oops, the review is by Davis; the paper is by Lample and Charton, both of Facebook.
On Tuesday, December 17, 2019 at 4:21:07 PM UTC-8, rjf wrote: > > disagrees with me? or Emmanuel? > Lample's abstract (of the review) concluded with > > The claim that this outperforms Mathematica on symbolic integration needs > to be very much qualified. > > I glanced at the full review and I don't see that I disagree with it. > Generating 80 million randomly generated expressions, storing them and > claiming > that you can integrate their derivatives does not become a method for > doing integrals. > It is a method for looking up expressions in a table. Since most of those > expressions > will be sums, and the one of the main methods for actually computing > integrals > is to observe that the integral of a sum is the sum of the integrals, > there is > very little use for such a table. > > > On Monday, December 16, 2019 at 7:14:02 AM UTC-8, Richard_L wrote: >> >> Apparently, someone disagrees. See Ernest Lample's posting to the arXiv: >> https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.05752 >> >> On Friday, September 27, 2019 at 8:06:31 AM UTC-7, Dima Pasechnik wrote: >>> >>> https://openreview.net/pdf?id=S1eZYeHFDS >>> >>> I wish they had code available... >>> >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/8ee0c530-7b00-4901-b411-9aa4aba07e4a%40googlegroups.com.
