"Bill Page" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On August 23, 2006 2:21 PM Gaby wrote: | > | > | > | > Yes, and as a matter of fact, I'm deeply sceptical of your | > | > previous assertion. | > | | > | Which assertion? | > | > # Gaby would like to introduce his students to "symbolic | > # computation", *but really Axiom (and Aldor) are not very | > # good at this -- by design.* | > | > (emphasis is mine). | > | | Sorry. I did not mean to imply that Axiom and Aldor are not good | "by design". Certainly a lot of effort went into making Axiom | with Aldor the best possible tool for doing general mathematics by | computer. The point I was trying to make was that the basic design | of Axiom was such as to emphasise mathematical *structure* over | linguistically oriented formal symbolic computation.
and my point is that that distinction is largely an academic exercise in ways we approach the subject matter, and NOT a really deep one (though it may be given substance). And the level of a graduate course where I would like to attract students and get them excited about the subject, and potential contributors, that is largely a pointless and confusing exercise. As a matter of fact, *there are structures* in formal symbolic computation -- rewriting rules are seldom used bindly without structures, nor assumptions. It is a matter of how and when those structures are expressed and taken advantages of. | It is clear | from the early literature on Axiom that this was a deliberate design | choice. Other early systems being developed at the same time, such | as Reduce, took the opposite view. Clearly, Axiom emphasis structures -- that is one of the aspects I refer to when I say "principled CAS". However, my thesis is that it is -paradigmic- aspect of the subject matter, not a "semantically" different field. | > | On the contrary, I do not think I am "painting it into a corner". | > | > what you said only reinforces the perception I have had since | > some time now, from discussions on this list. | > | | Could you explain what you mean "the perception you have had"? | Do you mean that idea that I am (we are?) are "painting Axiom | into a corner" by emphasising how it differs from some other | systems? I don't understand why you would think that. As I said, it is a perception I have had for some time, it is not a perception given by the single message you just sent. it is NOT a general matter of showing how different Axiom is; but it is the matter of saying we are targetting a narrow field, with unfocused means. | >... | > between 1995 (when I first heard of it, and later got presentation | > by Stephen about A# at FRISCO workshops, and repeated "conversion | > attempts" from colleagues -- mostly French you suspect) and 2002, | > nearly nothing widely appreciated happened to Axiom -- contrast | > that to other CAS on the market. | | On the contrary this was the period of time when NAG was investing | a lot of time and money into developing Axiom as a commercial | product. An entirely new and I think potentially quite revolutionary | user interface was developed. Axiom was ported to a new lisp environment | that permitted Axiom to be delivered on Windows. And the numerical | abilities of Axiom were greatly extended. yes, but how widely was it noticed and appreciated? | Perhaps it is true that this | is not now "widely appreciated" but I think that is only because it | turned out that NAG decided to abandon it's attempt to market this | new version of Axiom. :( we can hardly accuse NAG to stop losing money :-/ OK, I appreciate other CAS company have been more effective at marketing that acheiving technical advances. [...] | > | Could you explain what you mean by "retroactively used to redesign | > | its past foundation"? | > | > My understanding of your comments is that "people tried to show Axiom | > as competing symbolic computation systems, it fails. Let's try to | > present it as not having anything to do with that, by design." | | I think that is an unfair assessment of my statements. | | > I don't believe Axiom's foundational and design principles can be | > meaningfully understood that way. I don't believe earlier failure | > had to do with the fact that Axiom was presented a symbolic | > computation system. | | I did not say that. The reasons for Axiom's failure as a commercial | product were no doubt very different and largely non-technical. | | > But I suspect all have our own religions and beliefs :-) | | Yes I suppose, but what does that have to do with Axiom? our respective beliefs of why Axiom failed. -- Gaby _______________________________________________ Axiom-developer mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
