Services & Resources / Wolfram Forums
-----
 /
MathGroup Archive
2004
*January
*February
*March
*April
*May
*June
*July
*August
*September
*October
*November
*December
*Archive Index
*Ask about this page
*Print this page
*Give us feedback
*Sign up for the Wolfram Insider

MathGroup Archive 2004

[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]

Search the Archive

Re: Re: Re: Reduce/Solve

  • To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
  • Subject: [mg50013] Re: [mg49995] Re: [mg49990] Re: Reduce/Solve
  • From: DrBob <drbob at bigfoot.com>
  • Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 05:53:12 -0400 (EDT)
  • References: <200408090829.EAA03580@smc.vnet.net> <200408101002.GAA19500@smc.vnet.net> <766AE111-EABF-11D8-BBFD-000A95B4967A@mimuw.edu.pl> <opsciyqjd6iz9bcq@monster.cox-internet.com> <395198E8-EB0D-11D8-AA51-000A95B4967A@mimuw.edu.pl>
  • Reply-to: drbob at bigfoot.com
  • Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com

>> bugs are like acts of God (and I don't mean Stephen W.) which defy rationality, at least as far as mortals like myself are concerned.

Very true, and you actually had me convinced Reduce was doing the right thing. That's the insidious thing about it; it seemed so logical, so long as we wanted to give Reduce the benefit of the doubt. But there are plenty of true bugs, and we all know it; the rational explanation is the wrong explanation, when there's a bug involved.

I like the fault-tracking system used by Sun for OpenOffice. By comparison, WRI's treatment of bugs (and unfortunate features) is completely, annoyingly opaque.

Bobby

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 22:38:23 +0200, Andrzej Kozlowski <akoz at mimuw.edu.pl> wrote:

>
> On 10 Aug 2004, at 18:28, DrBob wrote:
>
>> *This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(tm)
>> Pro*
>> Andrzej,
>>
>>>> I see no reason to modify anything in it. Do you?
>>
>> Since you ask...
>>
>> All I did was apply the word "valiant" to your defense of Reduce; it's
>> not a disparaging word. The paragraph you repeated below (from your
>> second message in the thread) admitted something might be wrong, too,
>> so of course you were right. You're almost always right, Andrzej.
>>
>> This was preceded by a lengthy defense for Reduce's behavior, however,
>> and look at this statement from your previous post in the thread:
>>
>>>> In your particular case Solve produces a warning about using Inverse
>>>> functions and tells you that you may not have a complete solution.
>>>> That tells you exactly the reason why Reduce returns the original
>>>> expression back to you.
>>
>> "That tells you exactly the reason..."?
>>
>> Maybe not. What do you think?
>>
>> Bobby
>
>
> Of course not. Perhaps I should have paid more attention to this
> particular case and less to general principles. But what I wrote was, I
> think, the rational explanation. We are, however, dealing here with a
> bug and  bugs are like acts of God (and I don't mean Stephen W.) which
> defy rationality, at least as far as mortals like myself are concerned.
>
> Andrzej
>
>
>
>



-- 
DrBob at bigfoot.com
www.eclecticdreams.net


  • Prev by Date: Re: Re: Re: Reduce/Solve
  • Next by Date: Re: Re: Re: Reduce/Solve
  • Previous by thread: Re: Re: Re: Reduce/Solve
  • Next by thread: Re: Re: Re: Reduce/Solve