MathGroup Archive 2013

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

Search the Archive

Re: Mathematica and Lisp

  • To: mathgroup at
  • Subject: [mg129640] Re: Mathematica and Lisp
  • From: danl at
  • Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2013 01:15:07 -0500 (EST)
  • Delivered-to:
  • Delivered-to:
  • Delivered-to:
  • Delivered-to:
  • References: <kcqkv4$lq5$> <kct7fj$sgo$> <kef6pb$k9a$>

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

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

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

  • Prev by Date: Re: Euclidean distance of all pairwise combinations (redundants)
  • Next by Date: Re: strange behaviour of ListPlot with PlotStyle options in
  • Previous by thread: Re: Euclidean distance of all pairwise combinations (redundants)
  • Next by thread: Re: Mathematica and Lisp