Re: Re: Re: Mathematica 7.0.1.0 and some General
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg97538] Re: [mg97494] Re: [mg97429] Re: Mathematica 7.0.1.0 and some General
- From: peter <plindsay.0 at gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 18:16:52 -0500 (EST)
- References: <goqphr$lt2$1@smc.vnet.net> <gp5fou$9nr$1@smc.vnet.net>
David could you give notebook examples of what you mean with commentary ? I'm not sure I understand and think I am missing the point [ again ]. regards Peter 2009/3/14 David Park <djmpark at comcast.net> > From: Mariano Su=E1rez-Alvarez [mailto:mariano.suarezalvarez at gmail.com] > > Of course, in my work as a mathematician I have seen (too!) > many papers in which I could not tell why something > followed from something, or why something was equal to > something else. > ______ > > Ah yes! If it is a book, then for me this usually first occurs on page 3. > > This all brings us back to the intent of my original posting. Instead of > just thinking of Mathematica as an ancillary tool to provide material for > some other purpose, we should think of it as a primary medium for technical > development and communication. > > I would urge that all development and communication be done via active > dynamic Mathematica notebooks. Everything should be developed, derived, > proved or calculated ACTIVELY with no interludes of hand waving or 'word > processing'. (But there should be plenty of textual discussion.) This means > that all starting points should be gathered as definitions and rules, and > further definitions or rules will be developed and accumulated as the > exposition proceeds. This may seem to many as too much work, and some may > doubt that it can be done. It can almost always be done! It IS work, but > the > payoffs from the work are enormous. One of the payoffs is that you will be > accumulating active rules and definitions that you can use in creating > graphics and other types of presentations, and for doing further > exploration > of the subject matter. (The graphics, presentations, or further > explorations > may be the first indication of errors.) You may even find it worthwhile to > turn these routines into a package. This is one of the main fruits of your > labor. Don't let it slip through your fingers. A second enormous payoff is > that Mathematica notebooks in the active style are largely self-proofing. > Yes, it is still possible to make errors or have a clumsy approach but, > nevertheless, such notebooks are of a far higher quality and integrity than > traditional media. > > Many technical writers don't use active Mathematica notebooks because they > are just plain lazy. There is no other word to describe it. That is why > their work is often so difficult to follow, or sometimes wrong. (Sometimes > they rationalize this with: "If the reader can't follow it, he shouldn't be > working in the field anyway." Come on! Let's invite more people in.) > > It is far easier for people to understand actions than to understand > 'static' diagrams or equations. We evolved to detect actions and respond to > them with our own actions. That is why a derivation that is done actively > is > easier to understand. We get from one expression to another expression by > actively applying some axiom or theorem. Gee, that might even cause a > student to actually think about the axiom and how it is used. These axioms > and theorems, in turn, are encapsulated as rules or routines. The reader of > an active notebook could see what rule or routine is used to get from point > to point in the derivation. He could use it himself. He could try it on > other cases. The reader is far less likely to get stuck at some point she > has no explanation for. > > Fully active Mathematica notebooks: they are the path. > > If we could only convince WRI to take it a little more seriously. > > > David Park > djmpark at comcast.net > http://home.comcast.net/~djmpark/ > > > > From: Mariano Su=E1rez-Alvarez [mailto:mariano.suarezalvarez at gmail.com] > > Of course, in my work as a mathematician I have seen (too!) > many papers in which I could not tell why something > followed from something, or why something was equal to > something else. > > > > -- Peter Lindsay