Fine, but since his tools are used to prove mathematical theorems, how can we formally be sure about the correctness of Mathematica statements if Mathematica is just black box (I agree though this is more a matter of principle). Additionally, given all the movement in Open Science and Open Access, Mathematica and the other jewels could be very well part of it. E.g. take all the software produced at CERN to analyse LHC data. It's all Open Source. (and the scientific outcomes are all Open Access) In principle
since his tools are used to prove mathematical theorems, how can we formally be sure about the correctness of Mathematica statements if Mathematica is just black box (I agree though this is more a matter of principle).
Yeah, since this closed-source software doesn't contain any bugs that give you the wrong answer.
Well, a blackbox proof is useful -- a doubter can submit something that generates an error.
If I were him, I'd strike a deal with Google.for all the formulae they've come across.
For that matter, there are other math engines, and probably an alternate development one in-house, and you can test them against each other with random inputs until you find a discrepancy.
I've done that myself with algorithms several times -- the "real" one against another, less-efficient and different one.
But he has pretensions towards being a respected visionary scientist. It's not impossible to have it both ways, but it's really, really difficult. (Especially when you've taken the work you did as a student at a public university and commercialized it without giving a penny to the university.)
I agree here. This fellow looks like he is good at self-aggrandizement to gather shekels shucking ultra expensive software. I don't like this giant list of pedigree either. Solve problems or help others solve problems. To be fair, mathematica helps others solve problems BUT:
The licensing model is extortionary, its rental software, and it even tries to limit the users by how many API calls are made per month.
Also as others have pointed out because it is black box software its not really auditable.
I find a man who has made as much money as him being as greedy and self aggrandizing as he is today to be petty and money-lusting.
His book is roundly and rightfully savaged in reviews, check them out on Amazon. I will not be linking to it as this guy doesnt need more money pouring in.
I have a startup where our algorithms guy pays the mathematica fine every year. But lets be clear, algorithms guy does 99.9% of the work here and a good part of that is perspiration.
Wolfram just cashes checks - so with all due respect, lets not put this guy on a pedestal.
Mathematica itself is unique. Nothing combines the power of symbolic calculus with numerical computation in the same way. Your algorithms guy would probably be SOL without it, so don't diminish the uniqueness and power of that software. Nothing else comes close.
That having been said, Mathematica was already pretty much fully written as of 1991---I know because I used it. It was among the first to have exectuables for both Windows and Linux. And it worked fabulously. I wrote scientific articles using it a
Why not open source wolfram alpha? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why not open source wolfram alpha? (Score:0)
Because he runs a business not a hippy commune. Go away little freetard.
Re: (Score:0)
are we feeling sore? i love you.
Re: (Score:0)
Fine, but since his tools are used to prove mathematical theorems, how can we formally be sure about the correctness of Mathematica statements if Mathematica is just black box (I agree though this is more a matter of principle). Additionally, given all the movement in Open Science and Open Access, Mathematica and the other jewels could be very well part of it. E.g. take all the software produced at CERN to analyse LHC data. It's all Open Source. (and the scientific outcomes are all Open Access)
In principle
Re: (Score:0)
since his tools are used to prove mathematical theorems, how can we formally be sure about the correctness of Mathematica statements if Mathematica is just black box (I agree though this is more a matter of principle).
Yeah, since this closed-source software doesn't contain any bugs that give you the wrong answer.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, a blackbox proof is useful -- a doubter can submit something that generates an error.
If I were him, I'd strike a deal with Google.for all the formulae they've come across.
For that matter, there are other math engines, and probably an alternate development one in-house, and you can test them against each other with random inputs until you find a discrepancy.
I've done that myself with algorithms several times -- the "real" one against another, less-efficient and different one.
They debug each other. It'
Re: (Score:1)
God what an idiot I am. He's got his own world-class web crawler and data analyzer.
Re: (Score:2)
In principle Wolfram could earn his money with a different business model (e.g. working in research or as a consultant...)
And just up and fires his ~700 employees?
Re: (Score:0)
Re: (Score:2)
Or he can just not take your terrible advice.
Re: (Score:2)
Because he runs a business not a hippy commune.
But he has pretensions towards being a respected visionary scientist. It's not impossible to have it both ways, but it's really, really difficult. (Especially when you've taken the work you did as a student at a public university and commercialized it without giving a penny to the university.)
Re:Why not open source wolfram alpha? (Score:4, Interesting)
I agree here. This fellow looks like he is good at self-aggrandizement to gather shekels shucking ultra expensive software. I don't like this giant list of pedigree either. Solve problems or help others solve problems. To be fair, mathematica helps others solve problems BUT:
The licensing model is extortionary, its rental software, and it even tries to limit the users by how many API calls are made per month.
Also as others have pointed out because it is black box software its not really auditable.
I find a man who has made as much money as him being as greedy and self aggrandizing as he is today to be petty and money-lusting.
His book is roundly and rightfully savaged in reviews, check them out on Amazon. I will not be linking to it as this guy doesnt need more money pouring in.
I have a startup where our algorithms guy pays the mathematica fine every year. But lets be clear, algorithms guy does 99.9% of the work here and a good part of that is perspiration.
Wolfram just cashes checks - so with all due respect, lets not put this guy on a pedestal.
Re: (Score:2)
That having been said, Mathematica was already pretty much fully written as of 1991---I know because I used it. It was among the first to have exectuables for both Windows and Linux. And it worked fabulously. I wrote scientific articles using it a
Why has Wolfram not given money to Caltech? (Score:1)
There could be many good reasons for Wolfram to avoid giving money to the university that educated him.
1. He may have realized the quality of the administration of the University was not up to his standards.
2. He may have felt slighted or even blocked in some cases by faculty members who were embarrassed that he was a much better scholar.
3. He may have identified problems with some of the tenured professors who he did not think were deserving of their responsibilities.
4. He may have developed an extreme dis