Talk:Wolfram Mathematica/Archive 2

Mathematica as a math language document writer

I find that I use Mathemica almost exclusively for the capability to easily write math on the computer and print it out. Is this a fringe use (it's not mentioned in the article)? Should I add a section or sentence about it? Akshayaj 20:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Update: it is sort of mention in the Front-End section, but I still think it can be elaborated onAkshayaj 20:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If you have good knowledge of producing publication-quality output from Mathematica, please write an article about it! I know it is possible to get decent looking output from Mathematica, but it is far from trivual - either that, or I (and most others I know) are thick. The AuthorTools package is now considered legacy code, and that web page says about AuthorTools: "is included to help you during the transition to newer functions and syntax" - with no mention of what the new fuctions/syntax are. Despite the typical hype of the web page describing | Publicon I don't think it is true to say that Wolfram Research is transforming the way the world publishes technical documents with Wolfram Publicon. An "Idiots Guide to producing Publication Quality Output from Mathematica" would be nice, with reference to how to include data from other sources - i.e. diagrams, photos etc and get the formatting right, page breaks in the right places etc. If you know of such an article, then please let me know where it is - providing a link to it from this Mathematica entry on Wikipedia would be nice. Drkirkby 09:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

POV-check

A few passages that I found strange:

• Create a plot plus user interface in a single line of code
• A distinguishing characteristic of Mathematica, compared to similar systems, is its attempt to uniformly capture all aspects of mathematics and computation, rather than just specialized areas. The main innovation that makes this possible...
• Vast web of mathematical, visualization, graphics, and general programming functions, typically with state of the art implementations
• Mathematica is proprietary software protected by both trade secret and copyright law.

Since Wikipedia editors have not done the POV-check and there are no comments, I will some opinions...

* Create a plot plus user interface in a single line of code

This is a statement of what is in the screenshot. You can see the line of code, so not a POV

* A distinguishing characteristic of Mathematica, compared to similar systems, is its attempt to uniformly capture all aspects of mathematics and computation, rather than just specialized areas. The main innovation that makes this possible...

This seems like the only possible POV in his list, but he makes no alternative suggestion for what the distinguishing characteristic of Mathematica is.

* Vast web of mathematical, visualization, graphics, and general programming functions, typically with state of the art implementations

Online documentation lists around 3000 functions over these topics. Makes "vast" a reasonable description.

* Mathematica is proprietary software protected by both trade secret and copyright law.

Statement of fact that appears on other software wikipedia pages.

I suggest that the tag is removed.

JonMcLoone 10:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is my take on it.

1. I agree with Jon; this seems a statement of fact;
2. I think this is misleading. Most general-purpose computer algebra systems would satisfy this. I reformulated the paragraph.
3. "State of the art" may be questionable, so I labeled that sentence with Template:Fact.
4. The phrase "protected by both trade secret and copyright law" seems redundant, but I'm not sure that this is what the original poster had in mind.

Based on this, and Jon's comments, I removed the POV check tag. I am wondering though what to make of "emerging fields such as graph plotting and analysis, alternate input devices, new data formats". I don't consider these emerging fields. That whole Features section reads a bit too much like an advertisement. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 06:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The text about creating pictures with a single line of code. It is marketing style info. True or not, its sounds more like a brochure than an encyclopedia. It may as well say "mathematica is great". It is written like a brochure. Note, that brochures may have true info, but its written in a promoting style. 76.175.72.51 (talk) 00:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Revert on Integration criticism

I reverted the recent criticism on Integrate for lack of citation. But for the record, there are significant over-all improvements to Integrate and DSolve in Mathematica 6. Here is a quick sample of three integrals that could not be solved in 5.2 and are solved in 6.0: Integrate[Log[1 + Exp[-x1]], {x1, x2, Infinity}] Integrate[ Exp[-(z1^2 + z2^2)^2], {z1, -Infinity, Infinity}, {z2, -Infinity, Infinity}] Integrate[Exp[(1 - x - Exp[-x])/2], x] 81.137.150.33 09:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Revert on multithreading

I removed the description of multi-threading which was wrong on all levels- Mathematica does support multithreading on multicore CPUs, and the parallel programming tool IS compatible with the current Mathematica since Aug 9. I added clarifications to the existing high performance numerics write ups and it seemed like there was enough content to make a section out of it, so I moved it higher up the page and gave it a subhead. JonMcLoone 17:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Equation for Logo

What is the equation for Mathematica's logo? It generates a very interesting shape and I would like to know more about it. --Ahlfi006 04:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a page on the Wolfram Web site about this, and you can download a Mathematica notebook if you want to make it yourself. See [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drkirkby (talk • contribs) 01:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

WITM

I don't think that the recent reverter was correct to say that use of WITM is illegal. However there are license restrictions and technology limitations that made the write up misleading. I have re-written but here is the background...

Mathematica license agreement prohibited uses includes: "f. distributing, publishing, transferring, sublicensing, lending, leasing, renting, or otherwise making available the Product or any portion of the Software including collections of data; ... h. allowing access to the Product by any user other than Licensee, including without limitation, access to the Product via a web server which is only allowed pursuant to a valid webMathematica license agreement;"

Reading the documentation for WITM it is clear that it is not intended for use that breaches these conditions. 1) It contains no security model making it dangerous to allow external access 2) It contains no session model making simultaneous use by two people unstable.

The webMathematica product provides two additions to Mathematica 1) web tools like WITM, but using Java Servlets and with security, logging, pool management, session management etc 2) An extended license agreement that allows public access but not for arbitrary input.

My re-write was my best attempt to capture this information succinctly.

Finally, it is clearly not the number 1 alternative front end to Mathematica so I moved it down the list appropriately. JonMcLoone 12:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the section slightly, as the statement "... is a web browser front end similar to a subset of the webMathematica tools." is misleading. Apart from both being a web interface, that is about as far as the simularity goes. I don't see how it similar to a subset of webMathematica's tools, when WITM accepts arbitrary Mathematica input, and webMathematica does not. Also I changed the sentence "Used with a webMathematica license public access is allowed, though not for arbitrary input.", since being in a section on WITM, it implied when WITM is used with webMathematica, which it never is. Hence I added the word Mathematica in there too, to make it obvious that when Mathematica is used with webMathematica public access is permitted, although not for arbitrary input. Drkirkby 12:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

On the issue of arbitrary access-- The point that I was trying to make above in talk was that the issues of whether you can enter arbitrary input over the web to a Mathematica kernel have two distinct facets. 1) Can you technically do it? Both WITM and the webMathematica tools enable this. The default security values for webMathematica block most programming and file related input. But the user can set the list of disallowed functions to an empty list and arbitrary input is enabled. Hence I contend that there is no feature of WITM that is not supported in webMathematica tools- hence my use of the word subset. 2) Are you ALLOWED to provide arbitrary remote access. The Mathematica LICENSE says that you cannot share the Mathematica kernel with others. This does not change if you use WITM as the front end. It is ambiguous about giving remote access to yourself, which (my opinon) is that this allows it. You could use WITM or a remote desktop software. You could also use webMathematica and turn off security (though this would be an expensive solution). If you used a webMathematica LICENSE, then you get additional rights -- to be able to share your kernel with others but NOT for arbitrary input. Whether you use the webMathematica tools, WITM or some other technology, this does not change. So while arbitrary input sharing of Mathematica with others is TECHNICALLY possible (by WITM or webMathematica tools or other means) it is always against the Mathematica license agreement. I had another go at getting this concept across. JonMcLoone 09:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

There must be loads of people who quite legally allow themselves, colleagues, or students remote access to Mathematica kernels for arbitrary input. This would often be done via SSH, remote X, or even insecure telnet. In each case, they have a duty to only permit licensed users. Like you, I don't see how WITM should be seen any differently from a license point of view. It CAN be abused (publish the URL, add no password), but the exact same thing could be done with SSH or telnet (publish an IP address and tell people to log in as guest). In all cases (SSH, telnet, web with WITM) it would be foolish from both a security and license perspective.

My own personal attempts to configure webMathematica to make a usable web-based front end for arbitrary input failed. I'm not saying it can't be done, but I think it is non-trivial. But I see nothing wrong with your current edits to the WITM section, so are not going to edit it. Drkirkby 11:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

DrKirkby: You you have any WITM press mentions that could be used to source the WITM passage? I searched through Google News Archives yesterday and didn't find anything. --Pleasantville 17:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Licensing and pricing (once again!!)

The section on pricing has been changed many times, but I get the feeling this is probably by Wolfram Research staff on many occasions. The article said educational licences are much cheaper than standard licences. I've added that those for outside the USA are more expensive than US licences. Can anyone tell me a justification for saying educational licences are cheaper than standard ones, but omitting that those for use outside the USA are much expensive? I've not put any particular prices. I would add I am a Mathematica user, not a Maple or Matlab employee having a dig at Wolfram Research. I feel the article is not very balanced in places, and could (and probably is) written by Wolfram Research.

That version has two problems a) POV (could also have been written "US license are discounted" and being b) misleading some regions have pricing that is lower than the US (eg China)

I have argued this before in places but here it is together:

1) Regional price variation is near universal, should CDs have the same comment?, Dell?, every model of every car? etc. See Big Mac Index. Whether this is reasonable for product X or the levels for product X are reasonable is a POV.

2) The situation is complicated, some licenses of Mathematica vary in different ways between regions, student, professional, site licenses all have different regional variations. Some licenses have slightly different licensing rights, regional consumer rights and features.

3) The variations are subject to exchange rates, currently the Euro is at its strongest against the US$ ever, the GBP almost so but JPY are not, all that changes every day. As a European currently in the US I am having a field day shopping- everything is 50% cheaper than 3 years ago. Nothing changed except that my GBP buys $2.04 today!

I argue that the POV free way to handle this is either to list all relevant prices, to direct people to Wolfram Research for their relevant price, give a comment that prices vary by region, link to PPP or not discuss it. I don't have a strong opinion which but "Someone else in the world is getting a better price than me" type comments are not the way to go.

The reason why I think that mentioning academic and student pricing being lower is OK, is that a) For any givent region educational prices are always lower than standard, and student are always lower than that. b) To inform what the main status classes are that affect the price. In fact there are (depending on the region) Standard, Government, charity, educational, pre-college, school, student and retiree pricing levels, but I think that that is too much informaton.

JonMcLoone 13:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

JonMcLoone, would you mind saying if you have any connection with Wolfram Research, or are you a neutral party? Drkirkby 05:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

My user profile gives background on me and my account is my real name which has a clear Google footprint, but none of the arguments I make above are premised on my experience or lack of (except comments about my shopping habits!).

JonMcLoone 21:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Following the link on the user page to [2], one finds the relevant text, "A short bio which at the moment consists of a summary of my activities at Wolfram Research." The page looks nice.ChrisChiasson 02:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I am bored of try to explain that NPOV is about not writing an article from a UK vs US perspective, perhaps someone else can comment on that. So I will just point out the factual error: text currently reads "although there are rare exceptions, such as those for China." presumably taken from my EXAMPLE above. In fact, there are 106 countries with pricing that is lower or the same as the US (including the US and China), so "rare" is a poor choice of words. "Many" would be more appropriate. JonMcLoone 10:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The sentence should be justified with a citation or removed, no question. I think there is a template that can be used on a talk apge that will alert an admin to come make the appropriate change. I just don't know which one it is because I have never tried to use it before. ChrisChiasson 15:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I should add that I am not trying to remove any reference to this. Some smaller companies with no local distribution do set a single price in one currency, so it is reasonable to point out that this is not the case. In my write up above I suggested several ways to handle this. My preferred, is "pricing varies by country" in the list of other things that affect the price. The citation could be a link to store.wolfram.com since there can be no more definitive source, but I understand that this may be objectionable JonMcLoone 15:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Advantages - needs a re-write or deletion

The 'Advantages' section here is not objective at all. First, what are the advantages compared to - pen and paper, an abacus, pocket calculator, Matlab, Mathcad ... etc etc?

It starts with: "The standard Mathematica front end makes laying out computations very simple." That is very much a matter of opinion and not a NPOV. Many would argue the dead opposite.

Another advantage is listed as "Additionally, Mathematica is able to handle arbitrary-precision numbers and rational numbers, as compared to other mathematics programs such as Matlab, Excel, and most standard programming languages." Well there are tons of software able to do arbitrary precision arithmatic, some of which is free. I suspect Matlab can too, if you have the right toolbox.

The final paragraph says Mathematica also has very generalized functions (for example, an outer product which takes any type of function), as well as a great variety of functions. What does that mean in English?

Then finally As a higher-level multi-paradigm programming language, it requires much less code than most programming languages in order to write the same thing. I think I know what they are getting at there, but it is not well written. Drkirkby 12:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

gridMathematica

I created a page on gridMathematica. I'm not a user (yet), so are not an expert. Someone else can perhaps improve it, but I've made a start. Keep it NPOV - the Mathematica does tend to be rather propmotional.

There is an interesting point at the top of this talk page by ChrisChiasson when he complianed about the "vaguely promotional tone" He later went on to say: "I am not an impartial entity with respect to WRI. That is why I haven't edited the article.~"

There is some logic to that. It would tend to avoid the sort of pro-Wolfram bias the Mathematica article suffers at times. But I can see that those with the best knowledge of the product are likely to work for Wolfram Reserach. This is I guess even more true of gridMathematica than the normal version. But if someone from Wolfram Reserach wants to edit it, try to keep it neutral. Drkirkby 12:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

You didn't source it. Were you planning to? If no one does, your gridMathematica article is highly vulnerable to nomination for deletion. --Pleasantville 13:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I was not planning to, as I was not aware of this! Can you explain more? Drkirkby 13:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Articles about people, products, or companies that are not referenced to what Wikipedia calls a "reliable source" often get tagged either for what's called "speedy deletion" or get tagged as being unsourced, which can lead toward deletion. This is somewhat random in that whether this happens depends on the disposition of Wikipedians stumbling upon the article. This is part of Wikipedia's immune system to keep people and companies from using WIkipedia for self-promotion. --Pleasantville 13:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll see what I can dig up. --208.54.95.163 14:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. I've added a few references, but I didn't use them to source particular points. I just listed them as External references. --208.54.95.163 15:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I am moving this discussion over to the gridMathematica talk page. --Pleasantville 17:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia page on webMathematica ??

Do others think there should be a page started on webMathematica (like I did for gridMathematica)? I'm not suggesting every single product of Wolfram Research have its own advertising page on Wikipedia, but webMathematica is used by a number of 3rd parties outside of Wolfram Research. In fact, while I know one can't take too much notice of Google hits, sticking webMathemaitca into Google brings up 184,000 hits, vs the 70,000 of gridMathematica. So in some ways, one might argue it is of greater important than gridMathematica. I'm personally not keen to create a webMathematica stub, and that is all I could reasonably do, as I don't know a lot about it, having not played with a recent version. Anyone more motivated than me? Drkirkby 12:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I looked into that a while back and didn't find enough sources to do it without relying mostly on the WRI website. I'll have another look. --Pleasantville 17:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, having looked myself, it seems the vast majority of references to it are are WRI sites, with not many others. I did not notice that when I did a Google search initially. Despite there being far more references to webMathematica than gridMathematica on Google, if you take take out the sites from Wolfram and their resellers, then gridMathematica gets referenced more than webMathematica - at least in any half-decent primary source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.78.42.15 (talk) 18:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I've run a Mathematica notebook (nb) inside of public domain SAGE. The problem, in general, is finding a server that runs either SAGE or Mathematica code for the public. A public site for webMathematica would be nice, but I don't see how one would do the licensing unless Wolfram hosted the server as a public service. If someone had a public domain server for SAGE, then the Mathematica code could be run there with real-time, on-line output. That leads to the interesting possibility of running some fundamental calculators, such as Conversion_of_units, on WP - or at least referencing these calculators to an outside site.100TWdoug (talk) 15:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Sage is not public domain, but is licensed under the GNU General Public License version 2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.78.42.15 (talk) 01:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Mistakes/misleading wording

A couple of misleading things that entered in yesterdays big burst of edits...

Lead paragraph: "for running Mathematica programs that have been digitally signed by Wolfram Research" is misleading in that it implies that only Wolfram Research content or content approved by Wolfram Research can be so signed. Any user can use the web service at http://www.wolfram.com/solutions/interactivedeployment/publish/ You upload a notebook, download the converted notebook. The process takes a few seconds and requires no approval from Wolfram Research needed, no fee and no transfer of ownership. Personally I preferred the original wording "or converted using a free web service". The removal of the link has probably lead to this confusion as no-one knows what the service is.

IMHO, it is only a semi-free service, not free as you claim. To read from the terms of use The following uses of .nbp Files are prohibited: * Selling the file or including the file in a commercial service. That's not too free IMHO. BTW, do WRI intend adding the functionality into Mathematica, rather than needing to upload it to a web site? Not everyone has access to the web all the time. Drkirkby 14:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I meant free as in beer. There is no financial or other (eg transfer of copyright) payment required. The service does have license restrictions on use -- essentially "non commercial". Plans for if and when the feature will be added to Mathematica have not been decided. Creating the web service allowed for fast deliver (not waiting for Mathematica 7). A decision will be made when more feedback has been received about the existing service. JonMcLoone 14:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Licensing: Educational licenses do not display any message either on screen or in printouts. Comments relate only to Student licenses. And even then the phrase "a permanent message is displayed on-screen" is misleading. The product name is changed, and the product name is on display. IE The task bar is labelled "Wolfram Mathematica for Students" instead of "Wolfram Mathematica" as it is in professional products. I would not describe this as a "message". I had not noticed that on some previous revision the reference to the existence of Student versions as well as academic licenses had been lost and should return. JonMcLoone 10:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and someone broke the link to the box artwork image. JonMcLoone 10:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the wording of the student/educational license bit - some, but not all of which I had written. I was not aware there were messages in exported files from student versions, as the edit says. I have left that, assuming the person who wrote it knows more than me. If that is not so, then that should be removed.

I don't know what the editor means on this. I am pretty sure that the student version does not behave any differently in this respect than a professional license. Most exported files that support meta data will have the product name in them as the creator, as is true for many products. The only thing I can think of is the way that Mathematica puts "Created with Mathematica" at the footer of HTML saved pages. This is not student version specific and can be supressed by adding the obscure but discoverable code

Clear[System`Convert`HTMLDump`HTMLFooter];System`Convert`HTMLDump`HTMLFooter[___] := "";

in your init.m file. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JonMcLoone (talk • contribs) 14:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess it would come be forbid under the no original research, but I do know WRI can be a bit flexible on educational licenses. I personally found out one day (quite by chance when I was contacting WRI about another matter) that our uni license allowed staff to use Mathematica at home (our incompetent procurement department had failed to let a minor detail like that be known to anyone). When I requested a SPARC licence, Wolfram Research originally declined it, with the comment 'a Sun is not a home computer' . But after I pointed out that used Suns are in fact quite affordable, and plenty of people use them at home, I was given a license for use at home on a Sun SPARC. I think this sort of information would be useful on Wikipedia, but is probably not permitted. Drkirkby 13:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Student use in sites

Two comments on the the licensing section.

1)"Typically these allow use of Mathematica at home by academic staff, but not by students." I am not sure how to handle this. Site licenses being sold or renewed now include student use. But site licenses in place may not and may not be due for renewal for some years. So whether this is a statement of policy or practical experience changes whether it is right or not.

OK, I changed that. Are you saying that if a uni negotiates a site license, that site license will allow any student to use a copy on their own computer at home? I did not think that was so - if it is, that is good news I am sure. I believe there is a link somewhere on the WRI site where students can get information about the license at their uni. I can't find it now, and I have other more pressing things to do than hunt for it, or spend too long on this. Please correct my edits if they are wrong. There does seem to be an excessive number of links in the article, but perhaps one on where students can get information would be a useful one to add - perhaps removing one of the less relavant external links. My own personal experience as a member of staff at a uni, was that the students and staff were not always aware of what the licenses did or did not permit. I don't blade WRI for this though - I recall having a discussion with someone at WRI who was willing to come to the uni, bring some freebies and give a talk about the program. However, the uni decided it was not a good idea, as they could not devote the time to do this for all software vendors. Politics often messed up the Mathematica experience where I worked!! Drkirkby 17:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes that is correct. Student use was added to the standard site license package a few months ago with the release of version 6. There is an "Am I on a Mathematica campus?" link on the front page of the Wolfram website, so I don't think this justifies a link. At least once the link to the Wolfram website is returned to this page as JitseNielson is suggesting!

Actually it was me you spoke with in March 2005 [3] JonMcLoone

2) The reference to "Reduced documentation" on the student license is not correct. All Mathematica licenses come with the identical electronic documentation and no substantial printed documentation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JonMcLoone (talk • contribs) 14:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed that comment about reduced documentation and also the comment by someone else about the data in external files, since you are saying they are incorrect. Drkirkby 17:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Supported platforms

I've added some information about supported platforms - providing more information than what is currently supported in 6.0. Does anyone know of any platfroms which were supported, but no longer are? I know DOS, Tru64 and IRIX were all at some time supported, but are there any others? I guess there are older versions of currently supported operating systems which are no longer supported - e.g. I guess Windows 95 at some point and Solaris on 32-bit CPUs, but it would get a bit silly to list all these. But are there any other systems previously supported - perhaps UniCos on a Cray, VMS on a VAX or anything else.

I once got an email from someone at WRI saying someone was working on a version for Pocket PC. I got the feeling this was perhaps a company WRI were contracting, rather than WRI themselves - it was something in the wording she used. Does anyone know if that is ever going to happen? I would guess a port to Pocket PC is far from trivual and I doubt the market would be large. But I was at one point told it was being looked at.

I stuck some information about a hack to run it on Solaris x86 with an Intel CPU too. Of course, that is not from an offical WRI source, so someone could object to it being there. But after the hack was published by myself, Schoeller Porter a Technical Development Specialist at Wolfram Research stated it was WRI's intension to support Mathematica on Solaris with SPARC, Intel and AMD CPUs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drkirkby (talk • contribs) 10:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Backward compatibility

I moved this sentence here because it lacks a source.

Successive versions of Mathematica have introduced major incompatibilities that break existing notebooks and have seriously delayed updates to third party add ons.

The words "major" and "seriously" imply that Mathematica has more incompatibilities as similar software, and that's why I'm uncomfortable leaving it in unsourced. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 19:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. We can leave it here until I find a documentary source. The issues are "major" and in the sense that they break notebooks in ways that require manual editing (there's no automatic conversion process), and in my own experience the breaks have been so significant that Wolfram's own technical support (very expensive "premier" technical support) can't repair them. "Seriously" means several years of delay; many authors of add ons have simply given up. — Aldaron • T/C 20:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI, there IS an automatic conversion process that is supposed to create a temporary toolbar at the top of older notebooks when you open them. It scans for incompatibilities and proposes changes that you can accept or reject. It has a button to not show again, so it is possible that you have turned it off. Look for "CompatibilityToolWarning"in the option inspector which should be set to True at the Global level. JonMcLoone (talk) 16:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. It fails to detect many of the incompatibilities and causes new problems with some of the repairs it makes. — Aldaron • T/C 19:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Should the page be renamed to Wolfram Mathematica?

Surprising as it may seem, for someone as modest as Stephen Wolfram, the product has been renamed to 'Wolfram Mathematica'. Hence should this page be renamed? Drkirkby (talk) 08:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

'Disadvantages' section is POV

An editor has just added a Disadvantages section. It's not up to Wikipedia to review products. If no references can be quoted that claim those things are disadvantages, I believe this section should be removed. That goes for 'advantages' also if any are referred to that way. EdJohnston (talk) 02:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Code examples and wikibooks

I see that there was discussion about whether code examples should be in wikibooks instead.

I have put the content into the existing wikibook on Mathematica, where it is clearly useful. So currently it is duplicated. People who edit this page should decide if duplicate is good or whether it should be removed from here. Porcupinedreams (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It is also getting very long as I have another section that I would like to add. I will cut the code examples and point to the book. Cloudruns (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Will it rot students' brains?

There's been a sudden flurry of edits regarding a link to Gray and Glynn's article on Mathematica's place in education. I'm not clear why the reference is at all controversial, but better to discuss it than simply revert. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I wrote down in my edit summary why I reverted it: "the link is inappropriate because it's not about mathematica but about computer algebra systems in general". The link is relevant for Computer algebra system, because it is about the relation between computer algebra systems and education. The link is not relevant for this article, because it's not at all about Mathematica. On the other hand, I missed the explanation why this link should be in the article. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

While the argument in the article might apply to other computer algebra systems as well, it seems pertinent to this particular system. It does cite this system specifically, and the editors of a book published by Cambridge University Press considered it relevant to Mathematica. It appears that the reference was added in May 2007, at a time when people thought the article needed more external references. I could certainly see an argument for added the reference to Computer algebra system as well, but it does no harm here. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Object oriented programming

The list of features of Mathematica has an entry that reads "A programming language supporting procedural, functional and object oriented constructs." Does Mathematica allow for object-oriented programming? I've been using it for a while, and I'm under the impression that it does not. I've seen some presentations that show how you can regain the important features of objects by setting up an appropriate framework, but I don't think that the language allows for the use of objects without basically building them yourself. The statement seems at least disingenuous. Can anyone else comment on this? Flyingspuds (talk) 22:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Time for an archive?

This talk page is too big to follow in places. But I don't know how to split pages into archives. Cloudruns (talk) 18:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I figured it out. Cloudruns (talk) 18:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)