MathGroup Archive 2010

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

Search the Archive

Re: Re: More /.{I->-1} craziness

  • To: mathgroup at
  • Subject: [mg106800] Re: [mg106713] Re: More /.{I->-1} craziness
  • From: DrMajorBob <btreat1 at>
  • Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 07:37:40 -0500 (EST)
  • References: <> <hhhmn8$o9t$>
  • Reply-to: drmajorbob at


It's a long way to nirvana, but we'll never get there pretending we're  
already there.


On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 03:57:09 -0600, AES <siegman at> wrote:

> In article <hj40q4$sgk$1 at>,
>  Richard Fateman <fateman at> wrote:
>> But can you show they learn more
>> calculus if they have Mathematica at hand?
> Speaking only for myself (and noting that my calculus-learning days are
> far in the past, and that I'm not at all sure what the operational
> meaning of "learn more calculus" might be), I can only say that having
> Mathematica at hand whenever I'm doing any kind of "maths"  whether
> it's learning more about some familiar or new mathematical topic, or
> trying to solve some real problem using math  certainly enables me to
> gain immensely more insight and/or intuition into what the symbols on
> the paper mean, or how the mathematically described system of interest
> will actually behave.  Mathematica can really be "insanely great" at
> helping do that, and I'm grateful for it.
> But it's Mathematica that's the "tool" for producing results here, and
> the conventional mathematical symbols as conventionally written on paper
> and the real physical systems that are the important realities  the
> things that most of us want to concentrate on  not the arcane and
> sometimes inconsistent or even bizarre innards of Mathematica.
> Which is why it's so egregious and some of us so unsympathetic when
> attempts to apply Mathematica to some conventional mathematical input in
> what would seem a sensible and consistent fashion instead trigger some
> arcane Mathematica "gotcha"; and Mathematica acolytes then try to
> convince us that, hey, that's the way Mathematica works, and we must
> therefore accept it as near divinely inspired, and focus unlimited
> energies on learning the arcane (and often very ill-documented) details
> of what Mathematica does, not the tasks we want to accomplish with it.
> Mathematica is a _commercial tool_, not a divinely endowed
> accomplishment of human creativity before which we must all bow down
> (and that remains true not withstanding the large amount of great human
> creativity that has obviously gone into developing it).

DrMajorBob at

  • Prev by Date: Re: Finding and changing strings in a matrix
  • Next by Date: Re: looping
  • Previous by thread: Re: More /.{I->-1} craziness
  • Next by thread: Re: Re: More /.{I->-1} craziness