Vladimir Bondarenko wrote:
> On Jan 26, 12:50 pm, Christopher Creutzig <christop...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> writes:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math.symbolic/msg/b1d22cd149c93198
>
> CC> I agree that in a more perfect world, we'd have at
> CC> least such consistency checks for all the things CAS
> CC> systems are doing. But for many things, that is
> CC> simply not doable.
>
> This is completely false.
Wrong. It is absolutely true. Please learn some fundamentals, such as
the basic problems about determining whether a constant expression is
zero. This is *undecidable* (in the strong, well-defined sense of that
word used in computer science) for a Turing machine, with the only
constraint being that the algorithm terminate in finite time.
> If designed and implemented with care, it can help, and
> without hurting the CAS performance badly.
Sorry, but I know you hardly know anything about implementing computer
algebra. There's nothing wrong with that, of course, and quite a few of
the bugs you've published are valuable starting points for QA work. But
please stop writing nonsense about things in which you've obviously
never gained experience.
If you wish to disagree, the only way I'm going to be convinced is from
seeing you actually doing some useful work in the realm of CAS
implementation. Put up or shut up.
Oh, just for the record: While of course based on professional
experience, everything stated in here is completely my personal opinion.
--
if all this stuff was simple, we'd
probably be doing something else. -- Daniel Lichtblau, s.m.symbolic
|
