Re: Symbolic Math as Computer Science



Hatto von Aquitanien wrote:

.... 

In my view there are really only a small number of basic ideas in
mathematics.  They are all founded in our naive notions of left-right,
front-back, up-down, past, present, future, before, after, between,
conting, measuring, true, and false.  From such basic ideas, I believe we
can determine a set of fundamental entities which can be used to construct
all mathematical ideas.


See
http://www-unix.mcs.anl.gov/qed/

or
http://imps.mcmaster.ca/na-mkm-2004/

You will have to judge for yourself how much has been accomplished
versus how much has been proposed.




... re -- JSC Review of Mathematica

..  I wouldn't describe it as flattering to Mathematica.
Right
I understand that it is a critical review, and can expect this to some
extent. Some of the criticisms are a bit pedantic/nit-picky from the
perspective of a "real user".
If a user is lead to expect that the answer will be mathematically correct, and it is incorrect even .1% of the time, you might consider that to be a "nit". I consider it a serious flaw, especially if the correct behavior is possible.
OTOH, Mathematica is _very_ difficult to
learn to use well, 
I agree
 and it certainly has it's share of astonishing features.
It does some things very well, maybe not astonishing exactly.


I believe the reluctance to expose the concepts which make it work is a big
contributor to the difficulty in learning to use the product.

I think this is debatable. Some people would, I think, just be confused
by the "inside" story. Serious users might benefit more, though.
RJF



.