RE: Re: Using Mathem
- To: mathgroup@smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg11785] RE: [mg11755] Re: [mg11699] Using Mathem
- From: Ersek_Ted%PAX1A@mr.nawcad.navy.mil
- Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 00:25:21 -0500
Exactly!
What have researchers been doing for the last 40 years. Have people
been citing the details of how the computer estimated the logarithm of
a floating point number and other such details? I don't think so.
I thought the authors and reviewers are expected to ensure the results
are correct. If the results are correct it makes no difference how
the calculations were done. Now the author does have a problem with
ensuring that the results are correct. That is where the author
should verify the calculation with a different method.
Now Wolfram Research should provide *and do provide* the definition of
special functions.
For example they tell us that:
Zeta[s]=Sum[k^-s, {k,1,Infinity}]
It's important that they provide the definitions because some functions
have more than one definition commonly used.
Ted Ersek
----------
|It's a problem of scientific method, in my view. The fact that the
|internals are not public is irrelevant, just as most people do not
care |about the availability of the Windows operating system source
code. I |do base some of my research on Mathematica output, but so far
I have |always compared results given by two different algorithms
(possibly |both accomplished via Mathematica, why not?), in some cases
one giving |analytical results and the other numerical. What I will not
do is |believe the result of an integral extending through 100 pages
with no |further cross-checking.
|
|
|-----Original Message-----
|From: Linc Davis <l_davis@ix.netcom.com> To: mathgroup@smc.vnet.net To:
mathgroup@smc.vnet.net
|Subject: [mg11785] [mg11755] [mg11699] Using Mathematica results in publications
|
|
|>Given that the internals of Mathematica are not public, are there any
|>practical or philosophical problems involved in using the results of
|>its computations in published research? Obviously this has to be done
|>with proper attribution, but aren't you just taking Wolfram's word
for |>it that the results are accurate? Just wondering. Thanks for
replies. |>
|>--
|>Lincoln R. Davis
|>(e-mail address is valid)
|>
|>
|
|