Re: [Axiom-developer] SAGE, Axiom, and usage

[Gabriel Dos Reis]

"Bill Page" <address@hidden> writes:

| Gaby,
| 
| On August 23, 2006 4:12 PM you wrote:
| 
| > ...
| > my point is that that distinction is largely an academic exercise
| > in ways we approach the subject matter, and NOT a really deep 
| > one (though it may be given substance).
| 
| I think you are wrong.  I think Steven Watt's paper provides
| a very substantive example:

it seems we have entered the traditional phase of
opinion-vs-proof-by-authority.  I guess, the best we can  do is to
postpone the discussion for more data.

[...]

| > As a matter of fact, *there are structures* in formal symbolic
| > computation -- rewriting rules are seldom used bindly without
| > structures, nor assumptions.  It is a matter of how and when
| > those structures are expressed and taken advantages of.
| >
| 
| When you have an opportunity I would like to see you expand
| on this idea. I do not clearly understand what you mean by
| "structure" in this case.

think of it as "types" in software construction.

[...]

| > our respective beliefs of why Axiom failed.
| > 
| 
| I do not agree that Axiom has "failed". Lack of commercial
| success should not be construed as failure in this kind of
| research.

when, given the many times you have blamed NAG for the impact of its
commercial failure with Axiom, I suspect you can just decree that
these aspects of the project are independent and have no impact on
each other.

How do you measure success?

-- Gaby