Glen,
I have never heard of SAGE or OCTAVE other than as a plant and a musical term.
herpetophobia=Ophidiophobia ? I hope that was your intention...
Maple was used by Mathematica? for the core of its symbolic computations But
being pro-Canadian never switched over. We used to get Maple to convert itself
to Fortran code
so there are routes available There was lately a flurry of interest from the
Processing user groups in SuperEllipses recently . But they don't seem to have
done much with multiple objects
with strange surfaces. The way Maple uses libraries seems to have been adopted
by Processing which is very awkward and just handling any one library is
trickier than need be.
At least these libraries can now be used by Python as well. Crossing domains I
guess.
There may well be enough open Source code now to cobble together something like
a math engine of sorts. Arduino looks very attractive and powerful enough to
run robotics, but I can no longer
use my hands and gave up trying with the Rasberry Pi sitting on my desk. I'll
stick to poking. I never quite found a mission for it.
I think before MatLab , I was using and ancient C++ , Zortech Compiler that
featured M++ matrix libraries, very handy but all that has vanished and
absorbed by Microsoft and made purposely
difficult. Funny you use the word "Tool chain" while the graphics people use
"Pipe Line". I adapt slowly and reluctantly in all honesty.
Have you been keeping track of the "Topological Materials" news. They have some
weird discoveries that should make for great changes. I guess I will have to
supply code
for many other topological surfaces with abundant holes. Never expected this
outcome,,, Warped Networks sounds like it belongs on a Tee Shirt.
Strange idea that networks can be stitched together to create something larger
as a plaything...
Vladimyr
-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen ?
Sent: July-20-17 11:10 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] the role of metaphor in scientific thought
Regarding the toolchain:
I can't help but wonder how difficult it would be to switch from Maple to Sage?
If it's anything like how it used to be to use Matlab code in Octave, then
it's non-trivial. But if it *were* relatively straightforward, then it might
be easier to "distribute" participation. Ophidiophobia notwithstanding.
Also, although perhaps small in terms of communities, Processing does have
other users like the Arduino people. And just playing with it for Jon
Zingale's example of Takens' theorem[†], it didn't seem that difficult to get
working. So, my guess is that it would be much more accessible than the Maple.
Not being able to mix complex with primitive objects is an odd problem, though.
[†] http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/2017-February/075670.html
Regarding disenfranchisement under distribution:
This is the *heart* of systems theory, in my opinion. The actions of the
overwhelming majority of single operators are well removed from the distant
outcome. If the distribution is biased, then the hubs have more influence,
obviously. But that's the joy of systemic thinking, I think. Being able to
correlate (at least in a delusional/motivated way, if not for real) one's tiny
actions to a larger effect. Deep down, perhaps some of us are individualists
and some of us are teamsters. But opening up your very private
toolchain/method to the (annoying) participation of others should, I think,
incentivize you ... like in Core Wars if you're competitive ... or in SETI if
you're a teamster.
On 07/19/2017 03:02 PM, Vladimyr wrote:
> I already use AutoHotKey Script to run Code in Maple Math and Dump
> .txt vertex data embedded in Processing 3 code (some Java offshoot) The
> autoHotKey assembles the hundreds of images and 3D objects into ordered sets
> and then runs MovieMaker to produce video .wmv, which you have seen already.
>
> It was my intention to convert the functional routines from Maple directly
> into Processing and share that code widely.
> But few people other than web artists use Processing and it does not seem
> able to run on a web site. I guess this is a general problem or short coming.
>
> Processing graphics are fast and surprisingly good, better than I am used to
> elsewhere.
> I will try and write the Processing version of the Maple guts and get
> it out but it may take sometime and others will have to install the
> Processing engine which is free but sort of clunky to set up.
>
> There are a number of issues that all this cross talk introduces such as
> while Processing does crank out 3D object files readily accepted by 3D
> printers.
> But it handles colors strangely and seems unable to mix these objects with
> solid primitives during object creation. A task probably better suited to CAD
> packages.
>
> If this is done you will probably by amazed at all
