![]() Thus, you need to think hard about your results and whether they make sense. I find I make them about as often with using the computer for algebra as I do with paper and pencil. Also, a huge concern to keep in mind is coding or app mistakes. for the algebra, but you should have the code as an appendix, on-line rather than with the paper itself. My opinion is that it's fine to use Mathematica or symbolic Python (sympy), etc. Very good question, which I wonder about too. What are your thoughts regarding such uses of Mathematica in a paper that is primarily theoretical? In particular:ġ) Is it acceptable to use Mathematica in that way, or is tedious algebra still considered something theorists have to go through - when it comes up - in order to deserve publication?Ģ) How would relying on Mathematica hinder my chances of publication in top theory journals?ģ) Can I still reasonably present a result as a "Theorem" or "Proposition" even if part of the proof relies on results from Mathematica for which I do not provide a complete and explicit analytical argument?Ĥ) In particular, would it be ok to replace part of a proof by the Mathematica query used to obtain a particular step in that proof? Needless to say, I would love to rely on Mathematica to save myself the algebra nightmare and focus on more conceptual aspects of the paper. Some parts of which tell me that manually deriving the closed form of the function for values of \ outside is going to be even more nightmarish. ![]() To give you an idea, on one of these problems, I've spent two days of sweat and tears to finally determine that a functions I am interested in is such that ^2)] when [0 =1 I am working on a theory project that involves a lot of algebra, mostly to establish the distribution of linear combinations of random variables (which requires integrating, adding, and subtracting dozens of tedious polynomials). ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |