I was unclear. Davis disagrees with Lample and Charton in their claim of neural nets being somehow superior to established CAS. (And yes, the review is by Davis, not Lample.)
On Tuesday, December 17, 2019 at 4:21:07 PM UTC-8, rjf wrote: > > disagrees with me? or Emmanuel? > Lample's abstract (of the review) concluded with > > The claim that this outperforms Mathematica on symbolic integration needs > to be very much qualified. > > I glanced at the full review and I don't see that I disagree with it. > Generating 80 million randomly generated expressions, storing them and > claiming > that you can integrate their derivatives does not become a method for > doing integrals. > It is a method for looking up expressions in a table. Since most of those > expressions > will be sums, and the one of the main methods for actually computing > integrals > is to observe that the integral of a sum is the sum of the integrals, > there is > very little use for such a table. > > > On Monday, December 16, 2019 at 7:14:02 AM UTC-8, Richard_L wrote: >> >> Apparently, someone disagrees. See Ernest Lample's posting to the arXiv: >> https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.05752 >> >> On Friday, September 27, 2019 at 8:06:31 AM UTC-7, Dima Pasechnik wrote: >>> >>> https://openreview.net/pdf?id=S1eZYeHFDS >>> >>> I wish they had code available... >>> >> -- 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/fdfe9288-700c-454c-b597-d3fc6cb7b83e%40googlegroups.com.
