Re: An open note for all the Mathematica
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg108620] Re: An open note for all the Mathematica
- From: Mark McClure <mcmcclur at unca.edu>
- Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 04:27:06 -0500 (EST)
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 5:41 AM, Pratip Chakraborty <pratip.chakraborty at gmail.com> wrote: > I was thinking if the developers have any plan to increase the > numerical capabilities of Mathematica in near future. > ... > Especially the in case of numerical simulation of coupled PDEs the > development seems to be quite stagnant if we consider the last four > versions. On the other hand there is a free add on called IMTEK which proves > to be an example how Mathematica can be used to solve industrial scale > problem in the field of multiphysics. You might be interested in Wolfram Blog post and video: http://blog.wolfram.com/2009/11/12/the-rd-pipeline-for-mathematica/ where Stephen Wolfram outlines a number of core areas of Mathematica development. The first thing he mentions is PDEs. The author of IMTEK is now a Wolfram employee as well so I strongly suspect that we'll see a major improvement along these lines in the near future. It would be particularly nice to see some FEM algorithms incorporated. As of now, an elliptic problem can really only be handled by relaxing into the solution. > Another missing stuff is documentation for interfacing C/C++ programs. Have you seen Todd Gayley's tutorial? http://library.wolfram.com/infocenter/TechNotes/174/ I agree that it would be nice to see Mathematica incorporate a broader range of purely numerical algorithms. Mathematica's overall focus is so broad, though, that I think it would be a mistake to focus on it entirely. There are a number of other areas that could certainly be improved: graph theory, computational geometry, abstract algebra, TeX export, all off the top of my head. I think it's very unlikely that the other system will be displaced from its unique position in numerical analysis but, so what? They're very different tools. Mark McClure