I think it's wonderful that scientists get so much value out of
mathematical software, but they are not the only ones -- why does this
mean that every piece of mathematical software needs to be filed in the
science drawer?
Because it is not always possible to draw a clear line between
I went on and made a list of applications that are currently found in
Science [science] and another one with these applications roughly
sorted into sections [science_sorted].
The short version:
Analysis [10]
Astronomy [12]
Biology [16]
Chemistry [11]
Geoscience [5]
Medicine [1]
Physics
I added another section named Analysis, that contains general data
analysis/plotting/calculation applications. I find them very similar to
what is found in Math, so I consider moving Mathematics to Science
a good idea.
Again: we see that scientists make heavy use of mathematics, so all
Unconvinced. Theoretical chemistry, as an example, is largely mathematics. But
not only in the sense below engineering/physics. To develop novel theoretical
chemistry, new mathematics has to be invented. The same for
physics/mathematics: remember that Newton had to invent (I know that in some
Unconvinced. Theoretical chemistry, as an example, is largely
mathematics. But not only in the sense below engineering/physics. To
develop novel theoretical chemistry, new mathematics has to be
invented. The same for physics/mathematics: remember that Newton had
to invent (I know that in
Hello,
On Sun, 2006-05-14 at 19:20, Bill Allombert wrote:
On Sun, May 14, 2006 at 06:20:25PM +0200, Thomas Walter wrote:
[snip]
In general, my understanding of Science is in the sense of research
and not education.
Thus an example breakdown within Sience could be like
Mathematics
Hello,
On Mon, 2006-05-15 at 01:25, Daniel Leidert wrote:
[snip]
Ok. Let's say, the main function/job/role makes the difference, so only
applications which are real teaching programs (like e.g. tools to teach
langauges or the PSE like kalzium or gperiodic) have to go into
Education. All
I actually find splitting Science a good idea.
I did a little research and came up with this list of possible
subsections, along with example fields they cover:
Astronomy
* Astrodynamics
* Astronomy
* Astrophysics
* Cosmology
* Radio astronomy
Biology
* Anatomy
* Bioinformatics
* Botany
Hello,
On Sun, 2006-05-14 at 17:01, Bill Allombert wrote:
Hello Debian Science people,
There is a discussion (in bug #361418) on the future of the Debian
menu structure. In case you missed it, we would like to have your
opinions on the entries for scientific applications.
The relevant
etc., what about chemistry? Chemistry is at the basis of natural sciences
mentioned below, and a basic science in its own. Think about chemistry (there
are great debian packages for chemistry, first on the line - in my view -
mpqc. At any event, there are chemists under the Science section
I received this message after I answered Bill Allombert.
The list below is a reasonable one, when Bio is written in full Biology
and medicine is added; medicine is largely biology but with special needs.
I disagree with the distinction science/education. Scientific education is
science, or
On Sun, May 14, 2006 at 05:45:44PM +0200, Francesco Pietra wrote:
etc., what about chemistry? Chemistry is at the basis of natural sciences
mentioned below, and a basic science in its own. Think about chemistry (there
are great debian packages for chemistry, first on the line - in my view -
On Sun, May 14, 2006 at 06:20:25PM +0200, Thomas Walter wrote:
Hello,
From my point of view this 2 section names are arbitrary and too global.
It also opens a long discussion about the hirarchy. I think Mathematics
is also part of Science. At least for application like axiom, octave,
Am Sonntag, den 14.05.2006, 18:20 +0200 schrieb Thomas Walter:
On Sun, 2006-05-14 at 17:01, Bill Allombert wrote:
Hello Debian Science people,
There is a discussion (in bug #361418) on the future of the Debian
menu structure. In case you missed it, we would like to have your
opinions
Hello,
On Sun, 2006-05-14 at 17:57, Francesco Pietra wrote:
I received this message after I answered Bill Allombert.
The list below is a reasonable one, when Bio is written in full Biology
and medicine is added; medicine is largely biology but with special needs.
I disagree with the
On Sun, 2006-05-14 at 20:52, Daniel Leidert wrote:
Am Sonntag, den 14.05.2006, 18:20 +0200 schrieb Thomas Walter:
On Sun, 2006-05-14 at 17:01, Bill Allombert wrote:
Hello Debian Science people,
There is a discussion (in bug #361418) on the future of the Debian
menu structure. In
Am Sonntag, den 14.05.2006, 21:55 +0200 schrieb Thomas Walter:
On Sun, 2006-05-14 at 20:52, Daniel Leidert wrote:
[..]
In general, my understanding of Science is in the sense of research
and not education.
I do not agree. Education also means science. It doesn't just mean
teaching.
On Sun, May 14, 2006 at 05:57:31PM +0200, Francesco Pietra wrote:
I received this message after I answered Bill Allombert.
The list below is a reasonable one, when Bio is written in full Biology
and medicine is added; medicine is largely biology but with special needs.
I disagree with
Hello,
On Sun, 2006-05-14 at 22:26, Daniel Leidert wrote:
Am Sonntag, den 14.05.2006, 21:55 +0200 schrieb Thomas Walter:
On Sun, 2006-05-14 at 20:52, Daniel Leidert wrote:
[..]
In general, my understanding of Science is in the sense of research
and not education.
I do not
Am Sonntag, den 14.05.2006, 23:42 +0200 schrieb Thomas Walter:
On Sun, 2006-05-14 at 22:26, Daniel Leidert wrote:
[..]
Where do you make the difference between a scientific and an educational
software product? Let's say: What is a chemical structures editor? What
is a (software realized)
Oh, and a minor typo:
The relevant sections are:
Mathematics [was:Math]
Mathematics-related software.
gcalctool, snapea, xeukleides
The snappea package has two ps.
Ben (the snappea maintainer).
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe.
Hi,
I think Mathematics is also part of Science.
FWIW, I would argue that mathematics is not a science -- it does not use
the scientific method, there is no hypothesis and experimentation -- it
is a more self-contained discipline that, while it seeks to be useful,
is not bound to modelling the
Ben Burton wrote:
Hi,
I think Mathematics is also part of Science.
FWIW, I would argue that mathematics is not a science -- it does not use
the scientific method, there is no hypothesis and experimentation -- it
is a more self-contained discipline that, while it seeks to be useful,
is not
FWIW, I would argue that mathematics is not a science -- it does not use
the scientific method, there is no hypothesis and experimentation -- it
is a more self-contained discipline that, while it seeks to be useful,
is not bound to modelling the physical world.
I think of new ways to try
To answer here, taking into account other suggestions, i believe that the less
we cut science into pieces the better the result. Specialisation has resulted
to be a negative trend in university education (all over the world). When
industry seeks for a fresh graduate biologist, industry seeks
25 matches
Mail list logo
