41–50 of 66 posts
I think Wolfram could contribute a lot if he shifted his focus towards these domains.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
It’s more like a continuous eye roll since 2002 when he released _A New Kind of Science_. I spent around 15 years working on stochastic lattice models. They can be amazing. They can also fail to capture the essence of the problem. Same with cellular automata. They’re definitely not _new_. They weren’t new in 2002. I’ve always viewed Conway’s game of life as an interesting deterministic variant of an Ising model, and…
Wolfram primarily posts to his blog and occasionally publishes a book. He’s not exactly buying a marketing blitz with all of his money. Wolfram Research itself is primarily focused on other things too.
I don’t know what it is about Stephen Wolfram that drives people crazy. Yes, he’s self aggrandizing, but he’s hardly unique in that respect. Simply read past it or roll your eyes and move on. But apparently there are more than a few people who can’t help themselves (even this thread is an example).
The cool thing about Conway's Game of Life is that you can't predict it unless you do the full recursion, there is no shortcut. It relates to external undecidability of recurrent processes.
Wouldn't every Turing complete cellular automaton have this property? What would be an example of a nontrivial (i.e., sufficiently expressive) CA that is "predictable"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s more like a continuous eye roll since 2002 when he released _A New Kind of Science_. I spent around 15 years working on stochastic lattice models. They can be amazing. They can also fail to capture the essence of the problem. Same with cellular automata. They’re definitely not _new_. They weren’t new in 2002. I’ve always viewed Conway’s game of life as an interesting deterministic variant of an Ising model, and…
Not to weigh against Wolfram one last time, but he's (finally?) renamed Mathematica just "Wolfram". Why he would toss out years of brand-related goodwill is beyond me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not to weigh against Wolfram one last time, but he's (finally?) renamed Mathematica just "Wolfram". Why he would toss out years of brand-related goodwill is beyond me.
Have you opening Mathematica recently? Or visited the product page for Mathematica[1]? The only change has been branding the language itself as the “Wolfram Language” where Mathematica is just one of their product offerings. [1]: https://www.wolfram.com/mathematica/?source=nav
(If you're interested in what I'm currently doing with it, I'm playing around with Mathematica's neural network library.)
[stub for offtopicness]
[stub for offtopicness]
Wolfram's problem is mindset IMO. There's a certain kind of highly intelligent mind, but because of fame, money, habit or personality, makes them intellectually lazy. Instead of doing the proofs, research, careful discussion and reconceptualizing that leads to useful theories and conclusion, they jump straight to the end, because they think they're smart. This produces some impressive sounding theory, but which upon…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you opening Mathematica recently? Or visited the product page for Mathematica[1]? The only change has been branding the language itself as the “Wolfram Language” where Mathematica is just one of their product offerings. [1]: https://www.wolfram.com/mathematica/?source=nav
Mathematica is open on my computer as we speak (or, rather, now Wolfram.app). The "About" screen indicates "Wolfram 14.2". I have a seat on an site licence. https://imgur.com/a/WUpSsF8 (If you're interested in what I'm currently doing with it, I'm playing around with Mathematica's neural network library.)
Mathematica (MMA) and the Wolfram Language (WL) used to be the one and the same. But now a user could be using WL in a web based notebook, through Wolfram Alpha, or even on SystemModeler.
The brand name “Mathematica” isn’t going anywhere, not after nearly forty years. It’s basically marketing being like “how do we communicate updates to WL as not just being updates to MMA?”.
> if we want to get closer to the study of the pure phenomenon of innovation Innovation in the real world is often driven by the usual incentives of capitalism, like the basic need to out-compete the competitors by improving quality or lowering costs. I do not really think Game of Life serves as a model for innovation in the real world; it might serve as a model of the pure phenomenon of innovation. In the real world…
This is a myopic view. How would we have gotten to the point of human history when capitalism became predominant if innovation is driven by capitalism? Also, humanity is hardly an economy of capitalism any more. More similar to oligarchical capital feudalism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mathematica is open on my computer as we speak (or, rather, now Wolfram.app). The "About" screen indicates "Wolfram 14.2". I have a seat on an site licence. https://imgur.com/a/WUpSsF8 (If you're interested in what I'm currently doing with it, I'm playing around with Mathematica's neural network library.)
The "About" screen indicates "Wolfram 14.2" Mathematica (MMA) and the Wolfram Language (WL) used to be the one and the same. But now a user could be using WL in a web based notebook, through Wolfram Alpha, or even on SystemModeler. The brand name “Mathematica” isn’t going anywhere, not after nearly forty years. It’s basically marketing being like “how do we communicate updates to WL as not just being updates to MMA?”…
But it’s not what it used to be. Now you don’t “run” Mathematica - you “access” it running another program. It’s basically marketing to weaken one brand and strengthen the other.
“Upgrading from Mathematica to Wolfram”
https://reference.wolfram.com/language/tutorial/UpgradingFro...