On May 19, 2:25 pm, mark mcclure mcmcc...@unca.edu wrote:
On May 19, 2:08 am, Jason Grout jason-s...@creativetrax.com
Fromhttp://www.wolframalpha.com/termsofuse.html#waystouse
The Wolfram|Alpha service may be used only by a human
being using a conventional web browser to manually enter
Vinzent Steinberg wrote:
On May 19, 2:25 pm, mark mcclure mcmcc...@unca.edu wrote:
On May 19, 2:08 am, Jason Grout jason-s...@creativetrax.com
Fromhttp://www.wolframalpha.com/termsofuse.html#waystouse
The Wolfram|Alpha service may be used only by a human
being using a conventional web
On May 20, 9:57 am, Jason Grout jason-s...@creativetrax.com wrote:
Vinzent Steinberg wrote:
On May 19, 2:25 pm, mark mcclure mcmcc...@unca.edu wrote:
On May 19, 2:08 am, Jason Grout jason-s...@creativetrax.com
Not necessarily. Evidently, there will be an API interface to
Wolfram Alpha
.
It would be also an interface to mathematica.
Good point. Alpha does integrals as well. That might be useful.
To be fair, integrals.wolfram.com has already done that for a while.
Jason
The following page is particularly relevant to Vinzent's remark:
mark mcclure wrote:
I did see on the Maxima discussion list back on February 20
that CVS Maxima could do these integrals. However, I checked
Maxima 5.18.1 on my Mac laptop and the following returns
unevaluated:
integrate((x^m * (1 - x)^n * (a + b*x + c*x^2))/(1 + x^2), x,0,1);
Sorry for
Minh Nguyen wrote:
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 12:49 AM, kcrisman kcris...@gmail.com wrote:
I believe these services are at least partially relevant to this list,
particularly the Wolfram announcement. If they have been mentioned
recently here, my apologies.
Here's a recent article from
On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 6:08 AM, Jason Grout
jason-s...@creativetrax.com wrote:
Minh Nguyen wrote:
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 12:49 AM, kcrisman kcris...@gmail.com wrote:
I believe these services are at least partially relevant to this list,
particularly the Wolfram announcement. If they have
On May 19, 2:08 am, Jason Grout jason-s...@creativetrax.com
From http://www.wolframalpha.com/termsofuse.html#waystouse
The Wolfram|Alpha service may be used only by a human
being using a conventional web browser to manually enter
queries one at a time...
So much for a Sage interface to
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 12:49 AM, kcrisman kcris...@gmail.com wrote:
I believe these services are at least partially relevant to this list,
particularly the Wolfram announcement. If they have been mentioned
recently here, my apologies.
Here's a recent article from Groklaw on differences in
mark mcclure wrote:
There's a lovely little article in the February 2009 issue
of the monthly on using integrals to approximate pi. The
author discovers some nice rational approximations of pi
by systmeatically searching through integrals of the
form
integrate(
(x^m * (1 - x)^n * (a
On May 2, 1:02 pm, Robert Dodier robert.dod...@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe a different example is needed; Maxima can now
compute such integrals.
Thanks Robert,
I did see on the Maxima discussion list back on February 20
that CVS Maxima could do these integrals. However, I checked
Maxima 5.18.1 on
On Fri, May 01, 2009 at 10:32:41AM -0700, Brian Granger wrote:
I bring this up because I think we need to have better reasons about
why open source is important - arguments that are compelling to folks
who have been working successfully for years without reading the
source. I don't know what
Marshall Hampton wrote:
I too have founds bugs by reading code that I've written - usually,
very
early on in the development process. Note that I'm talking in the
context
of result verification, however. That is, when I publish a paper
that
depends on computations, it is incumbent upon
The argument (specious, probably) is that if the compiler is open-
source
as well as the library, the operating system code etc, then an
industrious person
could try to verify all this.
It is often said that Testing can only demonstrate the presence of a
bug, not its absence.
BUT
I think it
Personally, I think it is important to have access to source code. I
do in fact read the source code of Sage (and many other projects)
often. However, many people with whom I speak (user's of Matlab and
Mathematica) don't feel this is important. Their logic goes something
like this...
I have
On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Brian Granger ellisonbg@gmail.com wrote:
Personally, I think it is important to have access to source code. I
do in fact read the source code of Sage (and many other projects)
often. However, many people with whom I speak (user's of Matlab and
On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Brian Granger ellisonbg@gmail.com wrote:
Personally, I think it is important to have access to source code. I
do in fact read the source code of Sage (and many other projects)
often. However, many people with whom I speak (user's of Matlab and
On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Ondrej Certik ond...@certik.cz wrote:
On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Brian Granger ellisonbg@gmail.com
wrote:
Personally, I think it is important to have access to source code. I
do in fact read the source code of Sage (and many other projects)
On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 11:22 AM, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Ondrej Certik ond...@certik.cz wrote:
On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Brian Granger ellisonbg@gmail.com
wrote:
Personally, I think it is important to have access to source code. I
There's a lovely little article in the February 2009 issue
of the monthly on using integrals to approximate pi. The
author discovers some nice rational approximations of pi
by systmeatically searching through integrals of the
form
integrate(
(x^m * (1 - x)^n * (a + b*x + c*x^2))/(1 + x^2),
The discussion has wandered off topic, but it seems to me that it is
true that
You Usually Do Not to Know about Internals. Otherwise you would not
be able
to use a computer or for that matter, drive a car.
I do not find it insulting at all.
If Wolfram said that he didn't show internal code
On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 3:11 PM, rjf fate...@gmail.com wrote:
If Wolfram said that he didn't show internal code because you were too
stupid to do anything with it, that might be insulting.
Even if it were true for the generic you, it would be insulting for
some people.
If he said that he
William Stein wrote:
The fact is that bugs are found via
experimentation, not by reading source code.
This is not a fact!I have a lot of experience finding and seeing
bugs found, and I can tell you in no uncertain terms that a huge
number of the bugs found in Sage are in fact found by
On Apr 29, 1:37 pm, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 9:51 AM, mark mcclure mcmcc...@unca.edu wrote:
I think, though, that the statement that you need open source in order
to have verifiable results is not really true. The fact is that bugs are
found via
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 11:06 AM, mark mcclure mcmcc...@unca.edu wrote:
On Apr 29, 1:37 pm, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 9:51 AM, mark mcclure mcmcc...@unca.edu wrote:
I think, though, that the statement that you need open source in order
to have
I too have founds bugs by reading code that I've written - usually,
very
early on in the development process. Note that I'm talking in the
context
of result verification, however. That is, when I publish a paper
that
depends on computations, it is incumbent upon me to verify those
On Apr 28, 8:49 pm, kcrisman kcris...@gmail.com wrote:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-10229202-76.html?tag=newsLeadStoriesArea.1
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/wolfram-alpha-veil-lifted/
Both these sites contain a link to Stephen Wolfram's
presentation at Harvard yesterday:
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 6:20 AM, mark mcclure mcmcc...@unca.edu wrote:
On Apr 28, 8:49 pm, kcrisman kcris...@gmail.com wrote:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-10229202-76.html?tag=newsLeadStoriesArea.1
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/wolfram-alpha-veil-lifted/
Both these sites
On Apr 29, 11:06 am, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 6:20 AM, mark mcclure mcmcc...@unca.edu wrote:
The QA session includes several pointed
questions surrounding open source and freedom of access
to data. Some folks here might find the responses
On Apr 29, 9:51 am, mark mcclure mcmcc...@unca.edu wrote:
On the other hand, I'll happily go on record as saying that I find
Wolfram's explanation of Why You Do Not Usually Need to Know
about Internals personally offensive. You can read that
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 9:51 AM, mark mcclure mcmcc...@unca.edu wrote:
On Apr 29, 11:06 am, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 6:20 AM, mark mcclure mcmcc...@unca.edu wrote:
The QA session includes several pointed
questions surrounding open source and freedom of
On Apr 29, 1:18 pm, John H Palmieri jhpalmier...@gmail.com wrote:
One interesting thing from this page, though:
In[7]:= N[Sin[10^50], 20]
Out[7]= -0.78967... (I can't copy and paste from that page, but this
is how the number starts)
In[8] := Sin[10.^50]
Out[8] := 0.669369
Sage doesn't
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 10:18 AM, John H Palmieri
jhpalmier...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 29, 9:51 am, mark mcclure mcmcc...@unca.edu wrote:
On the other hand, I'll happily go on record as saying that I find
Wolfram's explanation of Why You Do Not Usually Need to Know
about Internals
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 10:41 AM, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 10:18 AM, John H Palmieri
jhpalmier...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 29, 9:51 am, mark mcclure mcmcc...@unca.edu wrote:
On the other hand, I'll happily go on record as saying that I find
Wolfram's
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Ondrej Certik ond...@certik.cz wrote:
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 10:41 AM, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 10:18 AM, John H Palmieri
jhpalmier...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 29, 9:51 am, mark mcclure mcmcc...@unca.edu wrote:
On the
35 matches
Mail list logo
