Services & Resources / Wolfram Forums / MathGroup Archive
-----

MathGroup Archive 2008

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

Search the Archive

RE: Thinking Mathematica: Any suggestions?

  • To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
  • Subject: [mg91681] RE: [mg91672] Thinking Mathematica: Any suggestions?
  • From: "Jose Luis Gomez" <jose.luis.gomez at itesm.mx>
  • Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 06:39:56 -0400 (EDT)
  • References: <200809031046.GAA00914@smc.vnet.net>

This could be useful (although it is very basic):

http://homepage.cem.itesm.mx/lgomez/matecmatica/fp/fp.html

http://homepage.cem.itesm.mx/lgomez/matecmatica/funcionalprog.nb

For FEM in Mathematica:

http://homepage.cem.itesm.mx/lgomez/research/fem2/index.html

http://www.imtek.uni-freiburg.de/simulation/mathematica/IMSweb/

HTH
Jose
Mexico

-----Mensaje original-----
De: Tyler [mailto:hayes.tyler at gmail.com]
Enviado el: Mi=E9rcoles, 03 de Septiembre de 2008 05:47
Para: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
Asunto: [mg91672] Thinking Mathematica: Any suggestions?

Hello All:

I have a very basic question, but one that I am struggling to come to
terms with myself. Let me give a bit of background to put the question
in context....

I am coming from a FORTRAN programming background, where I used things
like DISLIN or plplot to generate figures. Sometimes I would import
them into a visualization tool like IDL, but for the most part, I'm a
procedural programmer. Even worse, some say, a FORTRAN one at that!

Anyways, I've left academics after twelve years and decided to take
the plunge and purchase Mathematica 6. So far I am liking it; however,
there is still something of a learning curve here for me. I constantly
find myself looking at the For and Do constructs when attempting to
implement my algorithms. Obviously, I would like to start thinking in
"Mathematica" so as to take advantage of what the team at Wolfram has
done so I don't have to.

My problem is, most of the examples I find in the documentation are of
the simplest kind and I am having difficulty applying them to
something more than Newton's method. Perhaps something like Finite-
Difference/Finite Element "like" algorithms, where index manipulations
are key to proper results? Again, this could be because I have a
wealth of procedural algorithms that assume a particular approach.

Does anyone have any tips or insight into how they made the transfer
from a procedural paradigm to a more natural Mathematica one?

Cheers,

t.





  • Prev by Date: RE: Thinking Mathematica: Any suggestions?
  • Next by Date: Re: Thinking Mathematica: Any suggestions?
  • Previous by thread: RE: Thinking Mathematica: Any suggestions?
  • Next by thread: Re: Thinking Mathematica: Any suggestions?