[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
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
Prev by Date:
**Re: Function as return value, how to document it (::usage)**
Next by Date:
**Re: importing fixed width data**
Previous by thread:
**Re: Re: Re: Mathematica 7.0.1.0 and some General**
Next by thread:
**how to plot a tree assigning nodes with your own labels**
| |