The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » Inactive » comp.soft-sys.math.mathematica

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: V9 !!!
Replies: 20   Last Post: Dec 7, 2012 1:37 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
E. Martin-Serrano

Posts: 114
Registered: 9/5/08
Re: V9 !!!
Posted: Dec 3, 2012 4:03 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

All those who have been around computers, software along with big business
for decades know that the leadership and success of HW/SW giants always
relied on the availability of end users third party ready to use
applications. In fact, the giants which understood this (and so survive)
supported those third parties that developed business oriented applications
on their platforms, either HW or SW. That is a matter of true experience in
business. This fact has not changed very much thru the years and evolving
technology. Many giants which did not understand this have either
disappeared or are doomed to vanish.

-----Mensaje original-----
De: djmpark []
Enviado el: domingo, 02 de diciembre de 2012 11:01
Asunto: Re: V9 !!!

There are two answers to this. One is for Mathematica to have greater
"hierarchical density" or "hierarchical depth", i.e., provide lower level
routines from which higher level routines are built. Then students might
work at the lower levels and "applied production mathematicians" might work
at the top levels. But Mathematica does not do a lot of this, which might be
considered one of its weaknesses. It is too "top-level" oriented. However,
it does provide basic routines from which one can implement lower level

So the second answer is to provide third party applications that expand the
"hierarchical density" for specific mathematical or technical fields. WRI
could not reasonable do this for all technical fields. Do you want a million
commands in Mathematica? And WRI people might not even be the best people to
do this - they can't be elegant experts in everything. Teachers might want
really good additions for teaching undergraduate math, and a graduate
student or researcher might want an extensive application for a specific
area. But neither of them would want every possible application.

That is why those who say that Mathematica users should never buy a third
party application are absolutely wrong. Documented Mathematica applications
for communication and collaboration are one of its most powerful features -
still much underused and only fitfully supported by WRI itself.

David Park

From: Murray Eisenberg []

However, I've always had mixed feelings as Mathematica has grown to build in
more and more mathematical functions. At times this has taken the edge off
what was a valuable exercise for my undergraduate students: defining more
complicated functions -- e.g., div in vector analysis or nullSpace in linear
algebra -- that forced students to understand the precise underlying
definitions and algorithms. And it tended to take away a sense of power and
accomplishment when students could start by defining the simplest kind of
function, such as performing a single elementary row operation, and
step-by-step building ever more complicated functions, culminating in
something relatively sophisticated, such as finding the orthogonal
projection of a vector upon the span of a given set of vectors, and even
going further, such as using the latter to find the least-squares solution
to an overdetermined linear system.

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.