--- Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > this course is at a graduate level, and many of the students have > some basic knowledge of data structures, algorithms, programming > languages, generic programming, compilers, etc.
Opps - yes, that would make a difference. For a minute I was back in the undergrad physics lab showing people Mathematica again ;-). > | This is good both for showing the limitations of the approach and > | also why computers can't substitute for an educated brain. > > You have a good point. Thanks. I always thought this was a weakness of high schools in particular - they don't do a good job of explaining why the students can't just "use the calculator all the time and skip all of this". Undergraduate work didn't really have that problem so much, but I still think the allure of programs like Mathematica makes it important to demonstrate what the problems of relying on them are. (Ironically, it is making a system that CAN be depended on that is one of the directions I would like to see things head, but I do agree there are any number of reasons for an educated human brain being indespensible.) > | 3. Then, later on in the course, introduce them to a more formal > | approach that avoids these limitations. Most will probably not be > | real excited about this because it will look harder (being precise > | is always hard work ;-) but most will probably remember and if, in > | the future, they begin to do work that would benefit from Axiom's > | more rigorous approach they will know both about Axiom and why it > | might be better. > > That is an excellent observation. I will work out some of these > constructive suggestions. Thanks! No problem - glad they made sense :-). Cheers, CY __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Axiom-developer mailing list Axiom-developer@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer