Re: Mathematica: Long divison for polynomials
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg84079] Re: Mathematica: Long divison for polynomials
- From: David Reiss <dbreiss at gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 06:37:18 -0500 (EST)
- References: <200711301018.FAA04867@smc.vnet.net> <firel5$rsq$1@smc.vnet.net>
As yet another semi-frequent contributor to this group I'd like to point out the following option that I often exercise. When I answer a question by a Mathematica user who appears to need the answer quickly I simply CC the answer to him or her as well. Then, independent of the Moderation, the (hopefully) useful content of what I have to say gets to the questioner promptly and is shared more universally when it appears in the group... --David On Dec 7, 7:01 am, DrMajorBob <drmajor... at bigfoot.com> wrote: > I agree with Daniel completely and, in addition, I'll just point out that > quite a few individuals like myself donate many hours & much energy > answering questions on Mathgroup, for absolutely no compensation but the > chance to learn something in the process and the fun of doing so. > > It wouldn't be fun to see half the messages revolve around debating > (arguing incessantly, really) which CAS is best. I've seen and been a > participant in similar time-waster threads off-line, and I'm quite certain > that we're very fortunate (thanks to Steve Christensen) not to have such > things constantly polluting, even dominating, the mailings. > > I do sometimes wonder what other CASs do differently, but really, I don't > have time to worry about it, here or anywhere else. > > Bobby > > On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 02:12:14 -0600, Daniel Lichtblau <d... at wolfram.com> > wrote: > > > Caren Balea wrote: > >> Thank you for your answers! > > >> As the reply in the newsgroup is quite slow I did try a different > >> newsgroup > >> and receive an answer right after 21 minutes (rather than to have to > >> wait > >> a whole day in this newsgroup): > > >>http://groups.google.it/group/sci.math.symbolic/browse_thread/thread/ > > bd8e9a5475af5fe9?hl=it > > > > > > >> There is also an interesting discussion about how meaningful it is > >> to have a moderation in this particular newsgroup. > > >> Frankly, I agree with what they are saying. > >> I'm curious though whether my post is going to be displayed or not. > > >> [I am offering a totally free service to those who want to use it. > >> You should probably go elsewhere if it does not meet your needs. > >> -- Moderator] > > > There has been substantial commentary in sci.math.symbolic, going back > > several years, over the various ups and downs of having a moderated > > forum comp.soft-sys.math.mathematica. Here is a URL to a reply I made in > > one such thread, a few months ago. > > >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math.symbolic/browse_frm/thread/30... > > > I've had some involvement with this since the beginning so I think I can > > clarify and address a few issues. Bear in mind that I am replying as one > > who sometimes writes to the forum; neither this reply, nor other posts > > to the group, are part of my official job responsibilities. > > > First, the group began life, and remains, as a moderated mailing list > > forum known as MathGroup. It was extended to a Usenet group around 12-13 > > years ago. I think this was partly in response to a need to remove the > > many Mathematica-centric posts from sci.math.symbolic. And also there > > was a desire to extend the mailing list reach to more people for whom it > > was an appropriate venue, but who might not otherwise find it. > > > So what are the gripes about this moderated group? They fall into a few > > categories. > > > (1) Turnaround time. It takes a day or so for a post to appear. So what > > are the disadvantages to the relatively slow turnaround? One is that > > feedback to the person posing questions is slow. This, I concede, is a > > very real drawback. But short of cloning the moderator, I don't see a > > good way around it. Suffice it to say, the advantages to having a > > moderator (or at least to having the one we have), in my opinion, far > > outweigh this. More below. > > > (2) Another perceived drawback to the turnaround time is replication of > > effort in responses. I've seen this issue raised but frankly I think it > > is mostly baloney. The vast majority of responders know good and well > > that others are also likely to respond, and they do so anyway. The fact > > is, Mathematica is a complex program, and often there are multiple ways > > to achieve a stated goal. Responders know this and oftentimes "best > > practice", or several reasonable forms thereof, emerge in the > > multiplicity of responses. About the only actual drawback is that some > > responders might delay an extra day to see if others answer first, and > > this can prolong the process per (1) above. > > > (3) There has been persistent griping about the moderation amounting to > > "censorship". Depending on how you define the terms, I suppose perhaps > > this can be a valid sort of remark. But the upshot is that whether you > > call it moderating or censorship, the moderator keeps a huge amount of > > garbage out of the group. If you have not seen similar groups > > effectively crippled by rants, be happy. Likewise with spam. Suffice it > > to say that these problems have arisen and persisted for long stretches > > of time. But never, absolutely never, has such a fate befallen > > comp.soft-sys.math.mathematica. The group has remained consistently > > useable, with outages only in rare times (like two or three over a > > period of a dozen years) when the moderator's systems or ISP have > > suffered grievous damage. > > > (4) One particular censorship gripe concerns the rule against mention of > > competing programs. I myself am a bit sympathetic to this one; if there > > were a single restriction I could change, this would be it. That said, I > > think that unrestricted allowance of such could pose a problem. That is, > > we might see the sort of degeneration into rants ("Why can't Mathematica > > do X? Program MZZZ does it?" followed, a day later, by "Why can't > > Mathematica do Y?..."). In past I've seen at least some tendency toward > > such posts, and it is generally thwarted by this restriction, which > > means the restriction has some merit. Also it helps to keep the focus on > > Mathematica per se, which is what the group is all about. > > > As to what are the best places to take Mathematica related questions, > > answers will vary and to some extent it can depend on what you need. > > MathGroup aka comp.soft-sys.math.mathematica remains a compelling venue > > when the one day turnaround is acceptable, and high quality of response > > is needed. It is the forum with the most expertise. I think this is in > > large part because the moderator keeps out garbage, thus making the > > signal-to-noise ration quite high. Were it to degenerate to some of the > > things I have seen, I doubt most of us would maintain interest for long. > > So yeah, the turnaround time is an issue, but there are advantages to > > the moderating that, for myself at least, far outweigh this drawback. > > > Daniel Lichtblau > > Wolfram Research > > -- > > DrMajor... at bigfoot.com