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

Re: Mathematica and Lisp

• To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
• Subject: [mg129640] Re: Mathematica and Lisp
• From: danl at wolfram.com
• Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2013 01:15:07 -0500 (EST)
• Delivered-to: l-mathgroup@mail-archive0.wolfram.com
• Delivered-to: l-mathgroup@wolfram.com
• Delivered-to: mathgroup-newout@smc.vnet.net
• Delivered-to: mathgroup-newsend@smc.vnet.net
• References: <kcqkv4$lq5$1@smc.vnet.net> <kct7fj$sgo$1@smc.vnet.net> <kef6pb$k9a$1@smc.vnet.net>

On Thursday, January 31, 2013 7:46:19 PM UTC-6, John Doty wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 2:40:17 AM UTC-5, Richard Fateman wrote:

> > If I were using a computer to do something that required correct answers
> > for, say, life safety, like building a bridge, I would follow WRI's
> > advice and not use Mathematica.
>
> I use Mathematica in the creation of designs for space flight hardware
> But, of course, I don't *only* use Mathematica. It's most useful for
> exploring ideas ahead of detailed analysis with more specialized software.
> But in my business counting on unverified calculation, regardless of the
> source, is asking for trouble.

I will add to this that I am not aware of any such advice from Wolfram Research. The post by RJF had the URL

> (see http://www.wolframalpha.com/termsofuse/)

This is for Wolfram|Alpha and is mostly irrelevant to Mathematica. I suspect this is the more appropriate legal agreement.

http://www.wolfram.com/legal/agreements/wolfram-mathematica.html

I believe somewhere the documentation recommends against use for certain types of life-safety applications involving real-time computation. That's not the same thing as designing a bridge, or a jet plane, or landing control software, or medical devices, or drugs, or...

Daniel Lichtblau
Wolfram Research

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Mathematica and Lisp
    • From: Andrzej Kozlowski <akozlowski@gmail.com>