Gaby, On August 23, 2006 4:12 PM you wrote:
> ... > 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). I think you are wrong. I think Steven Watt's paper provides a very substantive example: http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~watt/pub/reprints/2006-tc-sympoly.pdf > 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. I disagree... but you're the teacher, not me. :) > 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. > When you have an opportunity I would like to see you expand on this idea. I do not clearly understand what you mean by "structure" in this case. > ... > | 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 :-/ > Hmmmm... keep in mind that NAG is described as a "not-for-profit company". But I agree that money was a factor. http://www.nag.co.uk/about_nag.asp > ... > our respective beliefs of why Axiom failed. > I do not agree that Axiom has "failed". Lack of commercial success should not be construed as failure in this kind of research. Regards, Bill Page. _______________________________________________ Axiom-developer mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
