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

Mathematica 14

writings.stephenwolfram.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 154 posts

Re: Mathematica 14

#21

Post by krackers »

latkin wrote: post #19
rayxi271828 wrote: post #5

Ask HN: I've never met someone who uses Mathematica, I imagine its users are even rarer outside the academic circles. I've met many who use Matlab, R, Python, Excel, etc. If you're using it, what are you using it for exactly? In what way is it irreplaceable by other tools out there, if at all?

I use it for hobby tinkering, it's quite fun to play around with. Excellent documentation, best-in-class symbolic capabilities, great visualizations/charting, everything you need is in the box (no fussing with dependencies). And once you get the hang of it, you feel very crafty doing complex functional-style transformations with minimal code. For example, my house experienced some flooding last year after exceptional…

Can you post a code snippet for that plot, if you still happen to have it?

Re: Mathematica 14

#22

Post by xgstation »

rayxi271828 wrote: post #5

Ask HN: I've never met someone who uses Mathematica, I imagine its users are even rarer outside the academic circles. I've met many who use Matlab, R, Python, Excel, etc. If you're using it, what are you using it for exactly? In what way is it irreplaceable by other tools out there, if at all?

AFAIK physicists use it very heavily, but I barely know any mathematicians use it. To me this is a great tool for people who use Math heavily as a tool but not study Math itself.

I use it for symbolic calculation, solve differential equations, and many complicated integrals, and its visualizaion build upon those with easy parametrize support is very nice. Starting from my ungrad sophomore year as physics major, we have courses require us to finish some homeworks with Mathematica.

I can hardly find any other tool to replace mathematica in terms of symbolic calculation and doing complicated integrals (there is a joke by calling mathematica "large-scale integral table")

Re: Mathematica 14

#23

Post by danpalmer »

andsoitis wrote: post #7
dang wrote: post #120

[stub for offtopicness]

> It’s only recently that I’ve begun to properly internalize just how broad the implications of having a computational language really are—even though, ironically, I’ve spent much of my life engaged precisely in the consuming task of building the world’s only large-scale computational language. Exemplar of humility.

It sounds like once you get the zen of Mathematica, it’s a truly exceptional tool to work with.

It’s a shame that the only person it seems has get the zen of Mathematica is Stephen Wolfram himself.

Re: Mathematica 14

#24

Post by throwup238 »

seanhunter wrote: post #18
throwup238 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was honestly expecting Wolfram himself to have claimed the invention of LLMs or transformers, probably by saying it’s really a scaled up implementation of some other function in Mathematica.

Joking aside, he sort of implies this in his essay explaining GPT models[1] At some level this reminds one of the idea of universal computation (and my Principle of Computational Equivalence), but, as I’ll discuss later... And his "Principle of Computational Equivalence" is [2] "There are various ways to state the Principle of Computational Equivalence, but probably the most general is just to say that almost all pro…

And the penny drops!

Thanks, I didn’t know he already did it. Totally on brand though.

Re: Mathematica 14

#25

Post by pjmlp »

kjellsbells wrote: post #2
dang wrote: post #120

[stub for offtopicness]

> In the arc of intellectual history it defines a broad, new, computational paradigm for formalizing the world. I am in awe of what Wolfram achieved with Mathematica. And also the size of their ego.

So what if he likes to put things that way, there is hardly any competition to Mathematica, in what it is capable delivering.

Yet many of those that complain about Wolfram, will idolatrate Steve Jobs, and they aren't (weren't) that different in praising themselves.

Re: Mathematica 14

#26

Post by myhf »

Zambyte wrote: post #14
adamnemecek wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Symbolic computation. Yeah, I guess you can do it in SymPy, but it's more painful. It's a really pleasant environment for certain type of work. The only thing missing is better type systems.

How does it compare to Lisp for symbolic programming?

A lot of Lisp constructs like map and apply and macros have dedicated syntax in Mathematica, so they feel more like a fluent language. And the standard library is very large and impressively self-consistent. The default format is notebooks which helps make your work presentable.

Re: Mathematica 14

#27

Post by defrost »

throwup238 wrote: post #24
seanhunter wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Joking aside, he sort of implies this in his essay explaining GPT models[1] At some level this reminds one of the idea of universal computation (and my Principle of Computational Equivalence), but, as I’ll discuss later... And his "Principle of Computational Equivalence" is [2] "There are various ways to state the Principle of Computational Equivalence, but probably the most general is just to say that almost all pro…

And the penny drops! Thanks, I didn’t know he already did it. Totally on brand though.

Every mention of Stephen Wolfram deserves a link to Cosma Shalizi's epic take-down of a review ("A Rare Blend of Monster Raving Egomania and Utter Batshit Insanity"): http://bactra.org/reviews/wolfram/

Re: Mathematica 14

#28

Post by latkin »

krackers wrote: post #21
latkin wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use it for hobby tinkering, it's quite fun to play around with. Excellent documentation, best-in-class symbolic capabilities, great visualizations/charting, everything you need is in the box (no fussing with dependencies). And once you get the hang of it, you feel very crafty doing complex functional-style transformations with minimal code. For example, my house experienced some flooding last year after exceptional…

Can you post a code snippet for that plot, if you still happen to have it?

I don't have that one handy right this minute, but I just remembered that I did a different weather exploration with Mathematica about a year ago.

I had a hunch that Ironman triathlon was advertising their races as having cooler weather than they actually do. Turns out I was right -- here's my [slowtwitch post](https://forum.slowtwitch.com/forum/Slowtwitch_Forums_C1/Tria...), and the [associated code](https://gist.github.com/latkin/470a2f06056ee0a8e3f4da837af10...).

Re: Mathematica 14

#29

Post by krackers »

Zambyte wrote: post #14
adamnemecek wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Symbolic computation. Yeah, I guess you can do it in SymPy, but it's more painful. It's a really pleasant environment for certain type of work. The only thing missing is better type systems.

How does it compare to Lisp for symbolic programming?

Mathematica is basically the M-Expression version of lisp that never developed. The real power isn't just in the symbolic capabilities but the mathematical library.

Re: Mathematica 14

#30

Post by aragilar »

Zambyte wrote: post #14
adamnemecek wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Symbolic computation. Yeah, I guess you can do it in SymPy, but it's more painful. It's a really pleasant environment for certain type of work. The only thing missing is better type systems.

How does it compare to Lisp for symbolic programming?

My understanding (from people who properly learnt Mathematica, and understood the language) is it is a lisp, but it's never taught that way, never explained, you're just searching for the magical function that does the thing you want.
Post reply on HN