On 8/9/07, Jonathan Bober <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've been meaning to reply to this, since I've been specifically
> mentioned. Sorry for the delay.
> I also disagree with this, although not from much real job experience.
> Probably, most code is poorly documented. This might just be because
I've been meaning to reply to this, since I've been specifically
mentioned. Sorry for the delay.
On Sun, 2007-08-05 at 11:49 -0700, William Stein wrote:
> On 8/5/07, Justin C. Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On 8/4/07, Alec Mihailovs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> From: "Alec Mihailov
> 2. No real discussion of the costs of the proprietary systems are
> given. For me, this is really the primary issue.
> If it was possible to buy a full (non-student) copy of matlab or
> mathematica for $100 and have freedom to use it on whatever computer I
> wanted, however I wanted, I might
The sentence
"...but she knows that she
will be required to produce a proof if required."
seems a bit redundant?
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
In reading the article some thoughts I had.
1. The example about the paper on the infinite group seems like a very
weak example to me.
It seems the problem is not that the programs used are proprietary,
but that the author of the paper gave no code.
If she used SAGE but didn't give code, then the
"resolution of the four-color conjecture
by Appel and Haken in 1976 (though it is now reproven with less need for
computer verification by N. Robertson, D. P. Sanders, P. D. Seymour and
R. Thomas),"
This should be rephrased. Even in the newer proof, there are still
portions (in particular, the
This is an awkward read:
"No journal would make a statement like Mathematica does about the proofs of
the theorems they publish, yet here increasingly software and the
algorithms used are an essential part of proofs."
Perhaps this is better:
No journal would make a statement like this about t
On Aug 5, 2007, at 14:58 , Alec Mihailovs wrote:
>
> From: "Justin C. Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> Tthere are large mounds of open source lying around for anyone to
>> inspect. The unix kernel is one such (nowadays). Take a look :-}
>
> Justin, do you have a link? I just searched Google fo
On 8/5/07, Justin C. Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Regarding the Mathematica quote, I should mention that I was
> > motivated to use it by it being used in a new review R. Fateman
> > is writing of Mathematica 6.0 (I saw a preliminary version
> > somewhere, but
> > can't find it now).
>
>
From: "Justin C. Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Tthere are large mounds of open source lying around for anyone to
> inspect. The unix kernel is one such (nowadays). Take a look :-}
Justin, do you have a link? I just searched Google for Unix kernel sources
and found the Unix V7 tour at http://w
On Aug 5, 2007, at 12:19 , William Stein wrote:
> On 8/5/07, Justin C. Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
>> The gist of this is that to try to suggest that open source is
>> somehow a higher goal, or inherently better, than closed/proprietary
>> source is off the mark. Something like Rob
On Aug 5, 2007, at 11:49 , William Stein wrote:
>
> On 8/5/07, Justin C. Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On 8/4/07, Alec Mihailovs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: "Alec Mihailovs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> It actually may be true (regarding to Mathematica). Their code
> may
On 8/5/07, Justin C. Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 8/4/07, Alec Mihailovs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> From: "Alec Mihailovs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>>
> >>> It actually may be true (regarding to Mathematica). Their code
> >>> may be very
> >>> poorly commented (and AFAICT it is.)
>
On Aug 5, 2007, at 01:00 , Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>
> On Aug 4, 2007, at 5:58 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
>> On 8/4/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Shoot, this came in as I sent that last message. I have much less
>>> to say about
>>> this version; it's very strong. Part of
On Aug 4, 2007, at 19:32 , William Stein wrote:
>
> On 8/4/07, Alec Mihailovs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> From: "Alec Mihailovs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>
>>> It actually may be true (regarding to Mathematica). Their code
>>> may be very
>>> poorly commented (and AFAICT it is.)
>>
>> And the m
On Aug 4, 8:36 pm, "Fernando Perez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just a minor comment...
> Philosophy--why do it?
>
> WaveLab implements the concept of reproducible research.
If I had a +1 to give to one of the suggestions, this would be the one
that I gave it to.
Also, it would perhaps be wis
On Aug 4, 2007, at 5:58 PM, William Stein wrote:
> On 8/4/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Shoot, this came in as I sent that last message. I have much less
>> to say about
>> this version; it's very strong. Part of me thinks that the
>> mathematica quote
>> is too direct
On 8/4/07, Fernando Perez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just a minor comment...
>
> This entire argument, which is critical to the notice and probably to
> much of SAGE's motivation, has been heavily defended and discussed
> already in the literature. To my knowledge, the first to push really
> h
I think it's good. The only part I don't like is how the quote about
Mathematica seems to get the "last word in" about knowing
verification. Perhaps something like
If one reads the proof of Jane's theorem in hopes of extending her ideas
or applying them in a new context, it is limiting to not
From: "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I think Jon Bober's code for number of partitions is a very nice example
> of how open source is so much better. Have a look at it some time; the
> comments are fascinating. And reading through the extremely interesting
> and extensive comments makes
On 8/4/07, Alec Mihailovs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: "Alec Mihailovs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > It actually may be true (regarding to Mathematica). Their code may be very
> > poorly commented (and AFAICT it is.)
>
> And the motivation for doing that is very simple. If you (a developer) d
From: "Alec Mihailovs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> It actually may be true (regarding to Mathematica). Their code may be very
> poorly commented (and AFAICT it is.)
And the motivation for doing that is very simple. If you (a developer) do it
that way, so that you are the only one who could understan
Just a minor comment...
On 8/4/07, Craig Citro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I like the succinctness of David's version, but I feel like the
> exclusion of the long example (about Jane and her theorem) is a
> significant flaw. Think about the audience here: if someone reads the
> Notices, chances
> It is indeed *their* statement on the matter and it is what they
> strongly believe
> to be true.
It's actually may be true (regarding to Mathematica). Their code may be very
poorly commented (and AFAICT it is.)
Alec
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this gro
On 8/4/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Shoot, this came in as I sent that last message. I have much less to say
> about
> this version; it's very strong. Part of me thinks that the mathematica quote
> is too direct an attack... but it's from the horse's mouth, and I think tha
Shoot, this came in as I sent that last message. I have much less to say about
this version; it's very strong. Part of me thinks that the mathematica quote
is too direct an attack... but it's from the horse's mouth, and I think that
the mathematical community needs to know.
I don't like the
"The aim is to provide software that can be used to explore and
experiment with mathematicas."
First off, I think you don't want an extra "a" in mathematics. I think the
SAGE community has, by and large, taken an anti-mathematica standpoint. ;)
Second, that sentence makes SAGE sound like fluf
All these comments are excellent and are great things
to say. But Andy asked us to include examples of open source
math software. It is very hard to do that in 800 words and
still make some point. Maybe the best thing to do is to
advertise the longer (18 pages or so) version which has
the Jane exa
Hi,
I've just looked at the two versions of this (the one William posted
yesterday, and the one David posted today). As a quick note before I
forget, there's a sentence that's duplicated in David's version today
("The following is an alphabetical list ...").
I like the succinctness of Davi
On Aug 4, 2007, at 13:48 , David Joyner wrote:
>
> Hi:
>
> William Stein and I have written a draft
> http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/wdj/research/oscas-ams-
> notices4.pdf
> which seems suitable (based on suggestions and criteria given to us by
> the editor
> Andy Magid). Thoughts anyone?
Chris,
Thanks for your comments -- which will help keep people
from getting the wrong impression by our "opinion piece"
for the AMS. (Note that it is an "opinion piece" rather
than an article, which problem means it is supposed to
be biased...)
On 8/4/07, David Joyner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
(1) Saying I am an author of SAGE is misleading,
(2) saying either William Stein or I would benefit
financially is misleading. SAGE is free and we both spend
a lot of time on it (unpaid) that could be spent elsewhere,
as do all the developers I know of who volunteer on any
open source math program
don't know if this is important:
- i might have missed it, but the article doesn't seem to indicate
that the authors of the article are also authors of sage (and would
possibly benefit financially from ams support of sage)
On Aug 4, 4:09 pm, "David Joyner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> word coun
word count of about 800
On 8/4/07, Chris Chiasson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> what were the criteria?
>
> On Aug 4, 3:48 pm, "David Joyner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi:
> >
> > William Stein and I have written a
> > drafthttp://sage.math.washington.edu/home/wdj/research/oscas-ams-notice
what were the criteria?
On Aug 4, 3:48 pm, "David Joyner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi:
>
> William Stein and I have written a
> drafthttp://sage.math.washington.edu/home/wdj/research/oscas-ams-notices4.pdf
> which seems suitable (based on suggestions and criteria given to us by
> the editor
35 matches
Mail list logo
