Re: Wolfram Alpha claims to be a primary source.
- From: Richard Fateman <fateman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 05:36:46 -0700
Jon Harrop wrote:
Richard Fateman wrote:"The standards of correctness for Mathematica are certainly much higher
than for typical mathematical proofs."
Hi Jon!
Must you quote out of context? For comparison, see the quote in context:
The hubris goes on.
"The standards of correctness for Mathematica are certainly much higher than for typical mathematical proofs."
I didn't say it. WRI did.
You're doing it again. Mathematica is about *money*, not correctness.
I never doubted that Wolfram was primarily interested in money.
Any
statements that fall out of the marketing machine are not worth studying:
it is just shop talk. Forget about it.
So why do you bring it up yourself?
.
- References:
- Re: Wolfram Alpha claims to be a primary source.
- From: Jon Harrop
- Re: Wolfram Alpha claims to be a primary source.
- Prev by Date: Re: what is the negation of this statement
- Next by Date: Re: Distance from a point to a line in multi dimensional case
- Previous by thread: Re: Wolfram Alpha claims to be a primary source.
- Next by thread: Re: Wolfram Alpha claims to be a primary source.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|