I am *not* a physicist, but I imagine many physicists know at least something of functional analysis, algebra, Lie algebras, etc.
However, when physicists write programs (this is my inference from the widespread use of Fortran and the computational assignments given to undergraduate students) they are almost exclusively numerical: very often evaluating some integrals or integrating a system of differential equations. Although Haskell can do these things, it's not a place where Haskell really shines (compared to symbolic computation). Since I'm not a physicist, I can't give a good example, but think more of the things Mathematica is good for, rather than Fortran or Matlab. My impression is that Haskell's advantage over Mathematica is in its generality: Mathematica is great if it has a builtin function to do what you want, but it's not a very pleasant programming language. HTH, Max On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 9:39 PM, Khudyakov Alexey <alexey.sklad...@gmail.com> wrote: > В сообщении от Среда 30 сентября 2009 23:29:32 Max Rabkin написал: >> On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 9:24 PM, Alberto G. Corona <agocor...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> > Haskell: mathematics beyond numerical calculus >> >> I'd imagine most physicists know a fair bit of mathematics beyond >> numerical calculus; what they might not know much about is >> *computation* beyond numerical calculus. >> > Could you elaborate this. As physicist I don't quite get it. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
