Group Abstract Group Abstract

Message Boards Message Boards

7
|
36.2K Views
|
31 Replies
|
48 Total Likes
View groups...
Share
Share this post:

Why are some professors negative on Mathematica?

Posted 11 years ago

In discussions with several university physics professors,,,theoreticians...they profess a strong dislike for Mathematica and caution their students about using it. I can fully understand cautioning a user to make sure they have used the correct syntax or correctly formulated a problem or model, but their caution was stronger than that. They, in effect, prefer to roll their own algorithms. They also claim Mathematica gives bad results, though it was unclear whether the fault lay in the execution or the formulation of a problem.

I am troubled by this attitude, since users in all technical disciplines use Mathematica and rely on it to supply solutions to various designs, models, and analyses, some that are mission critical.

I performed a literature search on evaluation of Mathematica and the most recent published critique and evaluation I found was for Mathematica 5. Other than this, there does not appear to be an undercurrent of suspicion except from these specific profs.

What is going on? I can defend my mathematical models but I cannot defend the outcomes of executions of these models if there is skepticism over the validity of solutions obtained by Mathematica. I can also understand that anyone who has not come up on the learning curve might simply be covering their own inadequacies, hence the attitude of rolling their own. However, everyone should be skeptical of published results from the use of personal algorithms, for which no validation or user community exists.

How can the quality of the results from the use of Mathmatica be supported? Are there published evaluations? What might some organizations such as DARPA do to validate some work for which Mathematica has been a cornerstone of the analyses?

Or am I the only person to have run into this level of skepticism...which is ironic since I am more skeptical of analytical results than most.

POSTED BY: Luther Nayhm
31 Replies
POSTED BY: W. Craig Carter
Posted 11 years ago
POSTED BY: Steve M
Posted 11 years ago
POSTED BY: Luther Nayhm

Some comments on "attitude" and "culture". One of the greatest influences on me have been the books on data graphics by Edward Tufte. It is one reason I believe in writing literate notebooks with textual explanations and multiple and carefully designed presentations. Tufte writes: " Those who discover an explanation are often those who construct its representation." Mathematica gives you plenty of tools for constructing representations and exploring their behavior.

And why textual explanation? Because if you can't give a simple clear explanation it should leave you a bit skeptical as to your level of understanding. The same goes for documentation of a routine. If it's difficult to document maybe it should be redesigned or scrapped for some other routine. Textual explanation and documentation are not onerous chores, they are part of the learning or creative process.

I tend to eschew the terms "code" and "programming" in favor of terms such as "writing definitions, axioms, rules and specifications". After all, we're trying to do math and science. WRI can hire the programmers. It's a matter of attitude and culture.

Lots of people in academia write papers and even books as part of the process of better learning the material. Do you think they always knew it all before they started? So even if it's self-study, writing literate notebooks is good practice. And they might very well be good enough to interest other people. The same applies to having students write literate notebooks, even if they are relatively short. When they're finished they actually have something to show off. Science and technology are no good if they can't be communicated.

Also, if students can design new and clear presentations along with explanations, they are not only learning but they are adding value because these do not always exist together now.

And thanks to Luther for starting this discussion.

Posted 11 years ago
POSTED BY: Luther Nayhm

I basically use Mathematica for all my work unless otherwise forced asunder. I write all my documents in it and have done since around version 3 (when the typesetting became publication class).

POSTED BY: David Reiss

I think it was either Planck or Boltzmann who said that progress in Physics is made at funerals. You advance a new theory or process and wait for the old physicists to die. Having a Ph.D. in Physics myself, I'm allowed to say this. It's probably true for almost all fields of human endeavor.

POSTED BY: Frank Kampas
POSTED BY: Daniel Lichtblau
Posted 11 years ago
POSTED BY: Luther Nayhm
Posted 11 years ago
POSTED BY: Bill Simpson
Posted 11 years ago
POSTED BY: Bill Simpson

"Just playing with Mathematica is a good strategy for staying young"

I tried that Craig and it doesn't work! Running very very fast might work in a relative sense.

More accurately, playing with Mathematica is a good strategy for maximizing the use of your time.

Probably not what you had but maybe related:

http://library.wolfram.com/infocenter/Conferences/5782/

This is by Paul Wellin and he may have been author or a coauthor of the work you have in mind.

POSTED BY: Daniel Lichtblau
Posted 11 years ago
POSTED BY: Bill Simpson

That was possibly a bug, so to speak, in the CRC reference at the time. It did not really account for choices of roots used, at least in the quartic formula. This may also have been an issue with the cubic. This was stuff I had to work through in 1992.

POSTED BY: Daniel Lichtblau

I first used Macsyma over a 300 baud modem over the Arpanet from Caltech to MIT back in the mid 70s. And I found a bug. They had the general solution to the cubic entered incorrectly.

POSTED BY: David Reiss
Posted 11 years ago
POSTED BY: Luther Nayhm
POSTED BY: W. Craig Carter
Posted 11 years ago
POSTED BY: Luther Nayhm
Posted 11 years ago
POSTED BY: Steve M

Bill, Bravo. Very well articulated. Thanks.

Sadly, careful error propagation, null hypotheses, standard error and sample sizes, p values, etc are disappearing from the canonical topics of a physical science education, and many papers appear in press with no discussion of error and uncertainty.

The typical excuse for omission is "curriculum pressure". I think we are just not teaching effectively.

POSTED BY: W. Craig Carter
POSTED BY: David Reiss
POSTED BY: W. Craig Carter
Posted 11 years ago
POSTED BY: Steve M
Posted 11 years ago

We have walked the same dusty trail. I had forgotten about Macsyma.

I do some of the things you suggest, but in a less ordered fashion. I have several worksheets that I have input various solutions and approaches to problems, and I just keep using the same worksheets. My memory is good enough that I remember that they are in the worksheets and I open one and start scrolling. I call it my cluttered desktop approach.

I second your admiration for Wolfram. And I will look up the reference you suggested. Thanks.

POSTED BY: Luther Nayhm
Posted 11 years ago
POSTED BY: Luther Nayhm

Luther, why don't you write me at djmpark@comcast.net and tell me what your project is.

Reply to this discussion
Community posts can be styled and formatted using the Markdown syntax.
Reply Preview
Attachments
Remove
or Discard