It was an interesting read. The article (at potential risk of starting a firestorm) does seem to suggest that open-source software like Sage is more trustworthy for computational proofs as one can (in principle) verify the code's logic and can look at the list of known bugs.
Best, Travis On Thursday, October 23, 2014 7:16:55 PM UTC-7, William wrote: > > > On Oct 23, 2014 6:23 PM, "kcrisman" <kcri...@gmail.com <javascript:>> > wrote: > > > > Feature article in the Notices: > > http://www.ams.org/notices/201410/rnoti-p1249.pdf > > The point, as the authors say, is not about any one system; as we know, > any nontrivial software (including good ol' Sage) has plenty of bugs. > Happy reading! > > - kcrisman > > > > Fortunately (?!) their article seems to not mention Sage. > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "sage-devel" group. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send > an email to sage-devel+...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. > > To post to this group, send email to sage-...@googlegroups.com > <javascript:>. > > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
