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

[Bill Page]

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:

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~watt/pub/reprints/2006-tc-sympoly.pdf

> And the level of a graduate course where I would like to attract
> students and get them excited about the subject, and potential
> contributors, that is largely a pointless and confusing exercise.

I disagree... but you're the teacher, not me. :)

> 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.
 
> ... 
> | Perhaps it is true that this is not now "widely appreciated"
> | but I think that is only because it turned out that NAG
> | decided to abandon it's attempt to market this new version
> | of Axiom. :(
> 
> we can hardly accuse NAG to stop losing money :-/
>

Hmmmm... keep in mind that NAG is described as a "not-for-profit
company". But I agree that money was a factor.

http://www.nag.co.uk/about_nag.asp
 
> ... 
> 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.

Regards,
Bill Page.