Explaining to BBC Newsnight some of the problems with the CRU code

Post by cabalamat » Sat, Dec 05, 2009, 1:14 PM UTC

gloob wrote: post #17

cabalamat wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All software used in science should be open source, because if it isn't, the science isn't repeatable.

Not true. For instance, if a report is originally typed in a closed-source, commercial text editor, that has no impact on the repeatability of the science. Similarly, Mathematica is (to my knowledge) a closed-source program, but calculations done by it can still be independently verified (so long as those calculations are made public). You're on the right track, but need to narrow down the wording some.

> You're on the right track, but need to narrow down the wording some.

You're right. I was actually thinking that as I typed it.

How about this: when scientists take raw input data and use complex processes to convert it (by complex I mean more than you could do with a pocket calculator in a minute), then the programs doing the conversion must be open source, so that others may repeat the work done in processing.

I'm not familiar with Mathematica; how complex is the work that it does? And how easy is it to verify that its results are correct?

Post by Silhouette » Sat, Dec 05, 2009, 2:10 PM UTC

tome wrote: post #27

jamii wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

During my maths BA I took: Foundation of computer science Data structures and algorithms (SML) Software engineering (Java) Operating systems (C) Numerical algorithms (C++) as well as yearly catam projects: http://www.maths.cam.ac.uk/undergrad/catam/ There were also optional classes in bioinformatics and computational statistics and a number of lecturers encouraged the use of programming in solving weekly problem shee…

I don't know when you took it, but that's not possible today unless you do the Mathematics with Computer Science option, which most Maths undergraduates do not, and certainly not the ones who are more into the applied side of things and are likely to end up in climate research.

So you meant Cambridge as "the most highly regarded mathematics undergraduate programme in the UK"? I was afraid of that. Cambridge's mathematics research may be world class, but their teaching of undergraduates is very poor.

It helps if you're an undergraduate at one of the more mathematically inclined colleges, of which Trinity is traditionally the strongest. Even then, there is only so much that small group supervisions or example classes can make up for if the basic syllabus and presentation in lectures is poor.

Sadly, both the Mathematics with Computer Science tripos option and the Diploma in Computer Science conversion course have been dropped recently, removing two genuinely useful choices. As far as I can tell, this leaves only the well-intentioned but usually poorly realised CATAM projects as the main source of computational mathematics background for students, and the criticisms of insufficient training in real programming skills are entirely justified there. There is a new MPhil course running from this year in the Computer Lab, but this is more like Part III CompSci than the old Diploma.

(Some of these comments are based on my own experiences studying at Cambridge in the '90s, though my general view is more coloured by the many graduates from Cambridge and elsewhere with whom I have worked since that time.)

Re: Explaining to BBC Newsnight some of the problems with the CRU code

Re: Explaining to BBC Newsnight some of the problems with the CRU code