[sage-devel] Re: What was the controversy over "assumed multiplication" ?

Jaap Spies wrote: > Jason Grout wrote: >> Robert Bradshaw wrote: > >>> Internal consistency is good, but consistency with the vast body of >>> mathematical literature out there is pretty valuable as well. >> Yes, that is one reason why I am for having all multiplications denoted >> by "*". Mo

[sage-devel] Re: What was the controversy over "assumed multiplication" ?

Jason Grout wrote: > Robert Bradshaw wrote: >> Internal consistency is good, but consistency with the vast body of >> mathematical literature out there is pretty valuable as well. > > Yes, that is one reason why I am for having all multiplications denoted > by "*". Most students are familiar

[sage-devel] Re: What was the controversy over "assumed multiplication" ?

William Stein wrote: > On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 8:14 PM, Alex Ghitza wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Jason Grout >> wrote: >>> seber...@spawar.navy.mil wrote: Carl Mathematica seems to have been successful with this approach. I'm curious what were the reasons for i

[sage-devel] Re: What was the controversy over "assumed multiplication" ?

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 at 08:50PM -0700, William Stein wrote: > sage: !math > Mathematica 6.0 for Linux x86 (64-bit) > Copyright 1988-2007 Wolfram Research, Inc. > > In[1]:= sin(x) > > Out[1]= sin x On a similar note, we have this: > sage: !math > Mathematica 6.0 for Linux x86 (64-bit) > Copyright

[sage-devel] Re: What was the controversy over "assumed multiplication" ?

Robert Bradshaw wrote: >>> Along with the other reasons people are giving, it may be >>> helpful to >>> remember that it is may be less error-prone in MMA. For example, >>> parentheses in Sage can denote function calling as well as >>> grouping, >>> while they only denote grou

[sage-devel] Re: What was the controversy over "assumed multiplication" ?

Jaap Spies wrote: > Jason Grout wrote: >> Alex Ghitza wrote: >>> On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Jason Grout >>> mailto:jason-s...@creativetrax.com>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> seber...@spawar.navy.mil wrote: >>> > Carl >>> > >>> > Mathematica seems t

[sage-devel] Re: What was the controversy over "assumed multiplication" ?

On Mar 11, 2009, at 8:17 PM, Jason Grout wrote: > > Alex Ghitza wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Jason Grout >> mailto:jason-s...@creativetrax.com>> >> wrote: >> >> >> seber...@spawar.navy.mil wrote: >>> Carl >>> >>> Mathematica seems to have been

[sage-devel] Re: What was the controversy over "assumed multiplication" ?

On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 8:14 PM, Alex Ghitza wrote: > On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Jason Grout > wrote: >> >> seber...@spawar.navy.mil wrote: >> > Carl >> > >> > Mathematica seems to have been successful with this approach.  I'm >> > curious what were the reasons for its disapproval.  Perhap

[sage-devel] Re: What was the controversy over "assumed multiplication" ?

Jason Grout wrote: > Alex Ghitza wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Jason Grout >> mailto:jason-s...@creativetrax.com>> wrote: >> >> >> seber...@spawar.navy.mil wrote: >> > Carl >> > >> > Mathematica seems to have been successful with t

[sage-devel] Re: What was the controversy over "assumed multiplication" ?

Alex Ghitza wrote: > On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Jason Grout > mailto:jason-s...@creativetrax.com>> wrote: > > > seber...@spawar.navy.mil wrote: > > Carl > > > > Mathematica seems to have been successful with this approach. I'm > >

[sage-devel] Re: What was the controversy over "assumed multiplication" ?

On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Jason Grout wrote: > > seber...@spawar.navy.mil wrote: > > Carl > > > > Mathematica seems to have been successful with this approach. I'm > > curious what were the reasons for its disapproval. Perhaps it was > > feared it was error prone? > > > Along with the oth

[sage-devel] Re: What was the controversy over "assumed multiplication" ?

seber...@spawar.navy.mil wrote: > Carl > > Mathematica seems to have been successful with this approach. I'm > curious what were the reasons for its disapproval. Perhaps it was > feared it was error prone? Along with the other reasons people are giving, it may be helpful to remember that it

[sage-devel] Re: What was the controversy over "assumed multiplication" ?

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 at 04:52PM -0700, seber...@spawar.navy.mil wrote: > Mathematica seems to have been successful with this approach. I'm > curious what were the reasons for its disapproval. Perhaps it was > feared it was error prone? I've written Mathematica notebooks for multivariable calculus

[sage-devel] Re: What was the controversy over "assumed multiplication" ?

Mike Hansen wrote: > On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 4:52 PM, seber...@spawar.navy.mil > wrote: >> Mathematica seems to have been successful with this approach. I'm >> curious what were the reasons for its disapproval. Perhaps it was >> feared it was error prone? > > It's also not valid Python syntax,

[sage-devel] Re: What was the controversy over "assumed multiplication" ?

On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 4:52 PM, seber...@spawar.navy.mil wrote: > Mathematica seems to have been successful with this approach.  I'm > curious what were the reasons for its disapproval.  Perhaps it was > feared it was error prone? It's also not valid Python syntax, and many people are generally

[sage-devel] Re: What was the controversy over "assumed multiplication" ?

Carl Mathematica seems to have been successful with this approach. I'm curious what were the reasons for its disapproval. Perhaps it was feared it was error prone? Chris On Mar 11, 11:36 am, Carl Witty wrote: > On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 10:21 AM, seber...@spawar.navy.mil > > wrote: > > > It w

[sage-devel] Re: What was the controversy over "assumed multiplication" ?

On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 10:21 AM, seber...@spawar.navy.mil wrote: > > It was great going to the Sage Days in San Diego and seeing the very > capable Sage crew including W.S. > > I was curious about something the team said about a controversy > regarding something that I believe was called assumed