations*. So, Mathematica since the begininng was equipped with
> a very powerful
On Thursday 31 May 2007 00:10:27 Stefan O'Rear wrote:
> You said that constructing a specification is the hardest part of
> implementing Mathematica, and you also say you managed to clone it.
> Can you reveal your specification, or did WR give you a NDA?
NDA, although I did most of the reverse eng
This will be a long sermon. Sorry.
Lennart Augustsson writes:
Why do you seem so in awe of Mathematica? It's just another language with
a good set of libraries. Claims that it is the best, fastest, etc comes
from Wolfram advertising, no doubt. :)
All this discussion began to degenerate a bi
Jon Harrop wrote:
> However, I can't think how you might return physically identical
> results when possible in Haskell.
Perhaps you might be interested then in the following function that
non-destructively updates a subterm in a large term, preserving
sharing. The function can be used to do a su
On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 08:46 +0100, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
> | $ ghc htrace.hs -o htrace
> | $ ghc -O2 htrace.hs -o htrace
> | compilation IS NOT required
> Yes, I think it's a bug. GHC should really compare the flags used
> last time with the flags used this time [...]
As an (easier) alterna
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/106
It got changed to Won't Fix. Consider this a yell!
On 31/05/07, Simon Peyton-Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Incidentally, when I try to recompile with optimizations turned on, GHC
| refuses to work:
|
| $ ghc htrace.hs -o htrace
| $ ghc -O2 ht
| Incidentally, when I try to recompile with optimizations turned on, GHC
| refuses to work:
|
| $ ghc htrace.hs -o htrace
| $ ghc -O2 htrace.hs -o htrace
| compilation IS NOT required
Yes, I think it's a bug. GHC should really compare the flags used last time
with the flags used this time, and
Jon,
However, I can't think how you might return physically identical
results when
possible in Haskell. Essentially, you need a higher-order map
function:
val id_map : ('a -> 'a) -> 'a t -> 'a t
that returns its input when "f x = x" for every x. How might this
be done?
fmap :: (Funct
On Wednesday 30 May 2007 07:04:31 Jon Harrop wrote:
> 3. The language: the hardest part of reimplementing Mathematica is
> inferring what it means (there are no formal evaluation semantics). Once
> you've done that it is just a case of implementing an extensible term
> rewriter and putting in about
On 5/30/07, Jon Harrop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Incidentally, when I try to recompile with optimizations turned on, GHC
refuses to work:
$ ghc htrace.hs -o htrace
$ ghc -O2 htrace.hs -o htrace
compilation IS NOT required
I must delete the target or edit the source to get it to recompile. I a
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 11:56:30PM +0100, Jon Harrop wrote:
> On Wednesday 30 May 2007 22:15:55 Andrew Coppin wrote:
> > Jon Harrop wrote:
> > > I wrote a toy Mathematica implementation in OCaml while I
> > > waited to be viva'd for my PhD. It garnered so much interest that Wolfram
> > > Research b
On Wednesday 30 May 2007 22:15:55 Andrew Coppin wrote:
> Jon Harrop wrote:
> > I wrote a toy Mathematica implementation in OCaml while I
> > waited to be viva'd for my PhD. It garnered so much interest that Wolfram
> > Research bought it from me for £4,500 and gave me several free copies of
> > Mat
From: Andrew Coppin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: haskell-cafe@haskell.org
Subject: Re: [Haskell-cafe] Implementing Mathematica
Jon Harrop wrote:
I noticed a recent thread about writing a Mathematica implementation in
Haskell.
Yeah, that was me.
I think this is an excellent idea and would
Hallo,
On 5/30/07, Andrew Coppin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
OK, so you're saying that in 4 days you wrote something that
out-performs Mathematica, a program that has existed for decades and has
a vast, highly-funded R&D effort behind it featuring some of the
brightest minds in the field?
I'm i
Jon Harrop wrote:
I noticed a recent thread about writing a Mathematica implementation in
Haskell.
Yeah, that was me.
I think this is an excellent idea and would be a great project for a
Haskell newbie.
Uh... I think it's actually a tad harder than it looks. [Understatement!]
I wrote a toy
32 matches
Mail list logo
