[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Re: How to write a "proper" math document
*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
*Subject*: [mg120215] Re: How to write a "proper" math document
*From*: Richard Fateman <fateman at cs.berkeley.edu>
*Date*: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 03:12:17 -0400 (EDT)
*References*: <201107041044.GAA02461@smc.vnet.net> <iuukk8$epi$1@smc.vnet.net> <15944200.6757.1309943765495.JavaMail.root@m06> <iv45b8$es8$1@smc.vnet.net> <201107080852.EAA28646@smc.vnet.net> <ivh9dm$llg$1@smc.vnet.net>
On 7/12/2011 3:59 AM, Andrzej Kozlowski wrote:
> On 8 Jul 2011, at 10:52, Richard Fateman wrote:
>
>> I find it far preferable to take stuff out of a computer algebra system
>> as TeX and paste it into a static document. This also provides an
>> opportunity to fix the broken displays. E.g. we really don't expect a
>> display of f=ma to come out f=am. Or E=mc^2 to come out e=c^2m
>> (note also that E=2.718... not energy). Mathematica thinks it knows
>> better than Einstein and Newton.
>
>
> This argument is entirely bogus.
So you don't do what I do.
If you really want to produce a "static
> document" in Mathematica there is no need to evaluate anything. You
> enter f=ma and it stays that way.
No, I would take stuff I computed, (which might as, sub-expressions,
include forms with particular mnemonic value such as f=ma...) and
paste them into a static document.
You can also write E=mc^2 or
> whatever you like and it will stay this way too. This is so obvious it
> is hard to believe anyone could fail to have noticed it.
It is hard to believe that anyone could believe that I was interested in
pasting a text or non-evaluable expression re-rendered in TeX from
Mathematica into a TeX document. Of course the intent would be to take
stuff that you have computed in a computer algebra system and paste it
in to a static document. E.g. "Here is the result of our algorithm as
computed in Mathematica, with terms rearranged slightly for ease of
comprehension : .... insert TeX here .... "
>
> Of course things are different when evaluated output is concerned but it
> also obvious that it is much easier to "fix it" in Mathematica than to
> copy and paste into TeX and then fix it there.
>
> There are good reasons for using TeX instead of Mathematica for journal
> articles (I almost always do so myself) but very few of them were given
> in this thread (and none in the above passage). One of the main reasons
> is that in fact it is often very hard and sometimes perhaps impossible
> to produce in Mathematica mathematical documents of the kind of
> professional quality that is expected by mathematics journals.
So you do exactly what I do. Just wanted to argue, I suppose.
RJF
>
> On the other hand I use Mathematica exclusively for such things as
> writing homework or exam problems for my students and almost all
> "informal" mathematical writing. The advantages of Mathematica for all
> such purposes seem to me so obvious that I won't bother listing them
> here.
>
> Andrzej Kozlowski
>
Prev by Date:
**Re: MultinormalDistribution Question**
Next by Date:
**Re: How to write a "proper" math document**
Previous by thread:
**Re: How to write a "proper" math document**
Next by thread:
**Re: How to write a "proper" math document**
| |