Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Jupyter, Mathematica, and the Future of the Research Paper

paulromer.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 179 posts

Re: Jupyter, Mathematica, and the Future of the Research Paper

#151

Post by tincholio »

tunaoftheland wrote: post #90
sanderjd wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used MathCAD in physics and chemistry classes in college. I frequently wonder what happened to it, because I share your perception that while Jupyter is very nifty, it is hamstrung by the limitations of the browser environment. I'm waiting impatiently for the coming revolution of non-web collaborative internet-connected rich client applications.

As an alternative to Jupyter UI and Emacs, Hydrogen ( https://github.com/nteract/hydrogen ) could be viable. It runs as an Atom extension and connects to a Jupyter server instance. I haven't used it for anything other than a minimal project, but I preferred its UX to that of the browser interface of Jupyter. Atom isn't my favorite editor, but it's pleasant for this particular use case. Looks like the same team also o…

That looks quite similar (though much nicer UI-wise) to EIN (the Emacs mode for jupyter). I guess if you're doing D3-based viz stuff it will be a better choice than EIN, as you can render those properly.

Re: Jupyter, Mathematica, and the Future of the Research Paper

#152

Post by ChrisRackauckas »

fdej wrote: post #144
ChrisRackauckas wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was a bunch of small matrices so it worked out well, but that's good to know. For future reference, what library implements these symbolic linalg routines? When I was looking around I could only find LinBox ( http://www.linalg.org/ ) but the barrier to entry was a little high for me to dig in.

In Julia, there is Nemo.jl for high performance exact and symbolic linear algebra. At least that is the goal; it doesn't have the best algorithms yet in all cases, but it has some of them (and more are being developed). You can see some examples here: http://nemocas.org/benchmarks.html

I really like that library for other reasons, but I couldn't find documentation for anything symbolic. Could you point to the right places? Feel free to follow up on other forums since this is getting pretty off topic.

Re: Jupyter, Mathematica, and the Future of the Research Paper

#153

Post by promer »

mistermann wrote: post #113
iguy wrote: post #61

Right, Jupyter is nice to have, but this is really over the top nonsense: Jupyter encourages individual integrity; Mathematica lets individuals hide behind corporate evasion I have no idea what he's talking about re PDF export either. I print to PDF all the time, to email people a static document to look at, etc. It works just fine. (Whether you can you make book-quality formatted text easily, I've no idea, never bee…

The writing style is very reminiscent of Ayn Rand.

Ouch

Re: Jupyter, Mathematica, and the Future of the Research Paper

#154

Post by rexpress »

rotorblade wrote: post #55
dahart wrote: post #8

> The tie-breaker is social, not technical. The tie-breaker is financial. Jupyter is winning because it's free, not because it's social. It becomes social because of widespread adoption, and it get's widespread adoption because it's free. I love Jupyter, love love love. But there's a lot of hyperbole and opinion here. Mathematica is just a for-profit business, it's that simple. And it wouldn't be fair to deny the exa…

>> The tie-breaker is social, not technical. > The tie-breaker is financial. Jupyter is winning because it's free [...] It is a bit more nuanced than that. Personally I do not pay from Mathematica usage, so why do I like Jupyter more? The Mathematica notebook interface is horrible . You may go "oh, neat" the first few times you try it then, at least I, get more and more frustrated on all the idiotic issues * Indentat…

Regarding the double brackets for representing Part, you can instead use〚 and 〛which can be input with `ESC`-[-[-`ESC` and `ESC`-]-]-`ESC` respectively. This makes the code prettier and easier to read.

There is a very easy to implement modification you can make to allow the keyboard shortcuts `CMD`-[ and `CMD`-] for the double bracket symbol, which is described here:

http://szhorvat.net/pelican/pages/mathematica.html

I rather wish Wolfram would provide these keyboard shortcuts in the base software

Re: Jupyter, Mathematica, and the Future of the Research Paper

#155

Post by recharged96 »

carreau wrote: post #14
dahart wrote: post #8

> The tie-breaker is social, not technical. The tie-breaker is financial. Jupyter is winning because it's free, not because it's social. It becomes social because of widespread adoption, and it get's widespread adoption because it's free. I love Jupyter, love love love. But there's a lot of hyperbole and opinion here. Mathematica is just a for-profit business, it's that simple. And it wouldn't be fair to deny the exa…

> it's free Well for you maybe – and we strongly believe it should be – but it's built on top of thousand of volunteers hours, grants money (Thanks Sloan, Helmsley, Moore) and donation from companies (Anaconda, microsoft...) and individual, and partners. NumFOCUS ( https://www.numfocus.org/ ) manage all of that it's a 501c3 tax deductible ! If Jupyter is of help to you (or your company, organisation) think about cont…

It's not free. Grant money means someone's paid for it (us, taxes). Volunteer is about credit, not fiat, but still costs something (gpl restrictions).

Jupyter is great, it's revolutionized online education for example. But it's not as full featured as Mathematica, and like most Foss projects, slower to fix bugs, aka you get what you pay for. Both have a place unless you have hired, 100% dedicated help on juptyer. This is much like public radio vs corporate. Together they do the market needs.

Re: Jupyter, Mathematica, and the Future of the Research Paper

#156

Post by FractalLP »

madengr wrote: post #98
gaius wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MathCAD went to shit in about 2000 That would be a couple of years after I last used it. What a shame, at least I have those memories. Really loved how low-friction working with it was, and how trivial it was to generate high quality documents or reports, there was no "write it up" stage, you were done basically as soon as you had done the actual work. Then just print and go! Still can't really do that with Jupyter.

Yes, it was a good run. Now I remember specifically: Started using the DOS version in 1990 in college. Bought version 3.1 in ~1992, Windows version running it under OS/2. Could afford to buy it then, even as a student. Ah, OS/2 was also good. It was I had a home license which I dropped. I still had a work license, but then some sales twerp said I was using a pirated license at work, and wanted to speak to my IT depar…

Yea. Using Mathematica is much easier to do than Jupyter as my IT department just has to purchase. Sadly, I have a lot of data, so using a calculator (even programmable RPN)is out of the question. Even Excel is too small foe some things.

Re: Jupyter, Mathematica, and the Future of the Research Paper

#157

Post by fdej »

ChrisRackauckas wrote: post #152
fdej wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Julia, there is Nemo.jl for high performance exact and symbolic linear algebra. At least that is the goal; it doesn't have the best algorithms yet in all cases, but it has some of them (and more are being developed). You can see some examples here: http://nemocas.org/benchmarks.html

I really like that library for other reasons, but I couldn't find documentation for anything symbolic. Could you point to the right places? Feel free to follow up on other forums since this is getting pretty off topic.

You have to work with multivariate polynomials (possibly over number fields). If you have symbolic expressions in another format, you would have to manually convert them to that representation first, possibly after introducing extra variables for non-algebraic constants (which may or may not be a good idea depending on the specific circumstances). Having that kind of rewriting done automatically would certainly be a good thing!

Re: Jupyter, Mathematica, and the Future of the Research Paper

#158

Post by EGreg »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #121
EGreg wrote: post #97

It always goes like this. The initial solutions may be proprietary, and financed by investors. They have a business model so of course they don’t give everything away for free. With time, enough people get together to build an open source alternative. And then like a snowball it eclipses everything proprietary that went before it. What would a world look like that didn’t apply Capitalism to ideas? One where companies…

> It always goes like this. > The initial solutions may be proprietary, and financed by investors. They have a business model so of course they don’t give everything away for free. > With time, enough people get together to build an open source alternative. And then like a snowball it eclipses everything proprietary that went before it. I wish it did. The most obvious counterexamples that come to mind are Microsoft O…

Maybe not end-user applications. But everything underneath them.

I also think that open-source needs some sort of end-user facing consulting, the “last mile” at it were. A Wordpress expert or hosted service setting up your blog. A browser like Chrome that uses WebKit or Blink underneath.

But the underlying free platform beats the proprietary ones in the end. Let people build their little competing businesses on top of it if they want.

In the world I’m talking about (collaboration via contributions) everyone would get UBI and be able to not contribute anything.

Re: Jupyter, Mathematica, and the Future of the Research Paper

#159

Post by jonnycomputer »

R Studio Notebooks are pretty good too; I like that, by default, there is an interactive console connected to the same kernel in addition to the notebook. This allows me to use the console to interactively probe my data, or try out something, and then record a more finished product in the notebook itself. I think this can be done in Juypter (http://jupyter-notebook.readthedocs.io/en/latest/examples/No...), but, not out of the box.

Re: Jupyter, Mathematica, and the Future of the Research Paper

#160

Post by littlehood »

ChrisRackauckas wrote: post #99
gaius wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Membership in an open source community is like membership in the community of science. There is a straightforward process for finding a true answer to any question Oh please. Dare to ask what is the best of anything and prepare for an epic flame war.

Well, I asked the author for the data that led him to believe that the Julia community is "monopolistic", and he got mad and blocked me instead of linking to anything... https://twitter.com/ChrisRackauckas/status/98552939470474035... So your remark is pretty spot on.

You asked for that block in the second question. You sound very entitled to answers.
Post reply on HN