Re: More /.{I->-1} craziness. Schools are conservative. So are
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg106638] Re: More /.{I->-1} craziness. Schools are conservative. So are
- From: AES <siegman at stanford.edu>
- Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 05:15:29 -0500 (EST)
- Organization: Stanford University
- References: <200912300915.EAA17299@smc.vnet.net> <hhhmn8$o9t$1@smc.vnet.net> <hhpl28$9lf$1@smc.vnet.net> <hip8gf$t4d$1@smc.vnet.net> <8304354.1263643340634.JavaMail.root@n11> <hiuur1$919$1@smc.vnet.net> <hj12vo$bbu$1@smc.vnet.net>
In article <hj12vo$bbu$1 at smc.vnet.net>, Richard Fateman <fateman at cs.berkeley.edu> wrote: > But telling professors that Mathematica version 7.0 should be taught > instead of (say) quantum mechanics, won't work. And to tell them that > it should be taught as an EXTRA course won't work. And to tell them > that it will be more useful than some other programming language in > which most of their colleagues' work is written, won't work. And to > tell them that they should write their papers (at some additional > effort) in this new way, and then present them to journals that will > just flatten them out into static page images, probably won't work. Don't know how long Professor Fateman has been in a major ".edu" institution, but in my case it's 50+ years. Seen a lot of things come and go. And I'd say that every word of the preceding paragraph is absolutely correct, beyond further discussion. > So you might start by trying to reform the publication system. > Convincing a journal to publish papers that can only be fully viewed by > readers who have a computer running Mathematica [which version?] is > a tough sell. Also spent a fair amount of volunteer time myself at upper levels of major professional societies and dealing with scientific publication matters over the years; and this paragraph is equally valid. And there are a lot of other equally compelling reasons why Mathematica won't be the standard scientific publishing system of the future.