
Re: A statement on what is wrong with standard calculus
Posted:
Feb 22, 1996 10:02 PM


At 1:05 PM 1/31/22 +0000, nstahl@uwcmail.uwc.edu wrote: For instance, we don't know that someone who doesn't > know much algebra can learn much science. >
Poincare and Einstein were very poor at algebra. And Archimedes didn't know any.
And somecontemporary views:
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute mathematics professor William Boyce and coauthor of the respected standard DiffEq textbook "Elementary Differential Equations and Boundary Value Problems (Wiley,1986) says this:
" A decrease in time spent on symbol manipulation by hand should provide an opportunity for more emphasis on conceptual understanding . . . Details of mathematical procedures and algorithms are rapidly forgotten unless they are used frequently, but underlying concepts and ideas become a part of an individual's mindset and are always available  or at least much less likely to be lost than manipulative skills."
Stanford University electrical engineering professor Steve Boyd puts it this way: "I can't say too strongly how unimportant symbolic manipulation is in engineering."
Stanford University electrical engineering professor and National Academy of Engineering member, Tony Siegman says this:
" My current view would be: If Mathematica knows how to solve it analytically, then I don't neeed to know how. Mathematica knows about everything there is to know and if it doesn't know how to solve it analytically, hell, it'll just solve it numerically. "
Jerry Uhl
 Jerry Uhl juhl@ncsa.uiuc.edu Professor of Mathematics 1409 West Green Street University of Illinois Urbana,Illinois 61801 Calculus&Mathematica Development Team http://wwwcm.math.uiuc.edu
"It is unworthy of excellent persons to lose hours like slaves in the labor of calculation." . . . Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz

