On Aug 4, 2007, at 5:58 PM, William Stein wrote: > On 8/4/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Shoot, this came in as I sent that last message. I have much less >> to say about >> this version; it's very strong. Part of me thinks that the >> mathematica quote >> is too direct an attack... but it's from the horse's mouth, and I >> think that the >> mathematical community needs to know. > > It is indeed *their* statement on the matter and it is what they > strongly believe > to be true. It is critical to my argument that the reader be > convinced that > current closed mathematical software is nothing like the situation > with math papers -- with > closed math software you can't just pay $25 and read the source (like > you can with > expensive journal articles. No journal would *ever* dare make a > statement > like Mathematica does about the proofs of the theorems they > publish. Many > mathematicians probably don't know this or believe it about > mathematical software. > It is very important that they realize the truth before it is too > late.
Though we all understand the principle, I don't think many people will (instantly) see the connection between software and proofs. I don't want to be to aggressive, but I think we need to state that point directly. I like how you worded it in this email--perhaps right after the quote something like. No journal would *ever* dare make a statement like Mathematica does about the proofs of the theorems they publish, yet (here/increasingly commenly) the software and algorithms used are an essential part of (Jane's/the) proof. - Robert --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
