Slashdot Mirror


Open Source Math Software For Education?

Rui Carmo writes "Now here's something you don't get asked every day, but which a friend happens to need for her kids: If you had to suggest Open-Source software for mathematics - somewhere from high-school to freshman level, and not merely for 'pure' mathematics, but also applicable to physics and statistics (the kids are considering going into Applied Maths and Engineering), what would you point people toward, assuming they have access to both Linux and Windows? I know this is a niche thing and that there is nothing out there that even comes close to Wolfram's excellent Mathematica (which I used on my old NeXTCube), but surely something along the lines of (or simpler than) Calculation Center exists?" The Knoppix-based Quantian might be a good place to start; what math software do you recommend?

605 comments

  1. Octave? by mvdw · · Score: 5, Informative

    What about octave (free Matlab clone)?

    1. Re:Octave? by hotchai · · Score: 5, Informative

      Octave is a really nice piece of software! Also check out Scilab.

    2. Re:Octave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ugh! I can't believe someone would *want* to clone Matlab. I mean, really, one is enough!

    3. Re:Octave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Here's a link:

      http://www.octave.org/

      I've used Matlab extensively and can tell you that Octave and Matlab aren't perfectly compatible. However, a student who learns Octave can switch to Matlab without any effort whatsoever.

    4. Re:Octave? by aconbere · · Score: 1

      I'm just about to finish up studying mathematics at the university level, and I will also vouch for octave. A matlab like environment will probably cover a great majority of the tools you'll be employing at the highschool level, is simple, easy to use, and doesn't take long to learn. Just down the list would be a Maple like language, though I know of no such aplication for linux.

      Anyways, we all pretty much use matlab/octave over here, it ports perfectly to and from the linux environment, and most of the functions if they don't port, are easy enough to find analogs for.

      Octave-forge might also help in that it contains a set of scripts that help in the editing and use of octave, making it more matlab like.

      Anders

    5. Re:Octave? by viva_fourier · · Score: 1

      Octave will never be able to maintain compatibility with current versions of Matlab -- it changes too fast.
      In turn, Octave could become a decent Matlab 5 clone. *That* I would like to see.

      Matlab is the de facto math software for any engineering processing that needs to be done. And they know this. They know this to the tune of, what, $3000 per license and $500/year "maintenence" fees? They are the Microsoft of the math processing software realm.

      --
      and now back to the fallout shelter...
    6. Re:Octave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you go with octave you might want to check out octaviz (http://sourceforge.net/projects/octaviz/) too. It is a 3D visualization system for octave that will let you do in octave everything that VTK (www.vtk.org) can do.

    7. Re:Octave? by rjstanford · · Score: 4, Funny

      Call that a link?

      Octave

      That, my friend, is a link.

      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
    8. Re:Octave? by norkakn · · Score: 1

      to the best of my knowledge maple was a unix ap long before it was windows

    9. Re:Octave? by LnxAddct · · Score: 1

      Maple has always worked on both linux and windows, its coded it java and even has a linux installer. Although I know of no OSS maple-like solution.
      Regards,
      Steve

    10. Re:Octave? by beefstu01 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Educational versoin is around $150/yr which includes the symbolic toolbox. That, I must say, is a darn good deal for MATLAB, considering it does a whole helluva lot. Everything that a high schooler would ever need to do, and a lot more. If you want math software, shell out the $150 (less than the cost of a textbook) and get Matlab, it's the best math software possible

      That being said, the best software for math is no software at all. Paper and pencil, that's it. Over at my college, all engineers are required to go through four semesters of math (2 calc, diff eq. and linear algebra), and no calculators or tech tools are allowed for either course. And yes, we did need to plot slope fields, draw 3d representations of functions, etc... It's more important to know the concept of doing a problem than crunching numbers. The only time I use MATLAB is when I'm working on my design project-- I do the design, I setup the equations, MATLAB crunches the numbers for me.

      Remember, number crunching != real math. Theory is the most important thing to learn.

    11. Re:Octave? by Safety+Cap · · Score: 4, Funny

      Maybe he doesn't know how to write HTML. Most people don't.

      --
      Yeah, right.
    12. Re:Octave? by fireboy1919 · · Score: 1

      It is a decent Matlab clone now. The missing piece? Libraries. Matlab has lots and lots of libraries that do tons of stuff.

      Well, Octave does too thanks to Octave-forge. There's even a symbolic engine (as this is probably the most popular thing used). There are now a few areas that Octave rises above Matlab in performance - albiet very few.

      The biggest lacking area now is Simulink. Matlab could be used to run hardware through a simulation engine. That's not going to happen with Octave until someone needs to do it.

      But for school apps, and for algorithms in general, Octave is more than good enough.

      Actually, for the past few years, I've been a TA for the Freshman Engineering course at Purdue University. The majority of this is course is about learning Matlab.

      I can attest that everything we have ever had the students learn will work in both Matlab and Octave+Octaveforge.

      As to price, that is not what they charge educational institutions. It's more like $100 per license. Also, most specialized engineering applications are actually quite expensive; this is nothing new (Autocad, Synopsis, and Cadence are some of the others I've come in contact with at school).

      --
      Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
    13. Re:Octave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you Mr. Dundee. May I have another?

    14. Re:Octave? by Jim+Starx · · Score: 1

      Amen. A lot of the teachers at the school I go to and work at are being pressured to allow students to use calculators in their classes. Now I've never taken statistics so I can't say anything about it. But I've had algebra through calcs 1, 2, and 3, along with linear algebra and differential equations and I've never been allowed to use a calculator and I'm much better off for it.

      --
      The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
    15. Re:Octave? by aussie_a · · Score: 3, Funny
    16. Re:Octave? by spacecadetglow · · Score: 3, Funny

      I see you've played linkey spooney before.

    17. Re:Octave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      THE goat.cx image doesn't actually seem to be in the google image cache, if it was, it could be done...

      http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://goat .cx/hello.jpg&imgrefurl=http://slashdot.org&tbnid= 9t7QekVfdrIJ:&tbnh=120&tbnw=81

    18. Re:Octave? by Helios1182 · · Score: 1

      I would say calculators have a big place in some of those classes -- once you learn the concepts. Stats - caluculating std dev, regression, etc is time consuming and error prone. Linear Algebra - reducing matrices etc. is the same way. All the classes I've had let me use calculators, but you also had to show all of your work (or at least most of it). You can just throw the matrix in and write down an answer. They do have a use though, as they can do repitition and other tedious tasks with complete accuracy (save rounding error, etc.).

    19. Re:Octave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
      Oh, geez, does no one understand the difference between a symbolic mathematics package (like Mathematica, Maple, or Calculation Center) and a numerical mathematics package (like Octave and Matlab)?

      The guy's looking for a symbolic mathematics package. Why don't you recommend Excel for him why you're at it? Heavens.

    20. Re:Octave? by tomofdarknesss · · Score: 1

      I agree. at some point you just accept that the class knows how to calculate the sin and cos without their calculator, and you spend your testing time checking to see if they've got the concepts you're working on right now. If we hadn't been allowed calculators, I'd still be taking some of those tests.

      --
      ------ Free Mac Mini! Better than an iPod! h
    21. Re:Octave? by sketerpot · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If you want something like Maple, but open source, try getting Maxima. It runs on Windows and Linux, can do algebra, calculus, and a good amount of other stuff, and you can use TeXmacs as a front end.

    22. Re:Octave? by gilroy · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Blockquoth the poster:

      I've never been allowed to use a calculator and I'm much better off for it.

      How do you know you're better off for it? Maybe, if calculators had been allowed, you'd've been able to get to deeper concepts faster. Maybe you'd have been able to play with function and form and plots, and discovered chaos.

      'Course, maybe not. But it seems to me that a blanket statement like yours is essentially unsupportable, and generally counterproductive. There's room for pen-and-paper, or even just brain work, but IMHO, there's room for integrators and plotters.

      Put another way: When I took math in grade school, I had a teacher who also didn't believe in "high tech" -- like the pencil. We did everything in ink. Her theory was, if it was in ink, you couldn't correct a mistake -- so you wouldn't make any. It was an insane educational theory, of course, and bore no relation to what actually occured.
    23. Re:Octave? by hibiki_r · · Score: 1
      shell out the $150 (less than the cost of a textbook) and get Matlab, it's the best math software possible

      You are either geting gouged or talking about grad level books. The list price for a Kreyszig is under $131.95, and it'll probably last you a couple of semesters, and it was the most expensive book I had to buy as an undergraduate. $150 is more than what MS will charge for a MSDev Studio. IMO, it's outright robbery considering the budget of the average undergrad, especially when there are open source alternatives.

    24. Re:Octave? by Anonymous+Custard · · Score: 4, Funny

      You call that a link? THIS is a link:

      http://www.hugeurl.com/?ODg1M2YwMDM0NzNjMDgyNmJlM2 VkYWVkYWYwZTUxMzMmMTImVm0wd2QyUXlVWGxXYTJoV1YwZG9W Vll3Wkc5alJsWjBUVlpPV0Zac2JETlhhMUpUVmpGYWMySkVUbG hoTWsweFZqQmFTMk15U2tWVWJHaG9UVmhDVVZadGVGWmxSbGw1 Vkd0c2FsSnRhRzlVVjNOM1pVWmFkR05GZEZSTlZUVkpWbTEwYT FkSFNrZGpTRUpYVFVad1NGUlVSbUZqVmtaMFVteFNUbUY2UlRG V1ZFb3dWakZhV0ZOcmJGSmlSMmhZV1d4b2IwMHhXbGRYYlVacl VsUkdXbGt3WkRSVk1rcElaSHBHVjJFeVVYZFpWRVpyVTBaT2Ns cEhjRlJTVlhCWlZrWldhMVV5VW5OalJtUllZbFZhY1ZscldtRm xWbVJ5VjI1a1YwMUVSa1pWYkZKRFZqQXhkVlZ1V2xaaGExcFlX a1ZhVDJOdFNrZFRiV3hYVWpOb1dGWnRNSGRsUjBsNFUydGthVk 5GV2xSWmJHaFRWMVpXY1ZKcmRGUldiRm93V2xWb2ExWXdNVVZT YTFwWFlrZG9jbFpxU2tabFZsWlpXa1prYUdFeGNGaFhiRnBoVk RKT2RGSnJhR2hTYXpWeldXeG9iMWRHV25STlNHaFBVbTE0VjFS VmFHOVhSMHBJVld4c1dtSkhhRlJXTUZwVFZqRmtkRkp0ZUZkaW EwcElWbXBKZUUxR1dsaFRhMlJxVWtWYVYxWnFUbTlsYkZweFUy dGthbUpWVmpaWlZWcGhZVWRGZUdOSE9WZFdSVXBvVmtSS1QyUk dTbkpoUjJoVFlYcFdkMVp0Y0V0aU1XUlhWMWhvWVZKRlNtRldi WE40VGtaa2NsWnRkRmhTTUhCNVZHeGFjMWR0U2toaFJsSlhUVV p3VkZacVJtdGtWbkJHVGxaT2FXRXdjRWxXYlhCS1pVWkplRmRz YUZSaVJuQnhWV3hrVTFsV1VsWlhiVVpzWWtad2VGVXlkR3RoYl VwV1lucEtWbFl6YUROWmEyUkdaVWRPU0dGR2FHbFNia0p2Vm10 U1MxUnRWbGRUYmtwb1VqTm9WRmxZY0ZkWFZscFlZMFU1YVUxWF VraFdNalZUVkd4YVIxTnRPVlZXTTFKNlZHdGFWbVZYVWtoa1Jt UnBWbGhDU2xac1pEUmpNV1IwVWxob2FsSkZOV0ZhVjNSaFlVWn JlRmRyZEd0U2EzQjZWbGQ0VDJGV1RrWlRhM1JYVFc1b1dGZFdX bEpsUm1SellVWlNhRTFzU25oV1Z6QjRUa1phYzFWc1pGaGhNMU p2VlcxNGQyVkdWblJOVldSWFRVUkdlVlJzVm05V01VbzJVbXRv VjFaRldreFdha3BQVW14YWMxcEhiRk5OVlZZelZteGFVMUl4Yk ZkWGJrcE9WbXh3V0ZsWWNGZFdSbFp5Vm10YVQxVlVNRGs9

    25. Re:Octave? by Jim+Starx · · Score: 1

      I understood all the deeper theory precisely because I was forced to see it all take form step by step. Learning theory with a calculator is magic math. You just see that it works and have to trust that it does, and that's not how you develop a deep understanding.

      --
      The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
    26. Re:Octave? by Dashing+Leech · · Score: 1
      Theory is the most important thing to learn.

      I would disagree with this. I think theory is #2. I've known too many people who know theory very well (including myself) but don't know how to apply it to a real problem. How do you calculate or code something that has triple integrals in it? (It's a rhetorical question, as an example.) I think being able to apply techniques correctly to real problems is #1 important because this allows you to actually do something. Understanding the theory is #2 because, while it is very important, it is only useful for academic snobbery if you can't actually apply it to a real problem. (This is from experience on both sides; I can apply some techniques and yet I know I don't fully understand the theory, but I'm more frustrated when I understand a theory completely but can figure out how to use it to solve the problem.)

    27. Re:Octave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because Matlab versions from 6.5 onwards are perfectly capable of symbolic processing (I think Matlab uses the Mathematica engine but I may be wrong.

    28. Re:Octave? by jo44 · · Score: 1

      Actually, it uses maple.

    29. Re:Octave? by altstadt · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Every time a discussion of math packages comes up, Octave is always mentioned right away, but Euler gets ignored. I'm curious why people seem to prefer Octave over Euler so much that Euler is virtually unknown.

    30. Re:Octave? by beefstu01 · · Score: 1

      I think the two go hand in hand. You can't apply if you don't know what to apply, but what good is knowing something if you can't use it? I guess that's what I meant in my original post, but didn't communicate it well enough (I'm an engineer... I can't write). Maybe I didn't mean theory as much as technique

      And for the record, I can calculate triple integrals-- after double, they're the same. It's the theory (integrating) applied (multiple times).

    31. Re:Octave? by void* · · Score: 1

      How can you apply the theory to a real problem if you don't yet know the theory?

      It would seem to me that applying a technique without fully understanding the technique, what it's applicable to, and the theory behind it would be fraught with the danger of an inaccurate result due to misapplication of the technique.

      --


      Code or be coded.
    32. Re:Octave? by beefstu01 · · Score: 1

      The way my teachers went about doing it was using nice, easy numbers when you did the calculating (eg, 30, 45, 60, 90 degrees for angles, natural log of 1, etc...). When we needed to solve a problem, for example integrating, we were dealing more with the technique of integrating instead of worrying about the final value. I know that if you've got a TI-83 you can plot a function and find its integral no problem, but that requires zero work on your part and does not show anyone that you know how to find an integral. To take this to an extreme, it's much better to teach someone how to multiply rather than saying 2*3 = 6. Only after you know the technique should you be allowed to use technology, because each more advanced concept is based on a multiple easier concepts, and if you don't know those, you're screwed.

      I'm not saying that calculators should not be used at all for instruction. There is a time and place for them, and that is only after the students have a firm grasp on the concept at hand.

    33. Re:Octave? by N1XIM · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As somebody whom has had to correct the work of students before, I can tell you that it is enormously frustating work when you know that the student has down the concept that you are currently working on but is making mistakes (often of the simple careless type) in less complex or related concepts--causing the student to get the wrong answer, become frustated, and often fail to realize (now matter how much you reassure them) that they did it right the first time and messed something else up--not the concept that they were trying to learn (and therefore the concept that they assume is the source of all errors).
      Calculators can help, if used properly, to lessen the number of arithmetic errors that the students make in the hurried frenzy to get the problem done and find out if the answer they have devised (but not yet calculated the numeric value of) is correct. Working slower would be a solution to the problem if it were not for the fact that students in general are being assigned more homework in the very conceptual and complicated classes (that we are talking about) than ever before (while the students in less advanced classes are doing a lot less homework than in the past, despite the fact that it would actually benefit them more). Allowing the students to use technology is a way around the perceived need to drown students in work to teach them new concepts.

    34. Re:Octave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The guy's looking for a symbolic mathematics package. Why don't you recommend Excel for him why you're at it? Heavens."

      Because Excel isn't Open Source :-)

    35. Re:Octave? by Spy+Hunter · · Score: 1

      How about XCas? I haven't seen it mentioned here yet but it seems to fit the parameters of the question pretty well. Its user interface leaves a little to be desired but it is a graphing calculator akin to a TI-89 (in fact it has a TI-89 compatibility mode), GPLed. XCas, like the TI-89, can do lots of classroom-type stuff from simple arithmetic to 3-D graphing and symbolic calculus (the biggie that students love). Maybe not so good for professional engineers but it might be just the ticket for educators and students. With a little work to pretty up that user interface. A KDE frontend would easily make it the best Free math program out there for students not in advanced math or technical courses.

      --
      main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
    36. Re:Octave? by Jim+Starx · · Score: 1

      I do see your point. My frustration comes from the fact that I see a lot of students prefer to learn how to make the calculator give them the answer, instead of learning to get the answer themselves and using the calculator to help. They're learning how to use a calculator, not how to do math. Taking the calculator away is the easies solution I can see to that problem. I should be more specific though. When I say calculator I'm referring to graphing calculators that are algebra and calculus capable. They make calculators that can solve differential equations now. That's great from a technology standpoint, but from an educational perspective it's aggrivating to see students with the an attitude that they shouldn't have to learn to do something that a calculator can do for them.

      --
      The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
    37. Re:Octave? by Lufi2 · · Score: 1

      LOL! You're right. Slashdot shouldn't be asked. They don't know what are they talking about...

    38. Re:Octave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My god... I just clicked on that expecting it to take me somewhere. The hivemind at work indeed.

    39. Re:Octave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How the HELL did you get that though the lameness filter...?

    40. Re:Octave? by wcdw · · Score: 1

      Hear, Hear. I took a H.S. Prob/Stats class (too many years ago to mention) where the teacher handed out TI stats calulcators to the entire class. (Funded on his own, I might add.)

      And I believe I learned more / faster as a result. As one trivial example, it takes a LOT less time to understand the concept of "100!" than it does to compute it!

      As he told us the first day of class, the calculator will NOT do your work for you; if you don't understand the concepts, you'll still fail, even with all those dedicated buttons.

      http://www.theboyz.biz/Hardware, software, electronics and more!

      --
      If you're not living on the edge, you're just taking up space!
    41. Re:Octave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Cuz itz not fo' Windowz j00 f00!

    42. Re:Octave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I disagree: if you "understand" the theory, you should be able to apply it to a real-world problem, that is, if you understand the problem fully.

    43. Re:Octave? by riceforlife · · Score: 1

      Matlab actually comes with a symbolic logic toolbox that is free with the student version.

    44. Re:Octave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Because Octave is actually Matlab compatible, and there are thousands of lines of Matlab code out there? Also, Octave has been around for some time. I discovered it in 1996 and has been using it ever since.

    45. Re:Octave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When given both options I often prefer Octave over Matlab, because I don't like all the windows of Matlabs gui. I can crash several consequtive versions of the Matlab gui by pressing ctrl-s.

    46. Re:Octave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      How about Maxima? Formerly Macsyma (with its origins in the 60s!), open sourced a few years ago.

    47. Re:Octave? by geordie_loz · · Score: 1

      Matlab is slow and junky, but its for rapid algorithm development and proofs of concepts.

      I used Matlab for my dissertation (about 4 yrs ago) doing motion capture, using the Image processing toolbox.

      It's pretty much like using basic, you can play with ideas quickly to investigate stuff, my software worked pretty well, but was slow. Obviously I'd write the thing in C/C++ in real terms, but it was very easy to investigate in Matlab, but wouldn't have been in C/C++ even with similar libraries, the development would have been too time consuming.

    48. Re:Octave? by perky · · Score: 1

      Ditch Kreyszig and get Glyn James - Advanced Modern engineering mathematics. Only £35 (~$65) from amazon.

      --
      "The new wave is not value-added; it's garbage-subtracted" - Esther Dyson, Dec 1994
    49. Re:Octave? by dolmen.fr · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      The lameness filter is for lamers.
      I imagine that if you are flagged as non-lamer through moderation you can easily pass it.

    50. Re:Octave? by dbateman · · Score: 1

      As someone who uses both octave and matlab and contributes to octave, I can tell you that octave is getting more and more compatiable with matlab all of the time. Try the 2.1.64 version and see..

      Cheers
      D.

    51. Re:Octave? by le_jfs · · Score: 2, Informative
      because I don't like all the windows of Matlabs gui
      Try
      matlab -nodesktop

      --
      main(char O){O++&&(((O-291)*O+27788)*O-868020?1:putchar(O++) )&&main(O);}
    52. Re:Octave? by mokeyboy · · Score: 1

      Matlab and Octave are good rapid prototyping systems but even Matlab falls short in some cases for symbolic math. Would suggest Mathomatic instead if doing hard sciences. Available for many platforms and regularly updated.

    53. Re:Octave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In that case I don't understand why they haven't changed their gui to be consistent with x.

      Working with Maple gui is horrible because you cannot use middle click to paste.

    54. Re:Octave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've taught math at the college level, both community college and 4 year university and worked in tutoring labs. I avocate banning the calculator in all high school courses(yes even calculus). Far too often I see college students reach for a calculator before working out 3+14. And I've worked with alot of kids who can't even do long division. Yeah sure a calculator can do these things, but it doesn't teach you the skills to do higher math. Now you add graphing calculators and suddenly algebra skills will start to disapear as well. These skills actually need to start before high school, but then a few of the kids who I mentioned couldn't do long division were el ed majors.

    55. Re:Octave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Real math has very little to do with heavy claculations of lots of numbers. It's all about the PROOFS, baby! The rest is just fancy arithmetic.

    56. Re:Octave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh "Crocodile Dundee" reference? :)

    57. Re:Octave? by Big+Mark · · Score: 1

      Kreysig only cost me £25 in the UK. You Americans get really screwed with textbook prices, although we do pay about twice what you do for a CD.

    58. Re:Octave? by leinhos · · Score: 1

      Besides being a crutch, a calculator in a math class keeps students from learning how to *estimate* what the answer should be (if, in fact there actually is a numerical answer to the particular question). Symbolic math came about because we needed a way to solve complex problems in general. When asked for an actual numerical result, students should be able to use appropriate bounds, precision, and approximation to check thier answers, not a calculator.

      Break out the calculator for a numerical methods class, or for physics, but not for math. I took a class a while back that spent 6 weeks on Monte Carlo methods (not all are created equal -- importance sampling is a case-in-point), and Octave/Matlab was essential, but when asked to estimate the error/variance of the outcome, I needed to rely on good-old probability theory.

    59. Re:Octave? by altstadt · · Score: 1

      Given that Euler was originally written in 1988 for an Atari ST, I don't think the age of Octave has much to do with it. Years ago, when I actually needed a Matlab clone, I found Euler to be more compatible than Octave. Octave needed gnuplot to get any graphical output. I guess things have changed since then.

      Upon further investigation, it looks like the Unix/Linux version of the program is no longer being maintained. It appears stuck at 1.60.6 while the original is up to 2.03 for Win*.

    60. Re:Octave? by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

      Yeah. So far the only function I regularly use that seems to be missing is psd() - pwelch() is similar but just isn't quite the same.

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    61. Re:Octave? by JaxWeb · · Score: 1

      I see what you are saying, but surely this is only a problem in cases when the calculator is working out the Standard Deviation, or the Integral of your expression, or something?

      Surely a simple calculator which can work out square roots, powers, and simple operations is still helpful and not harmful?

      --
      - Jax
    62. Re:Octave? by jbolden · · Score: 1

      How great a role manual computation should play in the ciriculum is really not a choice that can be left to an individual teacher. The teachers need to coordinate with one another. Better given the national nature of education for college would be coordination from the secretary of education in the form of entirely non binding guidelines.

      As for being much better of I was involved in research on the issue of graphing calculators in calculus 1 classes for HS and College. Students were able to explore much more interesting examples. In fact "magic numbers" really help in this regard, if students have to work with functions whose definition they don't know things like the mean value theorem (or for that matter the intermediate value theroem) and the fundamental theorem of calculus as well as others become non trivial. Students begin to see math as a theoretical subject with intellectual content and not just a course in computation. On the other hand if students don't do pencil and paper computation they truly terrible at it.

      A few hundred years ago an engineer or a scientist would be far more versatile in pencil and paper tricks for arithmetic. The institutional knowledge of how to do those tricks exists only in esoteric books about middle ages / enlightenment computational methods; among math teachers and engineers they are unknown. More so the advanced geometry that existed prior to the invention of calculus is also virtual gone, so for example Newton is essentially unreadable today since he assumes any mathematically inclined person knows more 3D geometry than anyone (almost anyone) in the modern world does.

      We as a society have to decide what skills are worth preserving. I don't think we are worse off today because we can't do very complex arithmetic quickly and accurately without a calculator / slide rule / computer. Would it really matter if we couldn't do all but the most basic algebra without a calculator / computer and in exchange we gained an extra two years of material so that every engineer understood:

      1- Partial as well as ordinary differential equations
      2 - Abstract algebra as well as matrix manipulations
      3 - differential geometry as well as 3D calculus

    63. Re:Octave? by jbolden · · Score: 1

      They don't know how to do sin and cos for most angles without their calculators because they don't know nth roots tricks. They don't know nth root tricks because these disappeared with the popularity of log based calculations systems (like slide rules).

      So cos(22) = cos((60+60/10)/3) .... simply aren't done.

    64. Re:Octave? by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Most integrals don't have closed form solutions. Which is to say "integration" in the \int(cos) = sin sense is very rare on naturally occuring integrals. You might be having problems because you don't know enough theory for the type of work you are doing (i.e. how to manipulate integral equations).

    65. Re:Octave? by tomofdarknesss · · Score: 1

      this is a good point, but it still takes more time than punching the buttons on the calculator and most of the calc exams I've taken I've been the only one who didn't need the entire hour examination period :)

      --
      ------ Free Mac Mini! Better than an iPod! h
    66. Re:Octave? by Pxtl · · Score: 1

      Because middle-click to paste is the biggest waste of the middle mouse button that I've ever heard of. Say what you will, but the MS "middle click scroller arrow" thing is a much more appopriate use of the middle button.

    67. Re:Octave? by nicolas.e · · Score: 1

      As one trivial example, it takes a LOT less time to understand the concept of "100!" than it does to compute it!

      My 48gx with its powerful 3mhz proc computes this instantly ;) However for 1000! you could wait a bit...

    68. Re:Octave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't believe it!

      You had a chance to link it to goatse.cx and missed! You did not deserve being moderated funny for that.

    69. Re:Octave? by francisew · · Score: 1

      I'm doing my ph.d and I use matlab every day. Without it, I couldn't do a large part of what I do, nearly as quickly as is possible. Kudos to the mathworks people on doing a phenomenal job.

      That said: Matlab educational version (at least what I saw a year ago) sucks bigtime.

      Few students need to do approximate math. The 150$ they shell out is for a maximally stripped down version of an otherwise great software. It has a ridiculously small limit on the maximal matrix size.

      But this is totally offtopic: The toplevel post is about OPEN-SOURCE SOFTWARE.

      Besides, most math students would be better off with maple or other symbolic math programs.

    70. Re:Octave? by aminorex · · Score: 1

      It's not at all clear that he's looking for Maxima, as your analysis implies, but in case he is, it's on sourceforge.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    71. Re:Octave? by aminorex · · Score: 1

      because we want everyone to be too busy listening to brittany spears to even think about engineering mathematics.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    72. Re:Octave? by Bush+Pig · · Score: 1

      We used Matlab (on SunOS) when I did Numerical Analysis at university (about 10 years ago, now). It is really useful as a tool to work on toy problems in numerical analysis, but I suspect it would be too slow for extremely large, real-world problems. The nice thing about it was its general similarity to FORTRAN, the numerical analyst's tool-of-choice (at least, at the time).

      --
      What a long, strange trip it's been.
    73. Re:Octave? by Bush+Pig · · Score: 1

      Huh? When did they rewrite it Java? The last time I used Maple was at university (on SunOS), and I'd be _very_ suprised if it were written in Java then (about 10 years ago). It was pretty nifty, though, for number theoretic stuff (factoring big integers, etc).

      --
      What a long, strange trip it's been.
    74. Re:Octave? by Bush+Pig · · Score: 1

      When I was at primary school, calculators scarcely existed (they tended to have a hand-crank, and, even if we'd been able to afford one, we certainly wouldn't have been allowed to use it - I used to be pretty good at mental arithmetic). By the time I got to high school, I think there were electronic calculators, but, again, we weren't allowed to use them or, for that matter, slide rules. Partly as a consequence of that, I have good numerical skills and a reasonable understanding of maths.

      About 25 years ago, I was strapped for cash and answered an ad for a maths tutor for some kid whose mum wanted him to pass 3rd year high school. (It was actually what we call Business Maths, which is basically arithmetic, but never mind.) This kid knew where the sin, cos, etc., buttons were on his calculator, but he had _no_ _fucking_ _idea_ what they represented. Partly perhaps the fault of a teacher who was a bit unclear as well, but largely because he'd been allowed to rely on a calculator for his whole life. Oh, by the way, through no fault of mine, he failed (mostly because he'd rather kick a footy around than do the homework I gave him).

      My point, and there is one if you've got this far, is that people who are never given the opportunity to work without a calculator will most likely never develop a deep understanding of mathematics, unless they are exceptionally bright (much brighter than me, for instance).

      --
      What a long, strange trip it's been.
    75. Re:Octave? by Bush+Pig · · Score: 1

      I paid about $A70 for my copy of Kreyszig in 1994 - I still have it, and would refer to it if I got a job that required it. It's _very_ comprehensive.

      --
      What a long, strange trip it's been.
    76. Re:Octave? by Jim+Starx · · Score: 1

      I suppose that depends on the level of the math class. For upper classes such as calculus and beyond I can agree to that. But at the lower levels such as algebra and trig students should be doing that themselves.

      --
      The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
    77. Re:Octave? by norkakn · · Score: 1

      difference of opinion. when working with code, highlight to copy and middle click to past is wonderful

      |\^/| Maple 9.5 (SUN SPARC SOLARIS) ._|\| |/|_. Copyright (c) Maplesoft, a division of Waterloo Maple Inc. 2004
      \ MAPLE / All rights reserved. Maple is a trademark of
      Waterloo Maple Inc.
      | Type ? for help.
      >

      I normally use that maple tho, middle click pasting works fine

    78. Re:Octave? by MrResistor · · Score: 1

      I was a math tutor at a community college for 2 years, so in general I agree with you. However, I think calculators should be allowed in trig. After all, the alternative is to have them use the tables. Yeah, they should be shown how to use them, but making rely on them through the duration of the class is just pointlessly archaic in an age when a much more precise answer will almost always be at their fingertips.

      A good rule IMO would be to let students use a calculator only after they've proven they understand the concept well enough to execute it by hand. That would require a bit more effort on the teacher's part, though.

      --
      Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
  2. R (GNU S) by Neil+Blender · · Score: 5, Informative
    1. Re:R (GNU S) by Kludge · · Score: 2, Informative

      R is very good for statistical coding. A good number of professional statiticians code for the project and an even greater number actually use it, and it will run almost any S code written.

      I've used it since graduate school and in my two subsequent professional research jobs. Currently I use it for running statistical simulations in parallel across our 45 node cluster.

    2. Re:R (GNU S) by DarkSarin · · Score: 3, Informative

      Dangit, you beat me to it!

      I was going to suggest R.

      To the person who claims it is a poor choice for High Schoolers, I disagree, especially if statistics is of interest. It forces you to actually THINK about what you are doing with your models instead of being able to run, willy nilly, any old analysis on any old data (vis-a-vis SPSS).

      It is also good because it is VERY robust in its data import capabilities (excel, spss, etc), and is very strong at doing correct analyses.

      There are some caveats:
      Need to program
      Need to be willing to really learn
      Poor documentation
      Memory intensive for large datasets.

      This last item needs some explanation: R, unlike other statistical packages, loads the entire data set into memory, and performs all analyses there, instead of accessing the disk more frequently. This results in large datasets taking some serious memory, especially once you start working on complex analyses. If you plan to be using 5,000+ observations (which isn't all that uncommon in some fields), you should plan on having a fairly beefy computer.

      The upside is that it can provide much more information than spss could ever hope for. Now, if someone would just finish the plugin for kalc or gnumeric that would allow direct access, that would be awesome.

      (For R afficianados who aren't aware, check out ESS-Emacs Speaks Statistics--it's great for unix coders, but unnecessary for win32 stats folks).

      --
      "We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
    3. Re:R (GNU S) by Belsical · · Score: 1
      There are some caveats:
      Need to program
      Need to be willing to really learn
      Poor documentation
      Memory intensive for large datasets.
      Well, he asked for OSS, so I'm guessing the above requirements were expected...
      --

      "There are no such things as mutual fantasies. Yours bore us and ours offend you."
      - Bill Maher
  3. Maxima by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative
    1. Re:Maxima by willy134 · · Score: 3, Informative

      I have played with Maxima a little bit. I think it is a decent peice of software. It started out as a government research app that was later open sourced. Unfortunately development is slow (if even existent) but on windows it did a fairly good/fast job of calculating funny integrals. They plotting features are decent also.

      It is much closer to mathematica than matlab. I don't know how it compares to mathcad.

      Hey it is free so at least give it a try.

      --
      Can you ping me now?... Good!
    2. Re:Maxima by YGingras · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'd like to add that Maxima support formated output when run inside GNU TeXmacs. You get top quality homeworks with really little effort.

    3. Re:Maxima by kardar · · Score: 1

      last time I installed Maxima on Debian it had TeXmacs as a "suggests" or something - so yes, the two go together. TeXmacs is cool for this kind of stuff.

    4. Re:Maxima by RealAlaskan · · Score: 5, Informative
      I have played with Maxima a little bit. I think it is a decent peice of software. It started out as a government research app that was later open sourced. Unfortunately development is slow (if even existent)...

      It is being actively developed. While William Schelter was maintaining it (for 19 lonely years), development was very slow indeed. I gather that most of the work was done by him, and some of his graduate students. Since his death in 2001, a number of other people have come on board, and there is a lot of catching up to do.

      Some documentation has been rewritten, a great many bugs have been squashed, the package has been ported to several Lisps (yes, it does matter to users), there has been at least one new Emacs mode written for it, it can be used with Texmacs, and so on. Some of the people who are working on it are big names in their spheres, like Richard Fateman, who worked on the original Macsyma.

      Version 5.9.1 was released in September '04, and the next big step will be the GREAT SOURCE DOWNCASING. Maxima is so old that most of it is written in all caps. There is a lot to do to bring it into the 21st century, and most of what's being done right now is behind-the-scenes stuff.

      As you say, it's decent software now. It's fully usable, with a useful GUI for Windows (developed on Schelter's watch, as I recall). It is probably better for memory intensive work than Maple or Mathematica; that's what initially got me started using it.

    5. Re:Maxima by antiMStroll · · Score: 2, Interesting
      "I don't know how it compares to mathcad."

      Is there GPL software comparable to MathCAD? Due to the pioneering work of Martin King (http://www.quarter-wave.com/) the latter has become popular among DIY builders for modeling transmission lines speakers. Most though can't justify the ~$1000 for hobby software and use MathCAD's crippled demo, Explorer 8.

    6. Re:Maxima by Skjellifetti · · Score: 3, Interesting

      My dad was a physicist at ORNL who started using the DOE MIT version of Maxima in the early 1970s. He thought Maxima was the greatest thing since sliced bread. His division hired a new Phd at one point whose dissertation had taken 18 months to derive by hand. When he joined ORNL, he ran the problem through Maxima. Only took an afternoon and he was quite relieved when Maxima got the same answer he had gotten by hand.

    7. Re:Maxima by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I would really love if Tex-max to split into a backend and a frontend. This would allow for creating a series og different guis doing more or less the same thing.

      Gaim did that and I that them for it :)

    8. Re:Maxima by lxs · · Score: 1

      I have played with Maxima a little bit.

      You lucky devil!

    9. Re:Maxima by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Developed on Schelter's watch? They've ported GCC to watches now? What's next, alarm clocks?

  4. GraphCalc is good by theteenager · · Score: 5, Informative

    GraphCalc is a good graphing program. It might not do everything in math, but it graphs pretty nicely.

  5. Math Software? by jtbauki · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The whole technology upgrade the schools have been getting doesn't seem to be making learning more efficient. It seems like a big waste of money.

    If a kid doesn't spend time studying his books, why would he start studying his software?

    1. Re:Math Software? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't even know what Mathematica is, don't you? Hint: absolutely nothing to do with badly-made "learning enhancement" programs to remove the need for teaching and that ilk.

    2. Re:Math Software? by DanteBlack · · Score: 1

      For the same reasons that an architecture student learns AutoCAD, interactive modeling of the problem at hand. That's why they are called tools. CAD systems aren't meant to replace book learning but rather to augment it. These "kids" are looking at applied mathematics and engineering, they don't sound "unmotivated" to learn book or otherwise.

      my .02

      --
      I am invisble, and you can't see me.
    3. Re:Math Software? by jtbauki · · Score: 1

      I was refering to schools spending millions to have computers in classes from comp. sci. to spanish. Obviously, comp. sci. requires a computer, but spanish? Waste of money. Scores aren't going up, yet millions are spent.

      Let me tell you something else. US ranks very low in academics especially in Math and Science, considering our GDP. Many countries that are much poorer are producing students much more knowledgable at the same age. That just shows how unnecessary computers are to learning. They may help, but they definitely aren't neccessary.

    4. Re:Math Software? by upsidedown_duck · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You don't even know what Mathematica is, don't you?

      Actually, Mathematica is completely inappropriate for high school math courses. It is very complex, insanely powerful, and just way too much for simple stuff like plotting approximations of integrals or whatever. For high school math, there is nothing more fruitful than just working it out by hand. Plotting even a few points is sufficient to show a concept. Are students and teachers so damn insecure that they feel they need 3-D 24-bit color plots of data with animations and full-blown programming languages...for trig?!?!

      --
      -- "Makes Little Debbie look like a pile of puke!" - Moe Szyslak
    5. Re:Math Software? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I for one would be far more likely (both in theory and practice) to use my computer to study. It's all about multi-tasking. When your head is in a book, you can't do anything else. While an argument could be made that studying should be strictly studying, I have a VERY hard time doing this. Then again, I'm a lazy pothead who didn't need to do work to pass high-school, and have now only completed two and a half years of college after being in for 3 and a half....

    6. Re:Math Software? by DanteBlack · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I am aware of the United States' failing academic standing. It's sad really because we were once great leaders. The problem in schools now is that students don't really want to learn, they've simply become complacent. Worse it seems like too many teachers have fallen pray to this as well, they don't want to teach. This sounds like a completely opposite sittuation however, more power to them.

      As for computers in comp sci, math, and other I don't know how much I can argue that they should be in "soft" classes. If they help, great. If they're not, perhaps it's a failing of the use of the tool not the tool itself. I can't really say, I didn't have computers in my classes but I wasn't using a slide rule either.

      Tools for learning are important and if they're not working properly examination of why is equally, if not more, important. Kids that don't care are fairly well doomed, but kids that do should be given every chance and tool to help them along be it "hard" or "soft" course work.

      --
      I am invisble, and you can't see me.
    7. Re:Math Software? by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      Are students and teachers so damn insecure that they feel they need 3-D 24-bit color plots of data with animations and full-blown programming languages...for trig?!?!

      Trying to make something easier to learn isn't insecurity. It's the teacher's job.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    8. Re:Math Software? by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually its totally appropriate. Highschools that want to do CalculusI thru DiffEq for their advanced students use Mathematica and Calculus Remote from The Ohio State University (CROSU), or University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's Netmath program. I believe Harvard does the same.

      I think a problem might be that you associate highschool math with trig. Using Mathematica in a self-based course of instruction they can move as fast as is natural for them. Why not let the kids move past dull rote mechanical skills and learning by doing something useful?

      Is there really any reason why (the undergrad intro) QM can't be taught in HS using visualization and moderate Linear Algebra skills? I mean, if they can get as far as DiffEq? Isn't it more the *style* of instruction (chalk vs. powerpoint), and what we have them do for homework that holds them back more than the concepts?

    9. Re:Math Software? by upsidedown_duck · · Score: 1

      Trying to make something easier to learn isn't insecurity. It's the teacher's job.

      What's easier than plotting on a chalkboard? Trying to be fashionable and make math into a video game is 100% genuine insecurity.

      --
      -- "Makes Little Debbie look like a pile of puke!" - Moe Szyslak
    10. Re:Math Software? by upsidedown_duck · · Score: 1

      Highschools that want to do CalculusI thru DiffEq for their advanced students use Mathematica and Calculus Remote from The Ohio State University (CROSU), or University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's Netmath program. I believe Harvard does the same.

      Differential Equations taught through a high school? The only place I've seen that is at state "math and science" schools, and, even then, only one class per year out of 500+ students. Okay, so the top 0.001% of the population can handle Mathematica in high school. This still does not make Mathematica appropriate for high school, because the top 0.001% will probably be successful whether or not they had ever heard of Mathematica in their lifetimes (something about that 175 IQ...).

      --
      -- "Makes Little Debbie look like a pile of puke!" - Moe Szyslak
    11. Re:Math Software? by CrypticSpawn · · Score: 1

      LOL, what kind of math did you take in High School? I was taking A.P. classes in High School. Totally, appropriate. Not to mention other kids are probably dualing it; going to both high school and college at the same time.

    12. Re:Math Software? by bobscealy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A package like Mathematica might be inappropriate to present to everybody on a high school math class, but for somebody who is likely to become involved in mathematics at a tertiary level surely there is some utility in them being familiar with this kind of package, and at very least there is no harm in it.

      Plotting a few points might be suitable for many concepts, like displaying the behaviour of a low order polynomial, but what about the behaviour of a function like sin(1/x) as it approaches 0? I tutor quite a few first year mathematics courses, and based on many students understanding of the behaviour of quite simple functions I would encourage anyone in late highschool who was interested to play with a math package.

    13. Re:Math Software? by upsidedown_duck · · Score: 2, Informative

      LOL, what kind of math did you take in High School? I was taking A.P. classes in High School.

      So was I. I even got a 5 on the AP test (like it ever mattered). Mathcad was a drag. Mathematica would have been hell. We spent so much time dicking around with the computers, we could probably have covered half a chapter in that time! Computers add so much complexity that they are really only a benefit for very large problems, like CFD over an airplane wing. High school students really don't need a computer, unless the class is specifically for programming, which is not math (don't confuse programming with Comp Sci, please).

      --
      -- "Makes Little Debbie look like a pile of puke!" - Moe Szyslak
    14. Re:Math Software? by Adolph_Hitler · · Score: 0

      "I am aware of the United States' failing academic standing. It's sad really because we were once great leaders. The problem in schools now is that students don't really want to learn, they've simply become complacent. Worse it seems like too many teachers have fallen pray to this as well, they don't want to teach. This sounds like a completely opposite sittuation however, more power to them.

      This is because teachers must teach for federalized tests. The federal government should stay out of the school system and when they regular the market it destroys the system. Students can't learn because they have to pass federal standards instead of their teachers standards or their own personal standards. We need to remove all federal standards.

      --
      People don't exist to serve systems, systems exist to serve people.
    15. Re:Math Software? by antiMStroll · · Score: 1

      Spoon feeding students doesn't teach them how to learn, of value long after the formulas are forgotten.

    16. Re:Math Software? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just about anything? have you ever even tried to plot a complex function on a chalkboard? You'll spend 1/3 of the period before it starts being useful. If I were you, and I were a teacher, I would be insecure with such incompetence.

    17. Re:Math Software? by hobbesmaster · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, a lot of high schools teach the AP Calculus AB and BC courses, which are the equivalent of a first and second semester calculus course respectively at the college level. In my school of 2000 there are 3 sections (each of about 25 students) in AP calculus 1, and about 20 in AP calculus 2. Additionally, 2 students maxxed out with Cal2 in their junior year and are taking 3rd and 4th semester calculus at the local university. Total for all students in Calculus then would be about 4.85% of the school population. DE are covered in the cal2 course at my school, so about 1.1% of the student population would have use of mathematica by your reasoning. Still not very many, but still a far cry from 0.001%.

      That said, a computer algebra system period is useful in learning calculus if you're at all of the curious sort. Taking AP Cal 1 I've used my 89 to answer all sorts of questions I have about why you can't do things. And its faster than looking up the answer in the back of the book usually. :)

    18. Re:Math Software? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is there really any reason why (the undergrad intro) QM can't be taught in HS using visualization and moderate Linear Algebra skills?

      Because 99.99% of high schools and high school students can't even begin to handle it?

      I mean, if they can get as far as DiffEq?

      Usually, they can't. DiffEq in high school is extremely rare.

      Isn't it more the *style* of instruction (chalk vs. powerpoint), and what we have them do for homework that holds them back more than the concepts?

      If by style you mean "high school math teachers" instead of "respected professors" and "perpetual budget crisis" instead of "large endowment" and "a handful of capable students" instead of "100+ highly skilled students with a year or two more experience", then yes that would be why most high schools can't accelerate the curriculum extremely aggressively. Only relatively good high schools can even reach AP calculus BC for the best students.

    19. Re:Math Software? by upsidedown_duck · · Score: 1

      If I were you, and I were a teacher, I would be insecure with such incompetence.

      Just as often, the teacher would spend 1/3 the period troubleshooting the computer (where is the missing parentesis...does this need a semicolon...how do I make this line blue...). Computers can have a place in schools, just in no way should they be central to a math program. There is very little math taught that solidly benefits from high-powered graphics beyond merely looking good, which is insufficient reason for spending thousands of dollars on computers. If some graphing capability were truly necessary to get a point across, then just get a TI-82 with an overhead display. A couple hundred bucks, max.

      --
      -- "Makes Little Debbie look like a pile of puke!" - Moe Szyslak
    20. Re:Math Software? by cjl224 · · Score: 1

      Math software would be good for that but for anything less most math courses ask you to learn about these mappings by graphing them. It is the best way to learn how a function "moves" by graphing it yourself. But, if you're at a sufficiently confident level, a nice piece of math software that can graph complex functions (at a home price level) would be a boon. But Maple and the like are probably not best for High school, but definately useful for universtiy.

    21. Re:Math Software? by generationxyu · · Score: 1

      Perhaps it's not as big of a deal in lower math classes, but I never would have learned (and, as a direct result, passed) Calculus 3 if it weren't for the exercises we did with Maple. I have trouble visualizing graphs, especially 3D graphs. I don't think visually, so this is incredibly difficult for me. Maple, Mathematica, Matlab, and probably open-source counterparts -- gnuplot frontends and so forth, are the easiest, most logical way for me to understand visual aspects of math for me.

      --
      I mod down pyramid schemes in sigs.
    22. Re:Math Software? by tomofdarknesss · · Score: 1

      Just as often, the teacher would spend 1/3 the period troubleshooting the computer (where is the missing parentesis...does this need a semicolon...how do I make this line blue...). This is why you write the computer part before class, just like you'd have done if you were preparing class notes on paper, which I assure you is necessary for teaching high school calculus. The power of Maple and Mathematica isn't just in the high powered graphics, though sometimes it's good to see the graphs of distance, velocity, and acceleration to time all together without spending 20 minutes plotting points on the three curves. Or using the left hand boxes to show the concept of breaking down the area under the curve without drawing everything again and again. I took calculus in High School about 15 years ago, and my teacher relied on transparencies for a lot of these demonstrations, showing us little more than the book had to offer. I took calculus 2 more recently, and we used Maple for a couple of in class projects, and the prof showed us some things using it in class, and it was a much better experience. He'd always preface it by saying, "on page blah, there's an explanation of how this proof worked, and it would take us a couple of hours to trudge through this by hand, but if you learned the language for Maple, you'll see that..." and so on. Maybe all of your teachers were clueless, but all teachers are not clueless.

      --
      ------ Free Mac Mini! Better than an iPod! h
    23. Re:Math Software? by megaversal · · Score: 1

      Actually, I'm enrolled in Japanese at the college level right now. I find the software quite helpful if utilized. I can't speak to someone 24 hours a day at my level of knowledge, so having software designed to help me practice is great to have around.

      Computers are great, if used properly, and I think that's where the problem lies.

      --
      Sig!
    24. Re:Math Software? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I disagree. Regardless of how you test, learning the material that you're testing always comes before the actual test. I believe that it's a cultual problem with America. I'm 24, was a drop out, got a GED, returning to college, 24 year old freshman. College kids are lazy little fuckers. They want to get art or business degrees and serve coffee at starbucks for the rest of thier lives and tell customers about all thier body piercings.

      Point is, there's something culturally wrong with this country. Federalized tests are pointless to implement and equally pointless to complain about.

    25. Re:Math Software? by sketerpot · · Score: 1
      What's easier than plotting on a chalkboard?

      Plotting on a dry-erase marker board. Chalk is evil, and using it gets chalk everywhere.

      Also, for some particularly hairy things, computers can make plotting a lot easier. Just special cases, sure---but they exist.

    26. Re:Math Software? by pyite · · Score: 1

      Calc 2 level differential equations do not require software to understand or work out.

      --

      "Nature doesn't care how smart you are. You can still be wrong." - Richard Feynman

    27. Re:Math Software? by Mooncaller · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not only was I, but almost all of my friends, were doing Diff. Eq. by their Senior year. Of course, we were teaching ourselves because High School only gets to Calc II. I was the math geek of my crowd and I was into Calc III, Abstract Algebra, and just getting into Tensors. BTW, when tested in HS, my IQ was only 145. Don't tell me that High Schoolers can't hand the stuff. High School students can and will be able to learn advanced math if they know that they can access it. Math software may be just the thing. I have found when tutoring, that being able to visualize the math, is the key to understanding it. Almost all of the programs I wrote ( in the mid 70's) were for exploring math. Access to a good library ( my dad was an EE), computors, and a few really awsome instructors did it for me.

    28. Re:Math Software? by andreyw · · Score: 1

      Ah, you mean like the Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy?

      Heheh, Dr. Keyton put his faith in the TI-89 for my DFQ class, but thats probably cause he is partial to TI, still partly working there.

      Dr. Fogel's Multivariable Calc not only gave me an easy A on the proficiency exam for "Multivariable Calc" at UIC, but actually covered more material.

    29. Re:Math Software? by N1XIM · · Score: 1

      It is not about spoon feeding them--it is about not wasting time that could be spent talking about what is going on and answering their questions by instead putting little dots on a graph (something that I learned how to do early in the 7th grade, and you don't need to be shown how to do repeatedly)

    30. Re:Math Software? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      there's something culturally wrong with this country.


      Exactly. It isn't teachers teaching to standardized tests. Most of them couldn't pass the standardized test, must less teach to it. A typical public HS has 27% of the teachers teaching subject matter for which they've had no formal training or certification. (It's called a 'dislocation').

      The real problem with American Public Schools is that most parent don't care. Oh, they SAY they care, but that's just lip service. In their eyes the real purpose for public schools is baby-setting. Most parents couldn't be bothered to come to Parent-Teacher conference, or help Johnny with home-work (or see that he does it). They will come when Johnny whines that he was kick out of class 'for no reason'. That Johnny broke class equipment just to break it, that he struck another student, that he came drunk or drugged, or he was a continual distraction or the ring leader of distractions isn't a reason, nor is it his fault. It's your fault. You just don't understand poor little Johnny, and his parents are going to get a lawyer to help you understand. Oh, they will come to the football games on Friday night and curse their own kids for not being the football hero they never were.

      The parents that do come to PTC are usually in a higher economic bracket and their children are at the top of the class, if they come to public school at all.

    31. Re:Math Software? by N1XIM · · Score: 1

      True, but for demonstration purposes it makes sense to be able to just run a pre-written script and show the result to the students for immediate discussion when time is of the essence as it is in a high school environment.

    32. Re:Math Software? by figment · · Score: 1

      I'm going to slightly disagree. While I agree most of mathematica is waaay too complicated for the level we're looking at, all the other suggestions (other than pen-and-paper) are by far worse.

      You don't want to learn some proprietary language that does algebra, then need to learn another one or two come university, just because the one you used in HS is so esoteric and limited no one uses it. Because of this, if you really really have to go the computer route, i suggest using one of Matlab/Mathematica/Maple. It's commonly used in universities, so that you actually are learning a useful skill while not learning real mathematics.

      My experience in mathematics is that no one cares which of Matlab/Mathematica/Maple that you use, as long as it gets the job done, and you know how to use it. Very few of the other suggestions are acutally powerful enough that will get you far, even octave (which seems to be the most advanced open-source thing there is) is missing many of the libraries that matlab has.

    33. Re:Math Software? by figment · · Score: 1

      Funny thing is, if you survey departments outside of mathematics, particularly with regards to the UIUC Netmath program, and their line of mathematica based courses, there's a fairly wide consensus that these courses are crap and the students do not learn anything.

      This has been rather well-known in departments like CS and Physics as UIUC. They have been instructing their students for years to expressly avoid these courses, as you don't actaully learn the material in them. As someone who has taken vector calc in mathematica and gotten an A in it, I totally agree with them.

    34. Re:Math Software? by dasunt · · Score: 1

      The whole technology upgrade the schools have been getting doesn't seem to be making learning more efficient. It seems like a big waste of money.

      I'd disagree with you if technology was taught properly in schools, but it isn't happening now, and its not likely to happen in the future for a variety of reasons.

      If a kid doesn't spend time studying his books, why would he start studying his software?

      For the most part, software fails as a learning tool. It works well for modeling complex problems with a bit of programming, and it works well for presentation.

      For high school mathmatics, the modeling/programming aspect is not very useful. The most common use I can see at the HS level is graphing, and, as another poster pointed out, that can be done by hand for better results as a teaching tool.

      For presentation, there is no time like the present for learning TeX/LaTeX. Not only does it excel for mathmatical equations, its pretty damn good for regular essays and papers.

    35. Re:Math Software? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Learning should be hard, not easy. Part of a teacher's job is to challenge students.

    36. Re:Math Software? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should learn to use chalk kid. It'll put hair on your chest.

    37. Re:Math Software? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      This is why you write the computer part before class, just like you'd have done if you were preparing class notes on paper, which I assure you is necessary for teaching high school calculus.
      I assure you that it is not necessary to prepare class notes on paper to teach high school calculus.
    38. Re:Math Software? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is not sufficient. The AP exams cause the same problem, and they are not imposed by the federal government.

    39. Re:Math Software? by ishmaelflood · · Score: 1

      So, use Scilab and write the library. It is about learning, isn't it?

      On the other hand if I have my way my child(ren) will not use a computer at, or for, school until they are 18.

    40. Re:Math Software? by pmann79 · · Score: 1

      I can confirm that UIUC Mathematica-based math classes are very easy to pass. My last semester, I took a linear algebra class which I *thought* was self-paced. Didn't even look at the class webpage until after my senior project was done...oops, we had a test two weeks ago. And about six homework assignments. So I talked to the professor and he said "We'll just count your final double." I was too far behind to fully catch up, so I took a look at the practice exam to see how much I could figure out. Lo and behold, about 75% of the final exam questions were straight from the practice exam, no changes whatsoever.

      So I took one exam (which I aced) and turned in one or two homework assignments. My final grade? D, as in Diploma.

      Cue Tommy Boy: D+? Alright! I passed! I get to graduate!

    41. Re:Math Software? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      BTW, when tested in HS, my IQ was only 145

      .. look, I don't know where you got your info, but 145 is waaaaay above average. It's not going to be as spectacular when compared to the rest of the /. crowd (most of whom are above average, I'd assume..) but it's still very high.

      Also, it's usually considered bad form to mention your IQ - especially when it's high and no-one asked you. People resent being reminded they're stupid compared to you and you'll leave an unfavourable impression. People notice you're smarter anyway, for which they usually won't blame you, but if you rub it in...

    42. Re:Math Software? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      What's easier than plotting on a chalkboard?

      Plotting on a dry-erase marker board. Chalk is evil, and using it gets chalk everywhere.

      Oooh -- them's fightin' words. In the math departments I've been in (and I'm a mathematician), the typical prof. rued the day that the white board was invented. Me, I could go either way, but "it gets chalk everywhere" is not going to fly for most mathematicians. Have you lectured for an hour on a dry-erase board? That's marker on your hand, and it doesn't come off as easily as chalk.

      -- An Anonomyous Cowardly Math Professor

    43. Re:Math Software? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who cares what your IQ is, jerkoff? That's like the /. geek equivalent of pretentious name-dropping.

    44. Re:Math Software? by upsidedown_duck · · Score: 1

      Also, it's usually considered bad form to mention your IQ...

      I agree. I hate having ever taken an IQ test. The older I get and the more modest I get in face of reality, the more I realize that school, baseless competitiveness, and standardized tests did a lot to sabotage my progress later on. Now that I'm back among "regular folk" outside of my limited school environment, I realize that even "below average" people are just fine. They do their work just fine, they are good people, and it's usually the attitudes of the "smart" people that get in the way.

      --
      -- "Makes Little Debbie look like a pile of puke!" - Moe Szyslak
    45. Re:Math Software? by Mooncaller · · Score: 1

      If you bothered to read the post I was repling to, you would have seen that upsidedown_ass seemed to think that one needs an IQ of 175 to understand math. An IQ of 145 is nothing. I am sure that it is probably about average for the /. community. I was actualy somewhat ashamed of my fairly low IQ. Most of my class mates ( in the AP classes) where way smarter then me.

    46. Re:Math Software? by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 1

      Actually my point was that if we used Mathematica then *more* students would be able todo a lot more math through grade 12. You say the top 0.001% of the population could handle Mathematica in high school as though Mathematica were hard. Mathematica makes it *easier*.

    47. Re:Math Software? by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 1

      "99.99% of high schools and high school students can't even begin to handle it?"

      Bullshit.

      "DiffEq in high school is extremely rare."

      Exactly. And it doesn't need to be. Look, I'm not talking about teaching the same old classes the same old way to everybody in school today. But a previous poster suggested an IQ of 175 was necessary, and my point is that a lot of Math and Physics can be taught conceptually. The concepts aren't nearly as hard as learning (or being able) to do *all* the details (by hand) without making a mistake. So quess what, QM can be taught to people with IQs of 100. They won't (ever) be solving 2nd order linear differential equations in their head, but they don't need to in order to understand the concepts. You can teach what Linear Independence *means* without drilling the skills to reduce a 5x5 matrix.

      Bottom line: Especially in calculations where mistakes carry through, the devil is in the details. There will always be a place for those who can wrestle with satan and win, but we don't have to force the fight to teach a lot more concepts to a lot more people. Especially if we let software deal with the details.

      Aside: consider the difference between SQL and assembly language. If we insist on teaching assembly, and requiring students to build libraries and write their own DBMS in assembly, they can't "learn" very fast. The homework will take forever. Higher level (and domain specific) languages move us faster by hiding alot of the details. Why not employee this paradimn in education? Teach what "slope" means, but let third graders apply a differential operator to an expression (while solving word problems) in an enviornment like Mathematica long before showing them how to differentiate by hand.

  6. graphcalc by caladbolg · · Score: 0, Redundant

    It's a nice 2D and 3D grapher...gpl too

  7. GCalc for graphing calculator needs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    GCalc rocks for all your graphing calculator needs: http://gcalc.net

  8. Maxima by BicycloHexane · · Score: 1, Informative

    Check out Maxima, my Calculus 2 teacher tries to give it a plug in class about every week. Its actually very powerful. http://maxima.sourceforge.net/ http://www.ma.utexas.edu/maxima.html

  9. Easycalc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I suggest you get a palm (hey, they do wonders for everything) and get easycalc. It's open source (duh) and does wonders for all that graphing stuff, and if you get bored, you can always do other things on the it (the palm) :)

  10. Open source: Paper and Pencil and maybe perl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The tools are great if you already know the basics and want to play with modeling.

    In the old days, I used fanfold printer paper but nowadays extra wide legal paper for writing equations and more equations and long equations.

    You might be able do some basic numerical programming and modeling with perl.

    WhatMeWorry!

  11. gnuplot by sugarmotor · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What are these "kids" trying to learn?

    They can explore lots of stuff just with gnuplot.
    bc is also pretty good - simple to learn and use.

    Who needs all the flashy stuff?

    Stephan

    --
    http://stephan.sugarmotor.org
  12. Why software? by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There were no computers in my middle/high school math classes and I learned math just fine. What is your friend trying to do that couldn't be done better with pen and paper and old fashioned teaching? Computers aren't a panacea.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    1. Re:Why software? by Zangief · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because there are things that simply cannot be done without a computer. Fractals and strange atractors were only unleashed once computers were available.

      Plus, there are other cool things you can do. Long equations can be simnplefied, you don't have to write so much, and you can concentrate in the mathematics, instead of in the often tedious mechanics.

    2. Re:Why software? by smacme · · Score: 1

      I betting it's just for practicing. Practice makes perfect, you know. I'm sure they aren't wanting the software to teach the kid. And when it comes to math, I use pencil and paper. Pen is just too damn hard to erase.

    3. Re:Why software? by OneOver137 · · Score: 1

      I completely understand your reasoning and agree with you if we're talking high school calculus. But programming (or at least a working knowledge of) in Mathematica or Matlab is almost a requirement these days at the higher levels. I've noticed that now that I'm in grad school, we use numerical methods a whole lot more. In fact, I'm taking a numerical methods class next quarter.

    4. Re:Why software? by spac3manspiff · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yeah, and guys in the stone age did math with rocks and did fine too.

      But I think progress education of younger generations if we allow them to use new technology. Introducing math to kids in middle school allows them to become more familiar with the technology. Like, my dad can do math perfectly with pen and pencil but can use a computer or graph on a calculator. That shows the difference in generations.

    5. Re:Why software? by upsidedown_duck · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Fractals and strange atractors were only unleashed once computers were available.

      Fractals are merely a novelty at a high school level. What can students struggling with pre-calc do with fractals other than gawk at pretty pictures? To appreciate them beyond "hey, it's glittery...oooh, color cycling....drool" takes a motivation and interest not present in most students.

      --
      -- "Makes Little Debbie look like a pile of puke!" - Moe Szyslak
    6. Re:Why software? by Don'tTreadOnMe · · Score: 1

      I agree that Long equations can be simnplefied, you don't have to write so much, and you can concentrate in the mathematics, instead of in the often tedious mechanics. , but for a student learning math at the level that the poster seems to be implying, those "tedious mechancs" are what they are supposed to be learning.

    7. Re:Why software? by Zangief · · Score: 1

      But, those shiny colors can motivate them. It has done it for a lot of people out of school.

    8. Re:Why software? by upsidedown_duck · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But, those shiny colors can motivate them.

      In the worst way. "Hey, those fractals look pretty cool, I think I'll sign up for this advanced fractals course." --semester begins-- "Holy flying fluke, Batman, where did these equations come from?!?" --drops class, ends with less motivation than before--

      --
      -- "Makes Little Debbie look like a pile of puke!" - Moe Szyslak
    9. Re:Why software? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pfft. The most Mandelbrot has ever done for me is provide good visuals whilst listening to Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon and smoking weed.

      Highschoolers could care less, and would in all liklihood take my approach rather than listen to some jackass who knows as much shit about fractals as I do blather on and on and on.

      And look at me, I turned out okay!

    10. Re:Why software? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I bet you can't work out 6+9 without the urge to run for a calculator.

      Progress!

    11. Re:Why software? by zapster · · Score: 1

      Exactly!! I find that computers and for that matter graphing calculators waste time in a classroom due to the teacher constantly having to explain how use the thing to the student, taking away from actual teaching. Not to mention different schools requiring different calculators or using different software. I read an article about some MIT (iirc) students who when asked about computer use responded "we're math majors we don't use computers" (paraphrasing, was a long time ago).

      I believe that a teacher given chalk and chalkboard can teach math quite well, possibly even imparting some visualization skills that might not be learned with computer generated graphs at everyone's fingertips.

    12. Re:Why software? by tarogue · · Score: 1

      Long equations can be simnplefied, you don't have to write so much, and you can concentrate in the mathematics, instead of in the often tedious mechanics.

      But if you don't know the "tedious mechanics" do you really know the mathematics?

      --
      Life sucks, but death doesn't put out at all. -- Thomas J. Kopp
    13. Re:Why software? by tloh · · Score: 1

      The idea is not that computers are supposed to replace paper and pencil, it is that they enhance or supplement what is already being done. My older sisters learned high school math the traditional way. They learned to get answers analytically by cranking out equations and unfortunately, that's all they learned how to do. There was not real appreciation of the meaning behind the numbers and symbols. They didn't like it at all. They both went into biology related majors and careers. I went to the same school years later and learned calculus with a dynamic teacher who integrated graphic calculators into a curiculum that emphasized not only technical competence with lots of homework sets, but also conceptual mastery of the fundamental ideas by exploring relational meaning and visualization. Without the graphic power of the TI 82s we all had to buy, it would have been at best, time consuming and at worst, just plain impossible for the drawing skills of my teacher to get the same ideas across. Calculus just made sense and was easy to learn with this combined approach.

      --
      Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
    14. Re:Why software? by pHatidic · · Score: 1
      Public Schools: Problems and Solutions

      This article explains that while you can learn anything with pen and paper just fine, computers, used sensibly, can be another tool to add to your teaching repertoire.

    15. Re:Why software? by dillon_rinker · · Score: 1

      What can students struggling with pre-calc do with fractals other than gawk at pretty pictures?

      It's been about 10 years since I read Barnsley's "Fractals Everywhere" (a college level text), but I think some of the lessons in it could easily be communicated to grade schoolers. (in fact, now that I've got grade-schoolers of my own, maybe I should dig up that presentation I did...) Anyway, to answer your question:

      1. Learn about transformations. On the geometrical side, this can be introduced as early as elementary school (I have this vivid recollection of a hymn to the Euclidean symmetry transformations - "A flip a turn and a slide, a flip a turn and a slide.") On the analytical side, it takes only a bit of algebra and geometry to understand this. A sophomore-level geometry course would be an ideal place to introduce this aspect of transformations.

      2. Learn about iterated processes. Applying the same set of transformations over and over again can have surprising results. This can be done visually at almost ANY level. I can show you how three transformations, each consisting of a few scaling, a rotation, and a translation, can, when iterated, produce the image of a fern. Other iterated processes can produce other images.

      3. Learn about the limit of an iterated process. To continue my previous example, it doesn't matter WHAT shape I start with - I end up with the image of a fern. The limit of a process may be nothing like what you start with. Understanding limits is key to understanding the underpinnings of calculus, by the way.

      Frankly, ALL mathematics are merely a novelty at high-school level. Unless you take an applied math course (read: "MAthematics for non-college-bound losers"), you get precious little in the way of real applications of the mathematics (Two trains leave two cities simultaneously...).

    16. Re:Why software? by fireboy1919 · · Score: 1

      "Hey, those fractals look pretty cool, I think I'll sign up for this advanced fractals course."
      Me, circa 1999.

      "Holy flying fluke, Batman, where did these equations come from?!?"
      Same era, but it was still interesting. I didn't give up, and I learned a lot about them.

      One thing I learned is that knowledge of fractals is almost useless. Fractal compression doesn't compete very well with Wavelet compression (used now), and there's virtually no other area to which they have been applied successfully.

      The only exception to this is the plasma fractal, which is used in landscape and cloud generation. It makes a decent PRNG, but stream ciphers are faster.

      So...I kind of wish I hadn't seen those shiny colors. They distracted me from learning stuff that I would be able to make use of later.

      --
      Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
    17. Re:Why software? by cjl224 · · Score: 0, Troll

      That's why we invented the abacus, stupid!

    18. Re:Why software? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...There were no computers in my middle/high school math classes and I learned math just fine..."

      And it is ironic that the kids need a computer to study math that was invented (or discovered) without a computer.

    19. Re:Why software? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, i don't know. Does understanding Taylor's or Newton's Method for calculating continuous integrals add much to the understanding that most AP Calc/1st yr college calc integrals compared to just knowing that most integrals are just anti-derivatives, and the various and techniques/tricks for doing anti-derivatives (and how to combine or not the techniques)?

      Green's Theorem, etc. probably wouldn't show up in most 1st yr college calc classes, would it, but then again, I don't remember actually figuring out the theoretic basis for Green's Theorem in the applied math class.

    20. Re:Why software? by fermion · · Score: 1
      It is hard for techno-geeks to understand, especially those that are middle class and tend to have access to some computer at an pre-college age, and probably blocks as well, but not everyone can learn math.

      What we do in the US is pretty interesting. We expect every one of our citizens to learn math. And not just math, but advanced abstract concepts like irrational numbers and numbers that don't even exist. If you doubt how hard these things are to understand, just note that in the western world there was a long time between the greeks, with their straight edge, protractor, and rational numbers, to the point where we could solve irrational equations and develop a general 'algebra'.

      In the fantasy world, everyone has always learned math. In the real world, people did learn their times tables, and could handle rational numbers, and perhaps those skills have gone, but when dealing with high school algebra, that has always been issue. My father talked about teaching kids in the 60's and realizing they never learned to measure. In fact we did good things by exposing the masses to the ideas, and allowing those who could progress to do so, but we did very little in developing abstract thought in the rest.

      Which for better or worse is the current mandate of education in the US. Th modern industrial complex requires two types of people. Drones that have interpersonal skills and can work a computer, and drones that can accept a general set of instruction to either solve a problem or create a procedure that other drones can use to solve a problem. There are few position available for the worker that has traditionally been the product of the US educational system.

      So, how do we do this by the time a student reaches 18. This can be hard as many people do not develop the ability to think abstractly until nearly 18. Under the current system, we start teaching abstract thought at 14 or before. One device is mask the abstract thought in concrete objects and hope the concepts transfer when the pupil has sufficiently developed. One effective way to do this is with the computer. The computer can handle the complex, often abstract calculation, while the pupil can learn by observing the cause and effect of the actions. For instance, the pupil can solve an abstract equation by naming the operations, and the computer can correctly apply the operations. Likewise, the public can put specific points that are a solution to an equation, and the computer can verify the validity of those points, and when appropriately, allow the student to fit a curve. In more advance math, the computer can model Reiman sums, and provide a concrete example for the first semester calculus student.

      And to address your comment specifically, i feel much richer having computers to learn math. We played with trig functions on the apple, and our ancient TI calculators, and it really helped me remember how they were related. Twenty years ago. I guess that is why the people from my public high school were making near perfect scores on the SAT.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    21. Re:Why software? by Morganth · · Score: 2, Insightful

      While I agree that technology in Math helps for some things, especially visualization of otherwise abstract concepts, technology can also really impede Math learning.

      I know this. I'm a public high school graduate who is now in Computer Science and feels as if his Math background is lacking, to say the least.

      Yet, I got a 5 on AP Calculus exam, got As in my Calc class, but don't remember a damn thing from Calculus. Why? I mastered the fucking calculator.

      Armed with a graphing calculator (TI-89 preferred), I can do anything from Calculus. Armed with a pen, paper, and my own brain, I'm as useless as a monkey throwing darts at a dartboard (sometimes, I feel even more useless).

      How can this be, you ask? AP has a section without the Calculutor too! Answer: lots of long-night review the night before the exam. I barely remember that week, let alone the material I crammed into my head for the exam.

      Sure, it didn't help that my Calc teacher wasn't stellar, and that it was senior year (so I was busy with college applications and all that nonsense), but nonetheless, I wish I had gotten a real Calculus education. And I could have, if it weren't for that damned calculator.

      People learn what interests them. If you love Math and hate technology, then you'll learn math and the calculator will help you out in tough spots. If you don't really love Math but do love technology, then you'll do what's logical: master the device, the graphing calculator. Little did I know I'd actually need the concepts I used my technological know-how to work around!

      Now I have to audit a Calc I class to catch up, since I feel so embarassed for myself.

      More and more kids are excited by technology. That means less and less will learn math, especially if they are using stuff like Mathematica in their classrooms, instead of working out the derivatives or whatnot.

      I take the same view as my algorithms Professor nowadays. On the second day of class, he took away the graphing calculator from a student he saw using it to calculate whatever, then he brought it up to his desk, pulled out a hammer from his drawer, and smashed it to pieces.

      Or so we thought; he actually smashed an old, broken calculator to pieces that he switched with the brand-new one. We were all shocked, and amused when he revealed the trick, but then he said, "If you want to learn something, throw away your calculator, unless that thing you want to learn is your calculator."

      That student he embarassed was me.

    22. Re:Why software? by cjl224 · · Score: 0

      They still sound cooler...

    23. Re:Why software? by tomofdarknesss · · Score: 1

      Are you a teacher or a student? When was the last time you were in an actual classroom? Most of the classes I've seen the professors have had excellent comprehension of the tools they were using and spent only a day or two showing students the basics of how to use them, offering time during office hours to show anyone who needed extra help with their tools how to use them (provided they brought their manuals, because they spent most of that time teaching the students how to look up things in their own manual). I've been in math classes recently and the tools did augment the training. I've also been a math tutor recently, and students aren't as baffled by technology as you seem to be.

      --
      ------ Free Mac Mini! Better than an iPod! h
    24. Re:Why software? by Frogbert · · Score: 1

      Furthermore I can't possibly imagine typing anything but the most rudamentry equations on a keyboard. It shits me something cronic doing maths on a computer, you need a pen and paper to do working out anyway.

    25. Re:Why software? by Zangief · · Score: 1

      Nah, once you learned, why bother?

    26. Re:Why software? by Mooncaller · · Score: 1

      Just because your an idiot, does not make everyone else one too. I had absolutly no trouble understanding the math of fractal geometry when in High School, nor did most of my friends.

      Becaus you think that students don't have the motivation and interest, we should take away the motivation and interest. You really are a moron.

    27. Re:Why software? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For a number of years I relegated fractals to a lower rung of mathematics because I thought it was only pretty pictures. I was always more obsessed with algebra and discrete stuctures. Only now that I'm out of school do I realize exactly how important fractals could be to mathematics. It's a developing field, so expecting wonderous applications is a bit premature. To me, this means that there is a lot of opportunity for discovery. I've learned a lot about mathematics just from playing with some of the ideas on my own. In fact, I may be able to prove some new things if I continue! If I do, the money will follow...

    28. Re:Why software? by Don'tTreadOnMe · · Score: 1
      I am thinking about this with the biased opinion of a math major (only a BS degree, so I don't call myself a mathematician), but:

      If all they want to do is get answers, by all means, they should use the programs to do the work for them. This seemed to be the attitude of the engineers at Va Tech where I went to school, and it seems like the right thing for someone who is using math as a tool, simply to produce an answer.

      But if you do want to understand why the answer is what the program says it is, pencil and paper and thought are the best way to go about it.

      And now, to argue against myself, I have to admit that I wrote a graphing program when I was in school so I could get fast images of polynomials. Eventually I modified it so that it would do stuff in polar coordinates, too, but ultimately, to advance through the classes and do the tests quickly enough, you pretty much had to be able to visualize all of that upon seeing an equation for the first time.

      That, and being able to work through a problem in your head first is a great way to test your final answer, even if you do use a calculator. I was able to do better on most physics tests than the other folks because I ran through the problem quickly doing all of the math in my head, and then putting down my estimated answer next to the question. If my calculated answer was not within an order of magnitude, then I checked all of it again, and usully found an error, typically mis-keying something in the calculator. That helps a lot for making sure the answer the machine gives you is something like what you ought to be seeing.

      So, I guess I back away from my original opinion, but I do think that the computer programs ought to be augmented with a reasonable amount of pencil and paper work to gain an appreciation of what's going on.

      That, and the original poster did say, "applied math", so that is a totally different animal than pure math.

      But dammit, abstract algebra is cool!

    29. Re:Why software? by fireboy1919 · · Score: 1

      developing field

      It's been developing for over thirty years - over a hundred, depending on how you count it (mathematical description of Cantor dust? Mandlebrot's ideas? What?). There are lots of "applications." We can at least say that a lot of discoveries have been made, but that none of them have been very applicable to anything.

      This development speed is a lot slower than almost any other field that's only thirty years old. Now I'm willing to admit that development efforts could have been slow because no one's been clever enough to make use of it - after all, number theory didn't really take off until cryptography did, and that depended on the power of computers.

      However, unlike number theory, Fractal math has many, many admirers - people like myself, at least, as well as brilliant mathematicians. Its fun because it's an art, too, and so there are a lot who have made it a hobby. Considering the amount of man-hours put into fractals, I would expect more output if they were genuinely very useful.

      I think, rather, that very few things actually conform to fractal patterns, which makes their uses much more limited.

      --
      Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
    30. Re:Why software? by Bastian · · Score: 1

      I think that without Mathematica many of my mathematics courses wouldn't have given me nearly the command of the subject that they did.

      When I'm learning linear algebra, I want to do operations on vectors and marices, not large arrays of numbers. The mechanics are important to know, and we did learn those, but once you get past the basics, every moment you spend computing a matrix multiply or dot product or what have you is a moment you're spending not learning the material.

      Same for numerical mathematics. Would you rather spend a day working out how to improve an algorithm by changing a Mathematica function and seeing how it changes the output, or a week doing the same thing because you have to waste most of your time grinding out $bignum iterations of J.Random.Numerical.Method?

      By the time you get to college, mathematics is not about arithmetic anymore, and complaining that math students' education is being stunted by using tools to grind the numbers is essentially the same thing as saying astronomy students' educations are being stunted because they aren't building their own telescopes anymore.

    31. Re:Why software? by mbrezu79 · · Score: 1

      Hi,

      my personal opinion is that computers are very much like pen and paper ((un)fortunately, the current technology still requires use of pen and paper -- computer screens and input devices just do not have large enough resolutions to be just as nice as pen and paper for sketching solutions or charts or graphics).

      As for open software for math (high school or not) I would recommend scheme (the lisp dialect). It is easy to teach students how to write programs for symbolic differentiation and lots of other simple, interesting things (linear algebra stuff, finding zeros for a function -- there are many examples even in Structure And Interpretation Of Computer Programs, and many more can be found quite easily).

      It is a language which complements nicely the pen and paper approach -- you do your initial solution on paper then try to do the tedious calculations on a computer, with a program you've written yourself -- hey, if you know enough math to do it yourself you'd better know how to program it :))

      The opinion that one learns a lot by explaining things to one's peers is pretty popular. Well, programming is "explaining to someone else" taken to an extreme. Why not use it as an educational tool?

      So I guess computers ought to be just as useful as pen and paper, if used properly.

      Or maybe I'm just a Lisp/Scheme zealot :))

      Miron

    32. Re:Why software? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Fractals and strange atractors were only unleashed once computers were available.
      False.
    33. Re:Why software? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think dynamical systems could be taught to a high school audience with a solid pre-calc background. They wouldn't need trig, or calculus necessarily. I think something like this book might work... you'd probably have to introduce some topics usually covered in a calculus course along the way, and probably introduce some supplementary material as well. You wouldn't be able to cover everything, but you could probably get across a decent understanding of the basics.

    34. Re:Why software? by ishmaelflood · · Score: 1

      exposing myself to laughter, what integrals aren't anti derivatives? (Or are you talking about 1/D 1/t= ln t etc?)

      I really like the numerical approach to integration, it seems very real to me. But there again I enjoyed calculus. Which, incidentally, we had to do at high school in the land of the Poms.

    35. Re:Why software? by novakyu · · Score: 1
      to advance through the classes and do the tests quickly enough, you pretty much had to be able to visualize all of that upon seeing an equation for the first time.

      Also, what some students seem to have trouble with is, well, they have to be able to "take derivative" of a graph. Some students really have trouble with these things because they don't understand exactly what a derivative is, beyond those nifty rules (power rules, product rules, derivative of trig functions, etc.) they learned.

    36. Re:Why software? by novakyu · · Score: 1
      By the time you get to college, mathematics is not about arithmetic anymore, and complaining that math students' education is being stunted by using tools to grind the numbers is essentially the same thing as saying astronomy students' educations are being stunted because they aren't building their own telescopes anymore.

      The main problem (at least in US) is that students are exposed to calculators too early. They shouldn't be so eager to whip out a calculator when they see 43*10 or even 25*5. It's quicker to do those calculations in head, but using calculators too early in their lives (whew...) builds that bad habit.

      Use of calculators should be limited to really number-crunching-intensive tasks such as (so far as I've seen...i.e. undergraduate level) least-squares fit (btw, does anyone know a program that can do least-squares fit while taking different uncertainty of data points into account?), prime factorization of really large numbers (er, 67896421?...hmm, I think this number may be a prime... my graphing calculator (TI-83) is taking a really long time prime factorizing this....), and such.

      Oh, and here's something I really don't like that some lower division physics students do: They plug numbers into variables too early, before they worked out to the answer in symbols--they would probably do that less if they didn't have a calculator.

    37. Re:Why software? by zapster · · Score: 1

      I must have been unclear about my problems with the technology. I don't have any problems with it, the other students did. They were asking questions about how to do this and that in class and taking up class time. Time I paid for. I was especially irritated when an entire class was taken up with "calculator training" then the instructor announced a quiz next class over the material we should have covered.

      As for your questions, I am neither teacher nor student now. I took some classes about 5 years ago at the local community college as a refresher. My teacher had a good grasp on the technology, it was the students who didn't. I paid for a class about math not calculator use. The local high schools use casio (I believe) calculators and the teacher said a TI was required, so many of the students had problems with entering functions etc.

      As for augmenting the training I am sure the graphs are pretty and all but I have had several math teachers that did a great job with chalk and that is also within the last 5 years. In fact the quality of teacher was inversely related to the amount of graphing calculator use. (with an admittedly small sample)

      I believe that the teacher should be primarily teaching how to think about and solve a problem. Not technology use. You want to use a graphing calculator? Fine by me! Just don't take a math class to learn how to use it.

    38. Re:Why software? by tomofdarknesss · · Score: 1

      sounds like your professor didn't have good control over his class, or good lesson plans...

      --
      ------ Free Mac Mini! Better than an iPod! h
    39. Re:Why software? by zapster · · Score: 1

      Yes, she was not a very good teacher.

      I use high level software tools at work (rf coverage plotting) that completely gloss over the details and make the job very nice and easy...I love them. The problem is that when I try to teach someone else to use them they are so sorely lacking in the low level fundamental skills (the skills learned the "hard way") that they can come up with bizarre solutions and not even realize they are incorrect.
      My point is that if a student learns and completely understands the problem then software tools and graphing calculators are great for doing a bunch of the problems on a day to day basis. But in the learning phase, learning to do it the "hard way" seems to make people understand the problem better and retain the knowledge for longer. When you understand what the software is doing you are much more likely to know when the software is giving a wrong answer. (or your inputs were hosed)

      In class if you get an answer wrong it is 10 points off, if I get an answer wrong at work it means I lose a bid or worse, win the bid and have to do the job for below cost.

    40. Re:Why software? by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      On the contrary, according to Mandelbrot most things in nature conform to some degree to the fractal pattern. In fact measuring the fractal dimension of anything from mountains to paintings nearly always returns a non-integer result, thereby highlighting the fractal nature of most non-artificial or ideal things.

      This realisation was what was important. Now fractal theory doesn't allow to do much with the resulting knowledge, except precisely quantifying with high accuracy this degree of fractalness, which is useful in some contexts.

      For example a benign skin lesion will have a contour with a lower fractal dimension than a melanoma. You can use this information for computer-assisted diagnosis.

    41. Re:Why software? by JaxWeb · · Score: 1

      Silly question from Non-American: What age is High School?

      --
      - Jax
    42. Re:Why software? by msgregory@earthlink. · · Score: 0

      14-18 (4 years total)

    43. Re:Why software? by upsidedown_duck · · Score: 1

      You really are a moron.

      I've come to the same conclusion about myself, in spite of my high GPAs, IQ, several 5s on AP tests, prestigious undergrad degree, and always being the "smart kid". Well, none of that matters in real life, and your attitude will be corrected, too, whether you like it or not, someday.

      --
      -- "Makes Little Debbie look like a pile of puke!" - Moe Szyslak
    44. Re:Why software? by nicolas.e · · Score: 1

      I guess that the parent poster means that you cannot find an analytic form of some integrals, and only approximate them.

    45. Re:Why software? by fireboy1919 · · Score: 1

      Ah...what metric are you using to determine the fractal dimension?

      If you're talking about box count, this is not as accurate a metric as you are claiming. If you're talking about exact Capacity Dimension, then you do have a point: it can be used. It is also very difficult to determine precisely in almost all cases. It is difficult to prove that something actually has such a dimension other than by empirically showing that the box count is consistent enough to imply a fractal nature.

      Box count is a fairly useful metric, actually. However, a better one that seems to show the same information while having little to do with fractals is edge density. It's also faster to compute.

      --
      Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
    46. Re:Why software? by Bush+Pig · · Score: 1

      > ... there's virtually no other area to which they have been applied successfully.

      Not quite true. Oil industry geoscientists and reservoir engineers use the theory a bit, for estimating reservoir extent, percolation through sands, etc. A person of that persuasion could probably explain in considerably more detail exactly _how_, I'm just quoting a bloke I worked for a few years ago.

      Anyway, don't feel you've wasted your time - remember how proud Hardy was of his belief that number theory had absolutely no practical application (I guess the joke's on him).

      --
      What a long, strange trip it's been.
    47. Re:Why software? by KingKurly · · Score: 1

      Long answer, I use a rule of 6: in general, the age you will be when you leave Xth grade is X+6. High school in the US is usually 9th-12th grade. These years are also referred to as freshmen, sophomores, juniors, and seniors.

      Short answer, about 14-18.

      --
      It was recently discovered that research causes cancer in rats.
  13. python by viva_fourier · · Score: 2, Informative

    As an avid Matlab user, octave would be a good realm for lower dimensional mathematics. But, there's a nice foundation being set for python as an interpretive math environment. For the matlab lackies, matplotlib provides Matlab-like plotting support. For windows, grab the enthought compilation -- for linux, piecemeal together your environment starting with SciPy, MayaVi, and Matplotlib.

    --
    and now back to the fallout shelter...
    1. Re:python by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The downside to this, of course, is that you're having to use python. Wake me when it's not implemented in a language that uses tabs as a delimiter.

      Also, have you ever raced an interpretted language against a C library? There's zero comparison. Anytime you're doing something loopy (like an FFT), the interpretted language gets clobbered. If you must, I recommend using Ruby or Perl and a C math library that has a binding in either one of those languages.

    2. Re:python by viva_fourier · · Score: 1

      Two points of contention -- 1. any math program needs to have instant feedback. Computer scientists may enjoy scouring for results, but mathematician's usually do not. 2. Speed adjustments are different than algorithm testing. "Early optimization is the root of all evil". D. Knuth(sp)

      In fact, Matlab's mex files are implemented in C. It's all based upon FFTW, ATLAS, Lapack, Blas to name a few. You wouldn't write a Python FFT routine -- you would load SciPy, Numeric, or any other Py-FFT-du-jour and leverage time-tested C-routines.

      --
      and now back to the fallout shelter...
  14. bc by bbh · · Score: 4, Funny

    bc

    1. Re:bc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a computer program? I thought they didn't have computers back then.

    2. Re:bc by runciter44 · · Score: 1

      "bc -l" rocks. It is not funny. Really.

  15. For a high school freshman . . . by kfg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I wouldn't recommend software at all. I would recommend something we call "pencil and paper." Learning mathematics (and reading music, and a number of other such undertakings) is as much a mechanical skill as an intellectual one and the quickest way to the brain is through the fingers.

    Come back when they're in college and ask again.

    KFG

    1. Re:For a high school freshman . . . by Neil+Blender · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I wouldn't recommend software at all. I would recommend something we call "pencil and paper." Learning mathematics (and reading music, and a number of other such undertakings) is as much a mechanical skill as an intellectual one and the quickest way to the brain is through the fingers.

      Word to that. When I was in school, we couldn't even use calculators. I could calculate the cube root of large numbers to several significant digits with paper and pencil.

    2. Re:For a high school freshman . . . by caladbolg · · Score: 1

      My thoughts exactly.

    3. Re:For a high school freshman . . . by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No.

      Software is useful. As a freshman in trig, I was learning calculus on my own, and Mathematica helped. There was one derivative in particular which I couldn't figure out; after using Mathematica to find the answer, the method whereby you reach that answer came to me a few days later -- it was much more obvious from the answer than from the question. There have been countless discussions between my friend and I as to how Mathematica arrived at a certain solution.

      You try doing large integrals with pencil-and-paper and then come back and tell me that mathematics software isn't worth it for highschoolers. The only thing I can see is "useful" is the handwriting practice.

      the quickest way to the brain is through the fingers

      Software which shows you how to work a problem gets to the brain a lot quicker than fingers which have no idea what to do. Besides, I have seen countless cases of classmates in physics who have no idea what they're doing but can write down the examples that the teacher gives without fail.

      The problem, of course, is software which devolves to mindless number-punching. I frown upon that - except when you would be punching in the same numbers into a calculator, surrounded by some function signs that are relatively obvious, or when you'd be sitting there for 2 hours working the problem by hand. Apart from stupid programs, it's hard to claim that writing out things helps you work better than using calculators and computers.

    4. Re:For a high school freshman . . . by despik · · Score: 1

      So you're saying that this is an useful skill to have?

      --
      "I seem to have mastered a certain amount of control over physical reality."
    5. Re:For a high school freshman . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. Yes I am.

      NB

    6. Re:For a high school freshman . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I could calculate the cube root of large numbers to several significant digits with paper and pencil.

      You're lucky you had pencil and paper. We had birch bark and a bit of charcoal, and we liked it.

      Of course, you tell that to kids today and they don't believe you.

    7. Re:For a high school freshman . . . by kfg · · Score: 1

      I was learning calculus on my own. . .

      Aha! You sir, are a special case. The normal rules don't always apply to special cases. It's often hard enough to get college freshman majoring in physics to do integrals.

      I have seen countless cases of classmates in physics who have no idea what they're doing but can write down the examples that the teacher gives without fail.

      This is what we call "Bad Teaching." It's likely the teacher didn't understand the subject either.

      . . .it's hard to claim that writing out things helps you work better than using calculators and computers.

      Actually, there's a body of work in psychology that supports the claim. Again, exceptional cases may well be, well, exceptional.

      KFG

    8. Re:For a high school freshman . . . by ltbarcly · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Of course some integrals are hard. That is why there is a table of integrals in the front (and back) cover of almost every calculus book. However, that does not mean you don't have to learn the method to solve those integrals.

      Learning is MUCH more complicated than simply absorbing the ability to do certain well defined tasks. There are abilities gained when working hard math problems that are far more important than the math problems themselves, at least in the case of difficult integrals.

      Having done 'large integrals' by hand (and having slid through using my TI-89) I can tell you that using a table (or math software) will come back to bite you.

      Learning is SUPPOSED to be hard (see Pinker: The Blank Slate or How the Mind Works) because if it isn't hard then you aren't learning anything. You cannot find an easy way ('no royal road' -Euclid) and you cannot trick people into learning using gimmicks. You just have to sit down and work at it until you get it.

      Your example of not being able to do a derivitive is CRAP. Everywhere in America are libraries, and every library has a calculus book. These will not be checked out, trust me. Go get one. Also, there is a publisher called "Dover" which sells fairly decent books for like 10 bucks. So the 100 dollars for a student edition of mathematica (I know I know it was free for you because you stole it) is hardly worth the money compared to what is available free or cheap. Note: If you are doing 100 or 200 level mathematics then you aren't doing anything that is really hard enough to require mathematica to do it, (except for diffyQ where they sometimes give assignments which require Matlab or Mathematica for charts and stuff).

    9. Re:For a high school freshman . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have seen countless cases of classmates in physics who have no idea what they're doing but can write down the examples that the teacher gives without fail.

      Not surprising. Where I went to school, the first of a three course series in Physics had an attrition rate of 70%. Class size would reduce by about half after the first of three midterms.

    10. Re:For a high school freshman . . . by lakeland · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I was learning calculus on my own
      If you're learning calculus on your own, you're going to expect things to be different. For people who have the luxury of a class where they learn calculus, I think you'll find your argument doesn't hold. Certainly I recall that in second and third year calc, when asked to compute a derivative or an integral we would usually be given the answer. That way the lecturer could ask a more complex problem that tested more techniques and still expect the right percentage of students to get it correct. Naturally, the answer is not always given to ensure the technique of working backwards is not always available.

    11. Re:For a high school freshman . . . by ltbarcly · · Score: 1

      They gave you BARK!?

      I guess that was an elite private school.

    12. Re:For a high school freshman . . . by viva_fourier · · Score: 1

      Birch bark and charcoal
      we would have killed for birchbark and charcoal! We had to gather dirt and mix it with spit and draw that onto rabbit pelts back in my day!

      We liked it -- we loved it!

      --
      and now back to the fallout shelter...
    13. Re:For a high school freshman . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who said something about learning mathematics? I find my favorite part of math is when I program something that takes advantage of the theories I have learned.

      As someone else pointed out, how is someone going to visualize a fractal using pen and paper? Great, they understand the dimension of the fractal and it's complex properties, but that's boring if you ask me. The thing that makes math interesting is seeing the fractal.

      Another short example, abstract algebra can help you determine prime numbers (Mersenne primes to be specific). The theory behind it is interesting, but being able to actually find very large prime numbers quickly is much more interesting to me.

      What I am saying is that computers can be used to enhance the enjoyment one might receive out of mathematics as opposed to being a learning tool only. I know I would have absolutely loved something like mathematica back in highschool.

    14. Re:For a high school freshman . . . by kfg · · Score: 1

      What I am saying is that computers can be used to enhance the enjoyment one might receive out of mathematics. . .

      This is, indeed, one of the things that computers are great at, particularly when one is working with solids, and even more particularly when working with solids in more than three dimensions.

      I'll never forget the first time I saw a six dimensional "cube" rotating on a computer monitor (especially as monitors were still somewhat rare in that day. As a physics senior I was still stuck with an IBM Selectric as my I/O device)

      KFG

    15. Re:For a high school freshman . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll never forget the first time I saw a six dimensional "cube" rotating on a computer monitor

      Who could forget a thing like that? It would drive you to the brink of some Lovecraftian insanity.

    16. Re:For a high school freshman . . . by sleepingsquirrel · · Score: 1

      Calculating cube roots can also come in handy in Brazilian restaurants.

    17. Re:For a high school freshman . . . by kfg · · Score: 1

      It would drive you to the brink of some Lovecraftian insanity.

      Well, now that you mention it, that might well explain a lot about me. The fact that this event occured at Vassar at a time when the women still out numbered the men 10 to 1 might also have had some long term affect on my psyche, but I'd rather not delve into that.

      KFG

    18. Re:For a high school freshman . . . by cjl224 · · Score: 1
      I would agree.

      Musicians need to know what notes mean before they can play them...

    19. Re:For a high school freshman . . . by ajna · · Score: 1

      Actually, if you read a biography on Richard Feynman ("Surely you must be joking, Mr. Feynman" is a good one) you'll see how he put an ability to quickly calculate cube roots to good use. He'd use it in friendly competitions with other scientists and mathematicians, and was a large part of his bar persona (he hung out in strip clubs and picked up many a girl/woman according to the lore and his own words).

    20. Re:For a high school freshman . . . by cjl224 · · Score: 1
      Finding a Mersenne prime is only useful if you know what it truly is...

      If you step on a bug that has never yet been seen by a human, unless you're an entymologist (I mean bugs not words, I always forget which is which...) it means nothing to you.

    21. Re:For a high school freshman . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I completely disagree. i'm making a Doctorate in mathematics (like a PhD for USA), i like math since childhood and Music perhaps before i was born, learned some J.S.Bach works before learning math and I rarely need such a mechanical skill, i think the most important is the esteem for beauty. In that sense i strongly recomend the book named Proofs from the Book. But in the other hand, if those boys still want to use a computer, there are many programs for the young math amateur (and pro) in http://freshmeat.net/browse/98/ although the very heart of mathematics is the same of philosophy: the love for thinking and solving problems, such thing can't be done with other thing than the pure mind, as the very taste of music can only be found in heart.

    22. Re:For a high school freshman . . . by kfg · · Score: 1

      Proofs from the Book

      Lovely book.

      . . .such thing can't be done with other thing than the pure mind, as the very taste of music can only be found in heart.

      However, to play music one must still put in the hours to develop the technical ablility, with one's fingers.

      KFG

    23. Re:For a high school freshman . . . by Foolhardy · · Score: 1

      Not everyone learns the same way. I wasted at least two thirds of my time in high school doing repetitious execution of various concepts, especially math. I can read clearly defined concepts one time, understand and remember them. It's nice that some of the other students have to do it x20 to learn it, but I didn't. To avoid being 'unfair' to the other students, I had to do the same work. Ostensibly, the goal was to get us to lean the concepts so we would do well when tested. I was ready to take the tests the same day as the new topic was presented, but still I was required to waste large quantities of time doing the same thing over and over, far past the point of having learned it. Every time I think of it, I am happier that college does not have the fetid mounds of busywork I was forced to endure in high school. In college, the prof explains the concepts to the class, provides support, suggests homework assignments and expects you to be able to know what you are doing given a test or project. The tests in HS weren't even worth that much; all the points were in the homework to let the kids who couldn't keep up get good grades because they worked. It sent the message of quantity over quality; that the former could make up for the latter.

      I have at least 25KB of programs on my HP48 for all of the math techniques we needed to learn in various classes. (No, I didn't use it on tests) Surely if I can program the calculator to take the question in numerical form and produce the output, (and show the required work) I understand the underlying concepts. Isn't the test of understanding being able to explain it? Such as in the form of a program? It took me far less time to write and use those programs than it would have to do the work on paper. I would have learned nothing after about the 3rd problem on paper, but writing programs for them gave me valuable experience in quickly producing usable and reliable programs.

      As a student I would have loved to learn how to use Mathematica or similar in HS; it would have been great. Sure, it would have confused some students, but don't lump everyone in with them.

      The "pencil and paper" method of having students do the same thing repetitiously (to learn concepts of all things) is a brute-force learning method that does NOT work for everyone.

    24. Re:For a high school freshman . . . by kfg · · Score: 1

      Every time I think of it, I am happier that college does not have the fetid mounds of busywork I was forced to endure in high school.

      I'm afraid I'm one of those annoying people who skipped high school (and junior high, for that matter) and went straight to college, although not as a matriculated student until I passed my G.E.D. (which I wasn't allowed to take until I was 17).

      . . .a brute-force learning method that does NOT work for everyone.

      I can't recall every suggesting that anything works for everyone. It's a silly idea. The idea of brute forcing concepts is even sillier.

      Repetition is done for the purpose of facility, which some people develop faster than others.

      Even so, there is the famous quote of Jascha Heifitz. Facility, even among the highly skilled and trained, still requires a bit of practice now and again.

      Saying things out loud while you write them down is another remarkable aid to facility.

      KFG

    25. Re:For a high school freshman . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Giving you a test after you learned the material would be pointless, much as would be giving you any sort of credit for writing programs to solve questions for which you plug in inputs and receive outputs as an answer. In short, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to convert someone's algorithm (the text's or a professor's) into a different form or to repeat it 15-minutes later. The purpose of teaching is to verify understanding and recollection for a period of time sufficient to progress in the subject and to solve actual problems. That you lack the critical thinking skills necessary to understand this demonstrates a fairly large gap in your mental faculties that I suggest you remedy at once.

    26. Re:For a high school freshman . . . by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 1

      (I know I know it was free for you because you stole it)

      Where did I say that? Why could I not have bought it?

      It was free for me, but because my dad has a departmental license; he's a university engineering professor. Even if he hadn't installed it at home, he still has SSH access to the university's computer labs...and he has it on his office box.

      By the way, you'll be happy to know that your mention of $100 inspired me to go look at the price. I thought even student edition cost much more...it's just $140. I'm going to ask for it for Christmas; I need a version for Macintosh. ;-) Now it's definitely not stolen.

      And sure, there are books which'll give you examples of several derivatives. But it's a lot easier to get Mathematica to solve it than to search in books for this particular one. I could've asked my teacher if I wanted to...I could've googled it; it's just x^x (which is weird if you try to work it using x^n or a^x formulae, and you don't know logarithmic differentiation)...but I wanted to figure out the method on my own. Oh, and there's the element of laziness.

      Learning is SUPPOSED to be hard because if it isn't hard then you aren't learning anything.

      Isn't it a lot harder to look at an answer, look at the question, and say "what's the method relating these" than to just look in a book for the answer? And if it's too hard to the point that nothing is happening, you're of course not learning anything - which is why I used Math'ca.

      By the way, you might want to send that phrase to my school...heh. Might make things a little less boring. My 4th-grade spelling teacher had the theory that if I kept aceing the tests, I wasn't really learning. So she gave me harder tests. I aced those, too; I think that was the end of that, as far as I remember.

    27. Re:For a high school freshman . . . by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 1

      Certainly I recall that in second and third year calc, when asked to compute a derivative or an integral we would usually be given the answer.

      Same here in Calc II this morning. She gives us the answer packet a few minutes later, and we check our answers against each others to find mistakes in the work.

      My point was that Math'ca is useful for self-exploration; you can do a lot more figuring out what mathematically happens when you do certain things than you can in class. Of course, it only works if you're self-motivated.

      Which brings me to a question for the original submitter:

      Are you looking for something to help students struggling in math, or bright students looking for ways to challenge themselves in math beyond what school offers? Math'ca is definitely not the answer for the former. The pencil-and-paper-ists are right if they're talking about struggling students.

    28. Re:For a high school freshman . . . by Foolhardy · · Score: 1
      I wouldn't recommend software at all. [...] Come back when they're in college and ask again.
      Sounded like a generalization of everyone to me. Who else would "they" be? Instead, you recommend something we call "pencil and paper." You made no caveats that it might not be for everyone, so I took it at the most obvious meaning; that it applies to everyone.
      Learning mathematics (and reading music, and a number of other such undertakings) is as much a mechanical skill as an intellectual one and the quickest way to the brain is through the fingers.
      You didn't say which parts of learning mathematics you were referring to as mechanical: concepts or execution. By leaving it open, you implied that it was as much of each.
      You didn't say that the quickest way to the brain for efficient execution is through the fingers. Without narrowing it down, you're implying that it applies to getting anything to the brain.

      I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your post, but when you leave out important qualifications, I don't know what you are saying.
      Repetition is done for the purpose of facility, which some people develop faster than others.
      And when the number crunching role of manual pencil+paper is better executed by a computer?
      A computer is no replacement for knowing concepts, but it certainly is for repetitive operations.
      Spending time to improve manual execution speed is a waste of time when I will always have a computer availaible to do it during my job as a programmer.
    29. Re:For a high school freshman . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If you really want to learn math, math software can be extremely helpful. I took a advanced engineering math course in grad school and I practically failed the first exam. In response, I did three things: 1) I bought a couple of extra text books that had examples similar to the coursework. 2) I started doing problems like mad. 3) I bought a copy of muMath (a symbolic math package).

      muMath helped me check my work. It showed me where I was making careless mistakes. It showed me how to do things when I was just plain stumped. I got a B by the end of the first semester. The next semester I aced the course.

      I don't recommend muMath. Its DOS interface was already antiquated when I used it. Does anyone know anything about Mathcad? I know they have student licenses. Maybe it would fit the bill.

    30. Re:For a high school freshman . . . by Foolhardy · · Score: 1
      Giving you a test after you learned the material would be pointless,
      And what, may I ask, is the point of tests? I thought they were an easy way to verify understanding of and ability to do something (when done properly). The student is given a set of problems to solve and either they can do it, showing the steps to support the answer or they have a problem with it. The point is that the teachers don't know if the students understand and can execute the material until the test results are in; if they already knew, it would be pointless.
      much as would be giving you any sort of credit for writing programs to solve questions for which you plug in inputs and receive outputs as an answer. In short, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to convert someone's algorithm (the text's or a professor's) into a different form or to repeat it 15-minutes later.
      And doing the same type of problem fifty times has merit? That's the alternative I was complaining about. If it's not either of these, then what IS the point?
      The purpose of teaching is to verify understanding and recollection for a period of time sufficient to progress in the subject and to solve actual problems.
      You can't translate the format of the concept from the textbook or instructor into a program without understanding it. If you can translate it into a totally different form, you understand it.
      I'm not copying formulas out of the book and plugging the numbers in. The calculator can do that already. I'm talking about stuff like executing synthetic division, factoring polynomials, or generating sequences. There aren't any formulas to copy. These problems operate on a variable number of arguments and have a complex but monotonus set of steps and branches to execute. Sure, the methods are detirminstic, so prime candidates for a computer, but it's hardly cut+paste.
      Actual problems, like what?
    31. Re:For a high school freshman . . . by sketerpot · · Score: 2, Informative
      Word to that. When I was in school, we couldn't even use calculators. I could calculate the cube root of large numbers to several significant digits with paper and pencil.

      It can be done by someone who can do arithmetic---and knows how. I don't know how, but I know Newton's method of root solving, so I can come up with a way quickly.

      To find the cube root of c (which I'll call x), we need to solve x^3 - c = 0. We can do this by coming up with a guess t[0] and recursively saying that t[n+1] = t[n] - (x^3-c)/(3x^2).

      I might have learned this in school, but I would have forgotten it. I'd say I was better served by understanding of concepts than overemphasis on calculation.

    32. Re:For a high school freshman . . . by kfg · · Score: 1

      Sounded like a generalization of everyone to me.

      Exactly! (although I don't think "high school freshman" qualifies as "Everyone")

      And had I recommended a software package or two that would have been a generalization as well.

      Of course the most correct answer to the question would have been, "How the hell should I know? You have to sit down and talk to the kid for a few hours at least before you can answer a question like that," which I've actually done here before, and in any case would have been a. . .generalization.

      . . .when you leave out important qualifications, I don't know what you are saying.

      You understand that the qualifications to "2+2=4" runs to several volumes?

      Without narrowing it down, you're implying that it applies to getting anything to the brain.

      That's why I narrowed it down some, as well as adding more than one weasel word.

      And when the number crunching role of manual pencil+paper is better executed by a computer?

      Then use a computer, of course. That's what they're there for.

      Spending time to improve manual execution speed is a waste of time when I will always have a computer availaible to do it during my job as a programmer.

      I didn't say manual execution speed. I said "facility," and I would expect that by the time you're a junior in college you be doing fairly complex calculations simply in your head. Which will prove useful, since unless you are a code monkey you will not always have a computer handy as a programmer; and even the better code monkeys keep a notepad handy. Being able to quickly scribble a formula on a piece of paper is an incredible time saver.

      Programmers do not perform repetitive number crunching. They develop unique algorighms which users, ummmmm, use, to perform repetitive tasks.

      People are better at unique functions than machines and can often do them faster without the aid of a machine than with.

      If they have developed the skills.

      KFG

    33. Re:For a high school freshman . . . by kfg · · Score: 1

      I took a advanced engineering math course in grad school. . .

      Go back and read the last line of my post again.

      KFG

    34. Re:For a high school freshman . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please share with me your general method for factoring a polynomial of degree 8.

    35. Re:For a high school freshman . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      We had to gather dirt and mix it with spit and draw that onto rabbit pelts back in my day!
      Luxury.
    36. Re:For a high school freshman . . . by ChibiOne · · Score: 1
      You try doing large integrals with pencil-and-paper and then come back and tell me that mathematics software isn't worth it for highschoolers.


      When I was in high school, we never used programmable calculators in Calculus or Trig. These are complimentary disciplines: if you don't understand the basics of Trig, for example, you will never understand the derivatives and integrals of trig functions. Also, you can solve most integrals by modifying them into something closer to what you know (that's the basis of some integration methods).


      During university, I solved hundreds of integrals, derivatives and diff. equations; Laplace, Fourier and Z tranforms, matrix algebra, "n" variable calculus... All with pencil-and-paper. We did use some software; alas, that was just for applied demonstration purposes. I won't lie to you: I did use a calculator for other subjects like Electrical Circuits, to solve eq. systems during a test... but if given the time, I could've done the hard work by hand, too.


      So yeah, I'll tell you now: "math software is not worth it for higschoolers"

    37. Re:For a high school freshman . . . by Clubber+Lang · · Score: 1

      There is NO reason why you'd need more than about a $10 calculator in high school. Hell, I got my BMath and the only exams we were allowed to use calculators in (that I remember) were some stats courses, and actuarial science courses... and again the only calcs allowed were the non-programmable $10 jobbies. Maybe it's a Canadian thing... but if a high school teacher ever saw one of use with a graphic calc it'd be going straight back into the bag.

      Sure some integrals and some derivatives are hard... but that's why you have tables to look them up, and why you remember your identities. If one's brain can hold onto the chain rule and integration by parts among other things, surely it's possible to remember a few more things.

      --
      Actuaries - making accountants look interesting since 1949
    38. Re:For a high school freshman . . . by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 1

      exams we were allowed to use calculators in

      Calculators help you explore math. They shouldn't be used as a crutch on a test.

      Personally, I rarely use my graphing for tests. I use a class graphing for statistics - calculating standard deviation, regression lines, etc. I rarely use my four-function watch, except for molar-mass stuff in Chem. I lost my graphing about a month ago at a math tournament. It turned up with a teacher in a school 150 miles away. We're going there for a tournament in about a month; I haven't bothered trying to get it earlier, since I don't need it. It helps a lot to prove/demonstrate stuff in Calc, but I have no problem sitting quietly instead.

    39. Re:For a high school freshman . . . by Clubber+Lang · · Score: 1

      Calculators help you explore math. They shouldn't be used as a crutch on a test.

      The problem is that those who recognise that don't use the calc as a crutch... while many people would use it as a crutch rather than a learning tool.

      --
      Actuaries - making accountants look interesting since 1949
    40. Re:For a high school freshman . . . by Bush+Pig · · Score: 1

      The other thing is, in high school you _won't_ be doing large integrals, you'll only be doing simple ones to make sure you understand the concept, and so can then understand how to do the harder ones when (if) you go to university. At least, that's how it was back in the neolithic days at my school.

      --
      What a long, strange trip it's been.
    41. Re:For a high school freshman . . . by msuarezalvarez · · Score: 1
      it's just x^x (which is weird if you try to work it using x^n or a^x formulae, and you don't know logarithmic differentiation)

      It's not weird---it's just wrong.

      "Reverse engineering" the derivative of a function might have been fun, but it is of rather doubtful utility.

      In the particular case of x^x, the difficulty most often resides in the fact that most people do not really even know what function that particular notation denotes.

  16. Maxima and Axiom by metalogic · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Maxima and Axiom.

  17. Login to university amchines ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most universities have Matlab and Mathematica on campus. You just have to ssh to the university machines and run your simulations from them. For starters, Octave (http://www.octave.org/) and Scilab (http://scilabsoft.inria.fr/) are some free tools available.

    -Astron

  18. Paper? by csubear · · Score: 2, Interesting

    How about a book, paper, and pen? Maybe a white board to write examples on?

    Really, why do you need software to teach kids math, engineers where trained with out the aid of computer software for years.

    1. Re:Paper? by chachob · · Score: 1

      Because we don't live in the stone age anymore. We know the software is there, so why not use it? It's progress.

    2. Re:Paper? by Baron+von+Blapp · · Score: 0
      Egyptians designed and built the pyramids without the help of computers... I think people should just stop being lazy and do some serious work.

      "Do your math kids, Quickly or else you wont be designing pyramids for Pharoah, you will be shoving around giant blocks of stone!"

      --
      "It's too bad she won't live, but then again who does?" - Gaff
    3. Re:Paper? by upsidedown_duck · · Score: 1

      It's progress.

      No it isn't. Nothing brings out the ADD more than a computer that can draw a graph in a few seconds plus a few easily-set parameters. The kids will waste the whole afternoon either screwing with meaningless variations or figuring out how to surf for game cheats once they get bored. Also, couple the ADD with cheap-ass Windows computers that have driver issues and a clueless teacher, and you have bonefide anti-progress.

      --
      -- "Makes Little Debbie look like a pile of puke!" - Moe Szyslak
    4. Re:Paper? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, progress in the same vein of kids that can't count your change back correctly at the drive through window because they never learned how to do anything except on a calculator. Not neccessarily the kind of progress I'm looking for. Bring back the pencil and paper please.

    5. Re:Paper? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cheap-ass Windows computers that have driver issues

      Your post is in compliance with Slashdot Rule 223 which states:

      Regardless of topic, please include one of the following in your post:
      1. Free
      2. A Microsoft bash
      3. A rant about George Bush
      4. © is teh evil
      5. Something about linux

    6. Re:Paper? by chachob · · Score: 1

      Flawed comparison there...I never said don't use paper and pencil for basic math (what you referred to when you talked about counting change), but the original submitter asked for software to assist in learning physics and statistics.
      Since when have McDonald's employees had to understand physics to count change and read a total?

      The point is that for students learning higher level mathematics, you can't deny the fact that technology can help under the right conditions.

    7. Re:Paper? by upsidedown_duck · · Score: 1

      Restating previous results due to new accounting and disclosure policies regarding Slashdot Rule 223:

      Also, couple the ADD with cheap-ass Windows computers (made possible by George Bush letting Microsoft off the hook for using copyright and patent law to crush competitors and for releasing negligently defective drivers) and a clueless teacher (who is punishingly underfunded by No Child Gets Ahead and never gets a piece of the football stadium bond referendum), and you have bonefide anti-progress (not seen since before the advent of Linux, a free open source operating system kernel).

      --
      -- "Makes Little Debbie look like a pile of puke!" - Moe Szyslak
  19. This may spark your interest by bmzf · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've seen this but haven't yet used it. It seems pretty cool:

    Genius Math Tool

  20. Singular by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Singular - A Computer Algebra System for Polynomial Computations

    I don't know if it's a bit too advanced, but still an excellent program.

  21. Scilab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Scilab http://scilabsoft.inria.fr/ is an open source clone of matlab available for both Linux and Windows. I use it almost daily. 99.9% of what you do in Matlab can be done in Scilab for free.

    1. Re:Scilab by sensei_brandon · · Score: 1

      yeah, i used scilab in an electrical engineering class and unless I submitted my source or told her, the prof never knew the difference. Great program for those who dont want to spend the money on matlab. AFAIK, they stopped updating though, but I could be wrong.

    2. Re:Scilab by fygment · · Score: 1

      Nope. They're on 3.0. Development seems to have stopped on the PVM/parallel functionality. Too bad. I got a primitive version (circa 2.4) working on a cluster of 5 PI's back in '99.

      --
      "Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
    3. Re:Scilab by belmolis · · Score: 1

      How do scilab and octave compare?

    4. Re:Scilab by GozzoMan · · Score: 0
      I don't know how open the code is, but it is free (beer).
      It seems to have a custom license (so no GPL), but it claims to be open source. Here's the license http://scilabsoft.inria.fr/license/license.html
    5. Re:Scilab by GozzoMan · · Score: 0

      Note also that Scilab includes a (visual) analogous to Matlab's Simulink: "SCICOS - A Dynamic System Builder and Simulator".

      I've not tried it myslef, a colleague of mine says it extemely interesting but not that immediate to use. (Just reporting his opinion, anyway I imagine I shouldn't explain the advantages of it being open source ;) )

  22. Math.com? by DigitalRaptor · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I hate to state the obvious, but Math.com is where I've spent some time brushing up on all the math I've forgotten.

    I'd love a math tutor style of program that would fluidly walk you through from basic math all the way to calc and trig, automatically adjusting to your rate of learning based on little exercises.

    --
    Lose Weight and Feel Great with Isagenix
    1. Re:Math.com? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The site http://www.shodor.org/interactivate/ by a group called Shodor has lessons and software (Java applets) for high-school students that covers things such as trig and probability.

    2. Re:Math.com? by fireboy1919 · · Score: 1

      No! Bad monkey!

      They have these things called "math books" filled with problems. The advantage there is that you can work with pencil and paper and actually struggle through problems.

      Need help? A better place - one with actual information about how things work, rather than just how to solve certain kinds of problems - is Mathworld. This one will stick with you, too.

      I still use it, and I'm getting my Masters in Engineering.

      --
      Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
    3. Re:Math.com? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      yes, becasue if it is bounfd in paper the math will be better.
      Secretly, the math book companies have given the wrong answers to web sitesd, so by a book!
      It's retro!

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  23. Second Octave and R by natet · · Score: 1

    I used both of these tools in my math and stats courses while pursuing my undergrad in CS. I found Octave to be much easier to use than Mathematica or Matlab (both of which were in the computer labs at school), and since it was free, I could easily make use of it at home, so the lab closing times didn't affect me at all.

    One major problem that could arise is whether or not your instructor will allow you to hand in homework in either language. Some professors at the school would only allow you to hand in homework that was written in Matlab (we were required to hand in our programs for the class). Fortunately, I had a visiting professor from another University that didn't mind that all my code for numerical methods was writtin in Octave. He could look at the code, and see that the algorithm was correct, and that the output was correct, and that was good enough for him.

    --
    IANAL... But I play one on /.
    1. Re:Second Octave and R by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 2, Interesting

      NumAnalII was taught in MatLab, but Octave worked for me. Never had any problems. Loved the emacs modes! Write scripts in one emacs window, run an octave process in another emacs window...send the current line (or function, or selected text...etc) to the process for evaluation. Very sweet.

  24. Software for whom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't imagine much that a high school student would need that a TI-85 couldn't handle. I didn't even know there was anything else out there until I was in college Calculus (Maple et. al.).

    Besides, schools should be teaching concepts instead of tools. Most problems I (and friends of mine) ran into in college were simple trig and algebra concepts.

  25. Best open source math software = ... by cdsr · · Score: 2, Funny

    Pencil + graph paper + ruler + eraser + brain

    1. Re:Best open source math software = ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pencil + graph paper + ruler + eraser + brain

      can I see the source code for your brain?

    2. Re:Best open source math software = ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      can I see the source code for your brain?

      yes

  26. How about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    your brain and a No. 2 pencil. Nothing beats it and it's free (for the most part).

    1. Re:How about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      your brain and a No. 2 pencil. Nothing beats it and it's free (for the most part).

      Here at Slashdot, you can ditch the "for the most part" part of your statement. Theft is perfectly acceptable here. In fact, if you argue against theft, you will get modded flamebait as well as have many, many people tell you how stealing something is not really theft. At least one of them will post several ALL CAPS words or sentences to give credibility to what they are saying. In the case of paper and pencil, at least one person will tell you that the paper and pen are of very poor quality (as if that has any relevance.)

  27. Jsoftware or Maxima by CypherOz · · Score: 1

    A couple of suggestions...

    Jsoftware (sort of APL but ASCII) not FOSS but free as in beer.

    Also GPL'ed Maxima is good.

    --
    You want a signature? You can't handle a signature!!
    1. Re:Jsoftware or Maxima by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you've got the best suggestion here but you're still sitting at 1... Damned /. mod system. Broken.
      I like APL and J. APL blows my mind. That it started in the 60s is even cooler.

  28. You want Maxima by cabraverde · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Maxima:

    It's the closest thing I know of to an OSS Mathematica. It is to Mathematica what The Gimp is to Photoshop. Namely, it's a fair way behind the front runner but still very usable.

    1. Re:You want Maxima by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For calculus level math, Maxima + texmacs is somewhat usable.

      I'd almost say a new calculator is easier to use and provides better answers. Specifically the derivative solver in Maxima only tells you the answer and not the steps to get there. The new fancy pants TI-89 Titanium gives you each step along the way and you dont have to work with a somewhat wack interface or boot up your computer. On the downside it costs about $150.

    2. Re:You want Maxima by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maxima or Mathomatic (http://www.mathomatic.com).
      Both CASes are free and have been under development
      for the longest time.

    3. Re:You want Maxima by arodland · · Score: 1

      Indeed. The language is oddball, and the GUI wrapper is so thin you can see right through it, but Maxima is about the best thing I've seen for free. Then again, I definitely wouldn't recommend it for teaching.

    4. Re:You want Maxima by advocate_one · · Score: 1

      now that would be a killer if you could embed Maxima objects into OOo documents.

      --
      Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    5. Re:You want Maxima by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maxima + texmacs is somewhat usable

      I prefer Emacs + Maxima:
      Switch to maxima-mode in emacs.
      Write some statements.
      Evaluate them with C-c C-b.

  29. OT: Learn the math, then use the tools by davidwr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I know this is a bit off-topic, but it can't be overemphasized:

    If possible, students should learn the principles behind the math before they are allowed to use fancy tools like calculators and computers.

    My high school teacher made us learn logarithms and trigonometry using a pencil, graph paper, and tables, THEN we got to use a calculator. As for calculus, we did all our graphs by hand, sub-$200 graphing calculators weren't available back then.

    I hope you get some good answers in this thread.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  30. No Math Software by shobadobs · · Score: 1

    On the high school to freshman level? Take software (and calculators) out of the kid's hands. It will only hurt his education. If anything at all, get him an RPN calculator -- it still requires thinking in order to evaluate expressions, the kind of thinking that improves mathematical skills and understanding of the task at hand, instead of the kind of thinking that goes "I plug and chug and get an answer."

    Without doubt, I am certain that my getting an RPN calculator (replacing a non-RPN calculator) while in high school improved my mental math skills and caused my brain to rewire the way it thinks about many aspects of math.

    But anyway, about your question. Check out Xcas. Its user interface I dislike, but at least it exists. http://www-fourier.ujf-grenoble.fr/~parisse/giac.h tml

    1. Re:No Math Software by FuzzzyLogik · · Score: 1

      Surprisingly i have something similar happen to me. I had a hard time understanding the basic algebra stuff (no i'm not stupid, just had a horrid math teacher that didn't fit my learning style at all, she was fired years later after she screwed up more childrens education).. but after I started programming and started evalutating equations and such in programming my brain just rewired itself and now i really understand the basics of math A LOT better. I have been meaning to pick up an RPN calc just for kicks to see if it fits my own way of thinking better. Might try this after you have mentioned it.

    2. Re:No Math Software by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 1

      Actually I disagree with your first three sentences, but totally agree with the rest of your post. RPN is a much more natural approach once you get used to it.

    3. Re:No Math Software by shobadobs · · Score: 1

      Well, as for the first three sentences, i don't think they apply for everybody. There are some people whose interest might be well-sparked by such software. And I don't think it's very helpful to plot graphs by hand or detrimental to do that with a computer. (Well, one time in DiffEq... well let's just say that I got excited by hand-plotting a spiralling solution to a system of linear equations with complex eigenvalues.) However, the only interest-sparking I usually see from such software or calculators involves graphing calculators' easy and rewarding programmability. (Easy/rewarding in that results can be acheived without bothering with compiling or perfect syntax and such.) And I don't see software doing much in that department.

    4. Re:No Math Software by nwbvt · · Score: 1
      Believe it or not, many high school students have already learned some basic mathematics. They don't need to spend their afternoons just doing busy work arithmetic.

      Teaching the kids the concepts and giving them a tool to help them apply those concepts can help their education, not hinder it.

      --
      Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
    5. Re:No Math Software by shobadobs · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You haven't seen high school girls pull out their TI-83 PLUSes so they could discover that 40 + 8 equals 48. (This actually happened. In an honors math class.)

      There is no reason students shouldn't have a basic scientific for say, things like calculating pe^(rt), but graphing calculators are unnecessary. They cause students to learn how to do a sequence of operations for finding the answer to a question which they'll get on next week's test, not how the problem actually gets solved. If the kids are being taught concepts and not arithmetic, wouldn't the problems and scenarios be designed to make the arithmetic trivial anyway?

    6. Re:No Math Software by nwbvt · · Score: 1
      "If the kids are being taught concepts and not arithmetic, wouldn't the problems and scenarios be designed to make the arithmetic trivial anyway?"

      Its still very possible to make a mistake, even when the arithmetic is trivial. Don't tell me you have never forgotten a minus sign or confused a one with a seven. And besides, do you really want to reduce all assignments to only those problems that make for trivial computations? That can cut out some classes of problems that can provide interesting results.

      Here is another possibility. Instead of making all calculations in assignments trivial, make the assignments such that students are required to not just show an answer they could have gotten from plugging something into a calculator, but also show knowledge of the concepts. Require them to show their work. Make questions that are based on the concepts being taught, not just calculations.

      --
      Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
    7. Re:No Math Software by cjl224 · · Score: 0
      Erm, natural approach when you get used to it?

      Not quite sure if that's whatt you mean...

    8. Re:No Math Software by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 1

      graphing calculators are unnecessary

      I still disagree. The girls who didn't know 40+8 should have lost points on general principle. You should be able to use graphing calculators if you know how to use them - namely, writing programs to eliminate values or perform large repeated operations on thousands of numbers, using the graphing features to visualize areas, using the matrix and list arithmetic to simplify computations, etc.

      It's hard (meaning non-intuitive) to use stat features on a scientific to calculate standard deviation. StdDev({1,2,3}) on an 83+ is a lot easier than fumbling with stat mode on a one-liner or even calculating it by hand.

      I still have no idea why people insist on hand-calculating std dev more than once, in the beginning of the year, and another two times on the first test and the final. Once you've shown you know how it works, you shouldn't need to write down everything to do what, for the calculator, is a half-second computation.

      Conversely, of course, you shouldn't type into the calculator what, for you, should be a half-second computation.

    9. Re:No Math Software by Foolhardy · · Score: 1

      I've got a HP48GX, an RPN/LISP graphing calculator from HP before they (mostly) nerfed their calculator research devision. I love it; there is no product out there I would trade it for, except maybe an HP49.

      I suggest you download EMU48 : a free emulator for HP48 series calculators. You'll need a ROM image (HP allows free distrobution): HP48GX rev R.
      OSX version of EMU48
      It's not as good as the physical unit, but it gives you the right idea.

    10. Re:No Math Software by RocketRainbow · · Score: 1
      graphing calculators are unnecessary. They cause students to learn how to do a sequence of operations for finding the answer to a question which they'll get on next week's test, not how the problem actually gets solved.

      I completely agree with shobadobs. I was at a graphing calculator high school and upgraded to the latest and greatest just before final exams. The first time at university I pulled out my calculator to answer a problem in a physics lecture everyone was like, "oh, a graphing calculator. That's nice. What are you expecting it to do for you?"

      I had the mindset that learning maths was about learning to find the answer to the problem, rather than learning skills and techniques and reasoning... and I was really surprised by how weird it was to try and program in maple or scilab (the teacher figured it was only fair) when I was used to just pressing the appropriate menu key.

      In conclusion - pencil and paper are definitely the best tools for learning maths. Computers should be used to learn computers skills such as programming in scilab or fortran. Graphing calculators and maths education software that are pretty and shiney are good for playing with from time to time but once you get the idea it's time to get back to pencil and paper.

      --
      *#*#*#*#*#******* I love peanut butter sandwiches!
    11. Re:No Math Software by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone makes calculation mistakes. Smart people ensure they don't make them by using a calculator to do arithmetic. You don't think they didn't know the answer, did you?

    12. Re:No Math Software by Ibanez · · Score: 1

      I know where you're coming from, but it sound like you're suggesting high school students shouldn't be allowed to use graphing calculators at all, which I highly disagree with.

      It not taught well, the use of graphing calculators is similar to the saying about how if you give a person a new hammer, he'll end up using it for everything.

      My AP Calculus teacher was an amazing teacher, and one of the high school teachers I suddenly gained a HUGE amount of respect for once I got into college.

      He was a firm believer that everyone should know how to use one, since in the real world, you can. But he knew that it was only half the battle, so on tests, half of it would be with no calculators, the other half with. You couldn't pass the test if you didn't know most of both halves, so you had to learn the concepts as well as the practical ways of doing things. This, to me, is the significantly better than teaching it one way or the other (without calculators or with).

      Blake

  31. Maple & Matlab - not free but work well on Lin by yipyow · · Score: 1

    I have found that Maple and Matlab are both licensed by my university in UNIX form (Mac OS X, Linux, Solaris). Unfortunately, of course these are not Free (libre) but they are free (gratis) to students and have helped convince several Math majors and professors to switch to Linux. Personally, I use OpenOffice.org Writer (for its LaTeX-like formula notation) to take notes and do homework, and octave & gnuplot for some other things. I also found that wine will run some software required in my classes like Statistix. All that said, there's not a lot I can't do with my TI89 and HP48G+...

  32. For statisticians... by Gentlewhisper · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There is R
    R Project

    1. Re:For statisticians... by ClaytonianG · · Score: 2, Informative

      R is actually better than a lot of non open source out there. I actually prefer it over S, SPSS, and mini-tab(I haven't used any other major stats software).
      There is even a nifty web interface. Check out Rweb

    2. Re:For statisticians... by transib · · Score: 2, Informative

      and for education purposes there is the Statistical Lab http://www.statistiklabor.de/ - a working and learning environment designed for elementary studies in statistics. statistical engine is R. freeware at the moment, open source later next year...

    3. Re:For statisticians... by tchiwam · · Score: 1

      I use it for signal processing, it uses Blas-atlas lapack atlas, so it is as fast as anyone would like it for big problems.

  33. Re:Nothing beats... by Baron+von+Blapp · · Score: 0

    rotf. Yeah, Good ole' Math hole. Anytime I have a equation, big or small, I just cram it on in there, sometimes it doesnt come out very clean.

    --
    "It's too bad she won't live, but then again who does?" - Gaff
  34. I don't get it... by hexcentric1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There are any number of ways to learn math; most of them involve exploring the relationships between numbers and the physical world. This means teaching someone how to think about things. Math software does not teach anyone how to think; it is a tool for accomplishing a goal. First the student learns arithmetic, then algebra, geometry, trig, calculus, and so on. Once the concepts are understood, the foundation is sound, and the student *knows* math, then, and only then, does math software become useful. It becomes a shortcut, a means to an end. It is a tool used to solve a problem. You have to know how to use the tool to get to the answer. You can train someone to input numbers into some piece of software and watch other numbers get spit out, but that person won't *understand* what they are doing. If the person already understands the math, and is looking for a tool to accomplish some problem solving, then the programs mentioned in this topic become useful. As far as using software to learn math, I don't think any piece of software, open source or otherwise, can currently take the place of a good math teacher. And by that I don't mean someone who drills you in math problems, but someone who can help you discover for yourself the power and elegance of mathematics.

  35. If you have to use software... by Call+Me+Black+Cloud · · Score: 1


    ...why not take advantage of the numerous and generous educational discounts available to teachers and students? That way you get manuals and support, and the instructor doesn't have to waste time on configuration, installation, or troubleshooting. Why does it have to be open source? Is she (your friend) worried about bad math being put in or is she going to extend the software in some way?

    1. Re:If you have to use software... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why spend any of our tax dollars at all on what can be free? The schools and teachers dollars are stretched enough as it is. Let the teacher learn a bit about the software by configuring it. That surely won't hurt anything.

  36. Don't install a thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you want an easy to use function grapher without installing a thing, check out : http://www.walterzorn.com/grapher/grapher_e.htm

  37. Not open-source, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...if you want something TI-82alike (and then some, of course), MuPAD seems promising. I say "seems" because I'm on FreeBSD, and ran into a bit of munge with the Linux binary port back when I tried to install it. (Probably all sorted now, or a vagary of library versioning on my particular installation, it's been a while.)

    What bothers me about SciLab and Octave is the pain of graphing. I'd love to have an interactive algebra system around (the TI-82 being a basic version thereof, and bc... even moreso, before someone suggests that), but the joy of the old school TI was being able to both crank the math *and* plot the function instantly. IIRC, Octave requires you to poke the function into a matrix before you can plot, and SciLab might be good but relies on a whooole lot of buggy widgetsystem cruft... or I have it backwards.

    Anyone have other suggestions in that vein? Basically, I want a 'command line for math' on the one hand (with the goodness of history, infix notation, trig functions etc), and the easiest possible graphing on the other; like an oscilloscope, looking at plots can help garner an intuitive understanding of what's going on.

  38. a good question deserves a good answer. by tloh · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I'd like to recommend the very exellent GNUWin project. They are a great collection (consisting entirely of GNU software) of applications for not only scientific computing, but also just basic general computing on the Windows platform. Check out the list of applications on the two CD set as well as the current wishlist. It includes many of the programs already named. Latest ISO is the Nov 30 release package.

    P.S. I think they're looking for new leadership to continue to project. Please help if you can.

    --
    Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
  39. Pen and Paper by scubamage · · Score: 1

    Unless you're looking for a pretty print means of typing things out (in which case, check out LaTeX), use a pen and paper. You should know the basics of anything mathematical, and be able to do it by hand before you use a calculator for it. Otherwise learning it is pointless, since you've learned nothing more than how to hit a few buttons.

    1. Re:Pen and Paper by upsidedown_duck · · Score: 1

      You should know the basics of anything mathematical, and be able to do it by hand before you use a calculator for it.

      If you look closely in the pictures, you'll see that Einstein is holding a HP calculator...he tries to hide it, but you know it's there.

      --
      -- "Makes Little Debbie look like a pile of puke!" - Moe Szyslak
  40. What I use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For graphing, I use gnuplot. It can do 2D/3D graphing and is quite easy to learn/use. For statistics/regression, I use R

  41. I know a lot of people are saying paper first by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

    but there is a reason for that. You have them do it on paper, and after they have learned how to do that then show them the computer software(Though I personally would recommend they just buy one of those newfangled Ti calcs, it doesn't have quite the set of features that the math software has but the UI is much nicer IMO), but anyway I digress.
    If they learn what the software is actually doing first, then they will appreciate it that much more, but even more importantly, they will be able to do stuff where the software breaks down. I have had this happen to me, I became WAAAAY to dependent on my calculator to do everything, and I was kind of in for a shock in my 400 level college math classes because I learned the hard way that you can make the problem much simpler by doing it by hand than trying it on a computer. Also makes proofs that much easier. Skip the computers, the world's greatest mathematicians didn't use them when they were growing up, kids don't need to use them to do math today.

    1. Re:I know a lot of people are saying paper first by Surt · · Score: 1

      Yes, when learning to visualize graphs of complex functions in 3 or more dimensions, let me tell you, there is no substitute for starting your path to learning with pencil and paper.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    2. Re:I know a lot of people are saying paper first by RealAlaskan · · Score: 1
      Yes, when learning to visualize graphs of complex functions in 3 or more dimensions, let me tell you, there is no substitute for starting your path to learning with pencil and paper.

      Amen!

      Can't tell if you were serious or sarcastic, but if you were serious, you were right.

    3. Re:I know a lot of people are saying paper first by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      You get pretty quickly to a point where technology takes over the mechanics, and the hard part is setting up problems. And there is a plateau, where hardly anything that needs to be solved on a machine, can't be done on a TI-89. And you stay at that plateau for quite a while. Most undergrads stop at Vector Calc, only math majors go much further. And you spend a lot of time dealing with things like vector fields and potential functions on surfaces in 3-space, where a graphics program isn't going to help you visualize anything. And in that stuff, you end up with problems where you get to a point that Stokes/Greens' theorom gives you a double or triple integral and, voila, technology takes over, needing nothing more than your TI-89... And more likely than not, the answer you're supposed to put on the exam is the setup of the integral, not the solution.

      It's nice to have Maple or Mathematica, especially for checking your work when you're learning integration, or for visualizing surfaces, working out parameterizations, etc. But then you get to a plateau where that stuff won't help you, and the main tool you need is a box of 5x8 index cards and caffeiene.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    4. Re:I know a lot of people are saying paper first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Yes, when learning to visualize graphs of complex functions in 3 or more dimensions, let me tell you, there is no substitute for starting your path to learning with pencil and paper.
      Unless you have a 4-dimensional monitor, no computer software is gonna help you with that.
    5. Re:I know a lot of people are saying paper first by msuarezalvarez · · Score: 1

      Google for geomview.

  42. R Project by zeruch · · Score: 1

    The R Project I think has shown itself to be a great set of tools (and growing). It has a bit of a learning curve, but it's fairly robust (especially for social scientists)

    1. Re:R Project by mihib · · Score: 1

      The learning curve is correct, but it has a huge potential and is nice made Open Source Software. It is not only good for social scientists, even I (doing basic medical research) can use it for statistics quite well (I must admit our statistical needs are very small). We got an molecular biologist in our groop doing gene expression calculations with R and as you know whenever gene expression comes into play there is a lot of data.

  43. Re:Yes, but... by Dark+Demon · · Score: 0

    Sorry, stuck on improbability mathematics, but it does come with a free towel and babel fish.

  44. Don't depend on software early on by upsidedown_duck · · Score: 1


    I second the suggestions for pencil, paper, learning, and critical thinking. Whenever I started using software to do math, I pretty much always wasted hours tweaking parameters without doing much real work. Why do a proper optimization analysis, when it is so easy to change to numbers and re-run the program?

    Using computers early on in math encourages laziness, unless the student really does have a firm grasp of the math and can use the computer for real discovery. Such firm understanding is rare among students even in college, so I'm skeptical that computers will add much beyond "Hey, neat, my computer can draw this fractal."

    --
    -- "Makes Little Debbie look like a pile of puke!" - Moe Szyslak
  45. OS math software by leptonhead · · Score: 1

    Octave - Matlab minus the GUI and extra toolboxes
    Macaulay 2 - advanced algebra
    GAP - general algebra

    C'mon hax0r people - no-one needs another web server / window manager. I'm missing an OS replacement for Mathemetica. One would think this would be of high priority to the OS community...

  46. boobies! (SFW) by TheSHAD0W · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    It's not exactly software, though it is soft. And luscious. Check out bikini calculus.

  47. For a high school freshman-Pici-low. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Learning mathematics (and reading music, and a number of other such undertakings) is as much a mechanical skill as an intellectual one and the quickest way to the brain is through the fingers."

    Well that explains masturbation.

    "Come back when they're in college and ask again."

    Hopefully sooner.

  48. I've always loved this quote by MerlynEmrys67 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I know this is a niche thing and that there is nothing out there that even comes close to Insert excellent software that does just what you want , but surely something along the lines of (or simpler than) Insert Open source project here
    So, what is wrong with people doing a good job and creating value, getting a little bit of that value back so they can pay rent ?

    Just wondering

    --
    I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
    1. Re:I've always loved this quote by dougmc · · Score: 4, Insightful
      So, what is wrong with people doing a good job and creating value, getting a little bit of that value back so they can pay rent ?
      Nothing. Exactly like there's nothing wrong with telling people that there's something out there that does exactly what they want and is expensive, and that there is something with some/much/most/all of the functionality but it's Free, Open Source or Cheap.
    2. Re:I've always loved this quote by viva_fourier · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I think Matlab is trying to pay the rent. That's why they charge mandatory subscriptions fees to the tune of $500/year. And if you don't pay them and wish to get a license in the future -- you have to *back pay* all your unpaid maintenence fees.

      Still, you gotta love their Start-button...

      --
      and now back to the fallout shelter...
    3. Re:I've always loved this quote by asuffield · · Score: 3, Interesting
      So, what is wrong with people doing a good job and creating value, getting a little bit of that value back so they can pay rent ?

      That would be the part where they make it impossible for anybody else to develop the thing any further, so that it suits their needs when the original developer has no interest in them. There's a reason why proprietary software sucks.

    4. Re:I've always loved this quote by kevinrbing · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I've never heard marx defend propriety software... kudos!

    5. Re:I've always loved this quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because 1) how many students do you know that can spend (insert thousands of dollars number here) for mathematica? It's a wonder they have computers at all, much less god-awful-expensive-software to run on it. Also, OSS usually provides better value as people are continuously contributing to it, and distributing their improvements and fixes freely. They can also have a common denominator for what everyone in the class can use, reguardless of their family's financial status. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be for-profit math packages available (engineering companies can afford millions on such packages), but for scholars? How many billions does your kid make at school? How much do the teachers make? How over-funded is the school? Are they really paving the school parking lot with gold this week? I can understand you want to make money, but you should find someone with money to spend.

    6. Re:I've always loved this quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      This question always drives me NUTS!!! People who ask questions like this probably will never understand open source software.

      See, not everything is about money. If you make a product and are creating value and are making money, more power to you.

      But open source software is about USERS! Users are in charge of writing the software. Users are in charge of making sure the community is just that - a community. It's a Do-It-Yourself attitude.

      So go sell your software. Good luck to you (and I mean that sincerely). But if I can find a free (both in cost and in freedom) package that does the same thing, you can believe I'll never give you any money. And if I happen to write something that does the same thing your program does, you better believe I'll be giving back to the community.

    7. Re:I've always loved this quote by MerlynEmrys67 · · Score: 1

      Well, just to go back to the post - it was the FOSS Software that sucked, and the proprietary software that rocked. Hmmmm... maybe as long as the developer has incentives (usually money - I hear drugs and prostitutes work in some circles) the features keep coming.

      --
      I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
    8. Re:I've always loved this quote by Chemicalscum · · Score: 1

      The point is about scientific and mathemetical methodology. If you prove a mathematical or scientific proposition using Mathematica how do you know its right?

      You have no access to the source code to check it. It is just a black box as far as you are concerned. Then you go and publish it as a paper eh?

  49. What are they trying to do? by Realistic_Dragon · · Score: 1

    For my engineering classes I have never needed anything more than octave (GNU matlab clone).

    The only time I even needed that was for signal analysis plotting holes and doing edge detection on images and so on, so it was hardly a frequent occurance. Everything else (structures, electonics and so on) was solvable on paper with a casio graphic calculator (not for the graphing but for the ability to store 50+ variables, saving a lot of re-entry).

    The exceptions to this are of course applications like CFD but unless you feel like forking out many thousands of pounds you just use SSH, X forwarding and whatever happens to be installed on the universities UNIX workstations from your dorm.

    --
    Beep beep.
  50. statistics software by flynt · · Score: 1

    For statistics software that's free, you're not going to get much better than R. R is an implementation of the S language; so is S-Plus, but that will cost you. R is awesome for many things.

    If you have data of any type and want to easily prepare graphical summaries, R is good for that. For beginning students in statistics, it can look up critical values for all the distributions so you don't have to use the blasted tables. It also has functions for everything you'll see in an intro class (regression, ANOVA), although I'd consider learning those first by hand so you know what the computer is doing.

    There's also advanced packages for everything and anything statistical. There's an entire package built with R for analyzing bioinformatics data.

    I use R daily for lots of different things, it's really a handy tool. However, if you don't know statistics already, I'd suggest a book called "Introductory Statistics with R" by Peter Dalgaard(sp?). It will get you up and running in no time.

    Finally, R is also a programming language which is very Lisp/Scheme like, and makes it really fun and easy to write your own statistical functions. If you have to (or want to) take statistics, just get R!

  51. wetware by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 1
    I would recommend something we call "pencil and paper."

    agreed
    First you need to program the wetware (mind), then you can use the software to examine the side effects of the principles and formulas you learned. I think that the latter used to be known as applied math.

    "In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, however...."

    --
    Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
  52. Maxima by RealAlaskan · · Score: 1
    The Maxima project isn't Mathematica, but it's not bad, and it's GPL. For general purpose computer algebra packages your choices are Maple, Mathematica, and Maxima, and only Maxima is free or Free.

    Having said that, if the kid wants to do math, don't let him near a computer. If he needs a computer or a calculator or anything but some paper and a pencil, it's not math.

  53. Re:OT: Learn the math, then use the tools by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 1

    What is more fundamental about a book of tables than, say, a sliderule? I'd suggest that the sliderule is *more* fundamental. Likewise, the graphs are more *real* than tables.

    If you want to teach people to calculate without necessarily understanding, you can do it either way. But if you want them to see what it really means, then *show* them. Use graphics. Use animated vector fields and potential fields. Will it help them calculate a cube root swiftly by hand? No. Will it help them get through Jackson someday? Yeah.

  54. muhoyvan! by tr33limbz · · Score: 0

    The interface might not be the best for kids, but i LOVE FRINK! http://futureboy.homeip.net/frinkdocs/

    --
    -end of post.
  55. The voice of reason in the wilderness.... by Asprin · · Score: 1


    Ok, I'll bite.

    I don't recommend anything - at that level, you should be reading books.

    No software out there can replicate or replace the skills and discipline you need to do math.

    Reducing the workload by leaning on a crutch will only hurt you in the end. [The exception, of course, is Gnuplot: if you can figger out Gnuplot, you probably understand things well enough to treat it as the tool it is and not a crutch.]

    --
    "Lawyers are for sucks."
    - Doug McKenzie
  56. hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm still curious what open/free software is out there. I hope these comments don't turn into a bunch of "learn it the old fashioned way crap."
    Math software is a nice addition to the old ways. It is really nice to be able to work out a solution on paper and then verify it with Maple, etc. Or, maybe you can't visualize what the graph looks like? It is handy to graph it with Maple to get an idea of what some of the more complex 3d figures look like. I'm really interested in this thread because I'm always looking for a good free or open competitor to Maple, etc.
    I think the submitter is right, there is nothing that compares to Maple, Mathematica out there.

    1. Re:hmm by sugarmotor · · Score: 1

      So gnuplot is pretty close to what you like? Stephan

      --
      http://stephan.sugarmotor.org
  57. In response to the "pencil, paper, etc" postings by stevobi · · Score: 1

    Of course only a pencil and paper are truly necessary to learn the majority of mathematical subjects, but I think it's implicit here that we are talking about *supplementing* a math education with software. I think it's obvious we are not considering a computer-only approach.

    As an undergrad math student and as someone who is paid to tutor calculus, I can definitely vouch for the usefulness of software in helping students understand many aspects of mathematics. This is particularly evident in understanding the behaviour of functions when parameters are modified.

    For example, it is much easier to see how varying a constant factor somewhere in a function changes it by actually watching the graph and the parameters change, via a Maple Maplet, or a Java applet, or something of the like.

    It's a beautiful and very inspiring thing that some of you learned math with a chisel and a piece of slate, but also irrelevant. Software is more or less ubiquitous in the educational system now, and it has helped myself and many other students gain a fuller understanding of some rather abstruse mathematical concepts.

  58. Yeah, but blackboards are BORING by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

    That's why they're called blackboreds! =P

    I mean, you can dictate/write a bunch of equations to some bored kids throwing paper planes at each other, or....

    You could do some interactive presentation where a kid can ask you: "and what happens if you do this and that?" and he gets the answer plotted in color and 3D, right away (Given, that you KNOW how to use the math program, of course)

    I remember my image processing classes at college. I loved to write my own filters using MATLAB and see how the resulting image looked like. This is what I loved about matlab: After using it, you realize that you can use it not only for "solving homework", but to go BEYOND what your're being taught. It's like a toy. And kids LOVE toys, don't they? :)

    This is the essence of education: Let the learner LEARN by himself, and not memorize answers or formulas.

    Besides, having an excellent software tool is NOT gonna hinder their learning, is it?

  59. Scilab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have heard good things about scilab. Although it is written by french people, I believe it is in english, and is similar to Matlab:
    http://scilabsoft.inria.fr/

  60. R -- some more background by gonerill · · Score: 1

    As several commentators have suggested, R is a terrific platform for statistical computing. Here's a link to a blog post that, in part, contains more information about R, in particular links to some of the textbooks (both free and commercially published) that use it to do statistics. R is one of those open-source projects that's absolutely first class but doesn't get so much exposure in the mainstream because it's a bit specialized.

    1. Re:R -- some more background by paulloyaltymatrixcom · · Score: 1
      Tried R not too long ago. It is primarily a stats, and stats visualization application. My stats background is confined to all that I forgot in college 10 years ago. I fired up R, and found 3 things:
      1. reminded me of a scientific calculator on steroids.
      2. Via tutorials: it's actually a great way to learn (or re-learn) stats
      3. it is very addictive. I looked up at a clock and found out that I was playing around with it for an hour. Very pleasantly surprised. Here's a quick start: http://r.loyaltymatrix.com/2004/06/getting_started .html
    2. Re:R -- some more background by spud603 · · Score: 1

      I gotta agree. But i'd also like to say that R is capable of a lot more than statistics (there's pretty good algabraic and analytical tools in there, as well).

      What I think would be particularly good about R for a high-school student trying to learn math is that it's hard to have the program solve your problems for you without you understanding the principles at work. For instance, function maximization in R makes a lot more sense once you understand the computational calculus going on in the wrapper functions that do the actual calculation for you. I think that R could be a great tool (with, granted, a relatively shallow learning curve) to allow a student to concentrate on the concepts and theories of math without getting bogged down in the actual calculation.

      But that may just be because I'm very familiar with R and have learned how to use it myself. Give it a look, anyway.

  61. how to really learn and improve yourself by strook · · Score: 1
    The problem with your question is that "software for mathematics" can mean different things.

    If you mean software that will help someone solve mathematical problems, then if you understand how to program then really any programming language will do. An interpreted language with lots of high-level libraries (like Python with NumPy and SciPy) is my personal preference. Also, one nice resource is this online integral doer. Especially good for quick and easy cheating on calculus homework!

    If you don't understand how to program, then even Mathematica isn't going to teach you very much, because you won't be able to solve problems unless you've solved a problem exactly like it before. It's nice to think that you can help your kids learn by getting them some software, but it's not really teaching them the fundamentals. Knowing what a graph of z = yx + x + y looks like doesn't really make you any better at math.

    Basically, if you already understand math and you just want to solve some problems using the knowledge you already have, then check out Python/NumPy or Octave. If you don't understand math and you want to learn it, software won't really help.

    It's not exactly what you're asking for, but I would recommend learning a general-purpose programming language, perhaps an easy one like Python. I found programming to often be an invaluable skill from high school math through graduate math and engineering courses. There's plenty of books that teach programming and I've found that most people who understand programming don't need special "mathematics" software, they can just write their own little program most of the time.

    p.s. I just filed my c.s. master's thesis today, woo hoo!

    --

    "TV is great! Every New Year's I make a resolution to watch more TV." - Ann Coulter

  62. Re:Nothing beats... by upsidedown_duck · · Score: 1


    I've been told it's unstoppable.

    No, you just need a bigger cork, a mallet, and some steel strapping to hold it all in.

    --
    -- "Makes Little Debbie look like a pile of puke!" - Moe Szyslak
  63. Simple solution? by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

    Try writing a Purity test...

  64. We need good GUIs!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is something I've said over and over again! We do have some nice opensource math software. For instance, for Computer Algebra Systems there are Yacas and Maxima, for Numerical Computation we have Octave. But we have no good GUIs!! No we don't, emacs frontends are not good guis, and neither are the TeXemacs ones! Doesn't to be as good as Maple or Matlab, but damn, something good.

    Octave is more than enough for many stuff, but have you followed people learning Octave and MatLab?? And that's why many teachers don't use it in their classes, and why students run away from it. I've seen it over and over again. And it's frustrating because I'm pretty sure that it wouldn't be a huge task, the core is done, and that many teachers would use it without thinking twice!

    There have been a few, (not good) KDE frontends. Please, someone make a great one and win a few thousand users!

  65. The voice of [the past] in the wilderness.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Reducing the workload by leaning on a crutch will only hurt you in the end. [The exception, of course, is Gnuplot: if you can figger out Gnuplot, you probably understand things well enough to treat it as the tool it is and not a crutch.] "

    Paper and pencil are crutches too. You should be doing everything in your head. Hell I better get rid of my slide-rule while I'm at it.

    1. Re:The voice of [the past] in the wilderness.... by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      "Hell I better get rid of my slide-rule while I'm at it."

      You're joking, but people had a shorter path to understanding logarithmic problems in the slide rule days. They had to learn to deal with logs, in order to multiply and divide on their slide rules. Calculators do not give you a continuous, tactile connection between log and unit scales, so it doesn't get internalized either as a useful tool, or as a natural phenomenon.

      A connection to certain transcendental properties of numbers was lost when we went from slide rules to electronic calculators. And when I say "we", I am speaking from experience.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  66. Mupad by woah · · Score: 1
    Mupad is another one.

    Not strictly Open Source, but free as in beer for Linux at least. It's now coupled with Scilab, so it's possible to do both symbolic and numeric maths with it. Just like in Mathematica.

    1. Re:Mupad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used this when I was studying and teaching in a university, and it was great. So I can definitely recommend this.

      http://mupad.com/

  67. More Links... by fbartho · · Score: 1

    At my university, the math courses are often big fans of making students use Maple and Matlab alternately... With this in mind they are pretty good at providing us with a large number of computer labs equipped with both those two as well as Mathematica (though I haven't played with that one yet).

    Maple and Mathlab are both crazy powerful, sometimes nearly too much so when all you want is a short and simple operation...
    Due to that, in conjunction with those programs, (or in their absence) and with my Ti-89, I have sometimes used:
    http://zen.uta.edu/
    or more specifically:
    http://zen.uta.edu/math/
    Which is good for a few sets of patterns of operations from differential equation solving to laplace transforms...

    --
    Gravity Sucks
  68. Maxima by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 2, Interesting

    At National Mu Alpha Theta this summer (a math tournament), I had brought my OS X laptop which happened to have Maxima on it. I use Mathematica at home, but I only have the Win32 version. Maxima is difficult to learn (not user-friendly, but it's almost as powerful as Mathematica -- in fact, its predecessor, Macsyma, was one of the first CASes, predating Mathematica. I used Maxima to verify some lengthy integrals after one test when the answer posted differed significantly from my answer.

    Oh, and it's GPL, and it works on Windows, Linux, and Mac OS X (via Fink).

    BTW, you probably know this, but if you can afford Mathematica or a Math'ca-based product, or at least a student license, it's going to be a lot better and more powerful than any OSS math product today. Math'ca is really an excellent product. Unfortunately, the price matches its quality.

  69. Maxima by Spunk · · Score: 1

    Maxima (formerly macsyma) is a nifty tool I use. Command-line and GUI versions are available at the site, but the Emacs mode is much better looking.

  70. OT: Evil's roots by LordByronStyrofoam · · Score: 1

    Sir Tony Hoare was the source of that quote, actually. Donald Knuth paraphresed it, but didn't originate it.

    --
    Slashdot's name? When my compiler sees /. it generates a warning about a badly formed comment.
    1. Re:OT: Evil's roots by viva_fourier · · Score: 1

      Thanks -- when some sort of Wiki-dot overtakes slashdot, we won't have these sorts of errors... ;)

      --
      and now back to the fallout shelter...
    2. Re:OT: Evil's roots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      when widi-dot takes over, i'll just edit your comment to include a goatse link.

  71. Re:OT: Learn the math, then use the tools by viva_fourier · · Score: 1

    I think that's a good point. For high school calculus(circa 1995), they basically required us to purchase frickin TI-85's. I still have this 1/2 lb lump of graphing calculator, and I only use it for conversions (which I can't do in my head anymore :)

    That being said, any math tool you give these students can be a crutch later on, so choose wisely.

    Since these kids are freshman -- why not give them multiple labs(intermixed with some actual learning) that will allow them to experiment between the different environments out there. After all, they may not get to *choose* their math processing medium when they get into serious work.

    --
    and now back to the fallout shelter...
  72. University of Arizona by asscroft · · Score: 2, Informative

    The UofA has some great titles, from rurfc1, the r u ready for calculus program, to slopes and other diffeq titles. All free, all good.

    The rur series is GOLD! I've installed in on all computer I own and made CDs just because its the kind of thing some new math dept head could take off the website and you'll never see it again.

    http://math.arizona.edu/~www_main_2002/software/ ua sft.html

    --
    because I have been enjoined by this Holy Office to abandon the false opinion which maintains that the Sun is the centre
    1. Re:University of Arizona by fishbowl · · Score: 1


      > The UofA has some great titles

      Unfortunately, the book they teach from is horrible. I've gotten some professors to admit this, others have been more reserved. The good points of the book are that it has few mistakes (because it has limited content). The primary authors are UofA profs though, evidently with the pull needed to keep their own books in the curriculum. Absolutely horrible compared to either Anton or Stewart. Oh, sure, the *problems* are good, largely taken from optics and electromagnetism areas of physics. But the textbook itself does absolutely nothing to get you to the point where you can solve these problems. And that stinks.

      If you take calc at UofA, it would be wise to invest in the James Stewart book, and other resources by the time you get to Vector. Unless you already know the material (say, because you've taken a lot of physics, or because you've learned it from some other source), I don't see how you could ever solve the problems in the Hughes-Hallett books with only the information presented in the book. At best, the text looks like it was taken from lecture notes where they covered some aspect of the material in depth, but there is usually just a single example of a concept, and painfully often, problems in the homework section that do not follow at all from the explanation given. And the instructors for Calc are grad students who rarely go any further in a lecture than merely working the exercises from the book, as if that helps.

      Meanwhile, Pima Community College has calc all the way to diffeq, taught by actual professors, using James Stewart's book. If you're at UofA, and you can take your math at Pima without risking your fulltime status or whatever, by all means, consider it.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  73. mathworld by Hibernator · · Score: 1

    The insanely great mathworld is a great place to start. Pick a subject and start reading. If you don't understand something just follow the link to its definition, and pop the stack when you're ready to move on.

  74. Why? by jamesl · · Score: 1

    ... there is nothing out there that even comes close to Wolfram's excellent Mathematica ...

    So what's wrong with spending $139 for a student edition of "Wolfram's excellent Mathematica?" The kids will get years of learning from it.

    Using inferior tools to save a few bucks on education is no bargain.

    1. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >The kids will get years of learning from it.

      Or, a few weeks, when you upgrade your linux kernel, discover that Mathematica no longer works, and Wolfram refuses to authenticate it.

  75. Why software? What bout the real world? by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 1
    IMHO there's far too much emphasis on computer based education - especially with kids. Real world education is far better for true learning.

    Go outside with a protractor and a tape measure and figure out the height of a tree. Then follow up by climbing the tree to see if the answer is right. If the kid falls out of the tree, well (s)he gets to learn about gravity as a bonus.

    Which kid learns more about frogs? The one who plays the Microsoft Magic Schoolbus game where you get to be a frog or the kid who goes down to the river with a net and a pail and caatches frogs and falls in the river etc etc?

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
  76. Maple by Tomic+B24CD · · Score: 1

    MAPLE is a powerful program for any math functions. It has awesome graphing capabilities, the only downside is the complex way in which one has to enter in the problem, and define what you want the solution to look like, but once one has the basic rules down they can do very complex mathimatic and physics calculations. debatable if Maple is more powerful than Mathimatica, but it is close.

  77. Paper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a recent grad with a mathematics degree, and a grader of many calculus homework assignments, I have to agree that computer software is not the way to go. Most youths today have no problem learning new software, but all kinds of problems learning math. I wouldn't call any commercial math products educational, and if your kids ever plan on taking anything past college calculus, they would best be served staying far away from these programs.

  78. Re:In response to the "pencil, paper, etc" posting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "It's a beautiful and very inspiring thing that some of you learned math with a chisel and a piece of slate, but also irrelevant."

    thank you. has this discussion degraded to M$ bashing yet? with so many intelligent people on here you would think they'd have enough restraint in them to answer the question asked and not go off on tangents about how intelligent they think they are.

    you should get +2 points for putting people in their place.

  79. Re:OT: Learn the math, then use the tools by swmccracken · · Score: 1

    What on earth is the point of working out sine or cosine with a TABLE? How is that more useful or 'fundamental' than using a calculator?

    Both options are really 'black box magic occurs here'.

    Mathworld gives the infinite-term series you should be summing up instead if you really want to remove some black box magic.

  80. Why Pencil and Paper may not be appropriate by lilmouse · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I will grant: Pencil and Paper are great if you're working on learning math skills. Even then, however, there are times you're going to want something to do the arithmetic and/or graphing and/or solve the integral for you. If I've know how to add already, I don't want paper and pencil, I want an open source calculator so I don't have to. If I know how to do Integration by Parts already, I don't need to do it every time...of course, studying math won't mean you have to do Integration by Parts all the time (unless you're in DiffEQ or something), which brings me to my "But":

    But: Paper and Pencil aren't gonna cut it as far as taking an engineering course is concerned. Nor as far as a physics course is concerned. If I'm trying to "learn the concepts" of a non-calculus class, then having to do all these pesky integrals isn't going to help any! It's just taking up my time. Even better, there are going to be cases where you can't do the work without some hefty numerical computations that would take you faaar too long to do by hand. Sure, you should do the first one on paper, but do you want to do every calculation of magnetic field by hand? Want to do this line integral for the 7th time? Not yet bored of 2 page solutions? Really want to follow Newton's method by hand?

    Furthermore: The age when everything could be done on paper and pencil is now part of the "good old days(TM)", and such technology is no longer the only mainstay.

    Finally: I was in a graduate program for mathematics, and yes, even doing "pure" mathematics, we used software. The programs that pop immediately to mind were Maple (cheaper than mathematica) and McCauley (it's algebra. I don't know much else). I also wrote a C program to handle card shuffling, so we could look at various results - sure, you could do it by hand, but it'd take a *lot* longer. In one course, I even wrote Public Key Encryptioni/Decryption software in Maple - an easy way to get a hands-on feel for the concepts, and you don't even have to handle arbitary-length modular multiplication by hand...

    Don't get me wrong, Paper and Pencils are great, but so are math packages!

    --LWM

    1. Re:Why Pencil and Paper may not be appropriate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can use Math packages only after you learned the theory. And the only way to learn something is by doing it yourself the old fashioned way. By introducing computers early teachers are basicly telling to their students that everything they are studing is not important. Computers can do it for them easily. Pay no attention to teacher and to what he is saying.

      Computers are to help human and not to replace human's brain.

  81. Lots of stuff out there by syousef · · Score: 1

    Not all of the below is free as in GNU but it is free as in beer.

    X(PLORE), despite being obscure, is very good. I've used it in DOS and Windows. Not sure I'd rely on any results without verifying them:

    http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~meredith/X(PLORE)/xplor ep g.html

    MuPad is good for symbolic calculus. Free for learning. Pro version is paid.
    http://research.mupad.de/

    Don't discount freeware spreadsheets.

    Also, though I personally think non-wysiwyg is horrible, Latex is often used to publish math papers etc.

    Personally I'd google for software related to the particular math that you want to explore. There's a lot out there and it'll take some hunting, but for example goole for the words: math freeware differential equations.

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  82. Good, but very difficult to build by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First you have to bootstrap Lisp and then do 10 other steps just to build this software. Has anyone created an installer for it (for non-Debian use)?

    1. Re:Good, but very difficult to build by amundson · · Score: 1

      Here are the steps for building Maxima:

      0) Install any one of several possible Lisps (GCL, CMUCL, Clisp and SBCL among other possibilities).

      1) ./configure

      2) make

      3) make install

      In what way is that more difficult to build than any other piece of free software? We also provide rpm's and an installer for Windows. Several other distributions contain their own Maxima packages.

      Disclaimer: I am the Maxima Project leader. I also wrote the build system.

    2. Re:Good, but very difficult to build by sketerpot · · Score: 1
      Even easier method, which I would have used if I didn't already have CMUCL installed: grab the two needed RPMs from the Download page and install them with "rpm -i [filename]" or the GUI program of your choice. It's easy.

      By the way, I'm using Maxima to supplement my calculus class. It's helpful to be able to use a full-fledged CAS to go through problems that I missed and see where I went wrong, or to do fancy graphing, or do quick rational arithmetic and save me the trouble, or any one of a number of things. Thank you, to everyone who's helped with Maxima.

      By the way, graphing seems pretty slow---unless I throw in some floating-point numbers. Is Maxima trying to use arbitrary-precision rationals for graphing?

  83. For college level- Macsyma RIP by xtermin8 · · Score: 1

    I suppose Maxima is reasonably close, but Macsyma used to be a nice math program. Unfortunately the company seems to have gone out of business. Probably neither is suitable for high school math, though. Pencil and paper is probably still best for high school and lower

    1. Re:For college level- Macsyma RIP by voodoo1man · · Score: 1

      You can still buy Macsyma from Symbolics.

      --

      In the great CONS chain of life, you can either be the CAR or be in the CDR.

  84. A little list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  85. [x]maxima by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In calculus 1, I was able to use xmaxima for most tasks as a substitute for maple. Occasionally I had to resort to writing c code and plotting with gnuplot.

  86. mathematica and matlab are interpreted. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mathematica and Matlab are interpreted, so that is hardly any disadvantage.

    Python has LAPACK bindings, and the excellent Scientific Python and Numarray, and you recommend Ruby because python uses tabs?

    (ps Python is not implemented in a language that uses tabs as a delimiter; it's implemented in C.)

    1. Re:mathematica and matlab are interpreted. by Zork+the+Almighty · · Score: 1

      It is a huge disadvantage for "grunt" computations. However, interpreted code is a perfect match for most high-level algebraic routines.

      --

      In Soviet America the banks rob you!
    2. Re:mathematica and matlab are interpreted. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Matlab has become a lot faster at for-loops after they introduced the jit

      BTW: I believe that Octave uses gcc

  87. wikipedia? by xouumalperxe · · Score: 1

    not sure if anyone mentioned it, but perhaps wikipedia, google or some other free source of proper knowledge is exactly what the doctor ordered. Many interesting, simple things are available in wikipedia, and googling about for more specifics is always a good learning activity. If/when they actually grasp the concepts at hand is when you want software to experiment with them, til then it's a waste of their time and their computer's HD

  88. JACAL, Yacas, Mathomatic by cgreuter · · Score: 1

    In addition to Octave (which I've played with a little but can't really comment on), I experimented a bit with a number of symbolic math programs. My problem was that I had a really freakin' big machine-generated equation that I was hoping could be reduced to something sane. As it happened, the answer was no, but I tried out a bunch of programs.

    (Disclaimer: it's been a while and I didn't put too much effort into investigations so I Could Be Wrong About Stuff.)

    JACAL managed to actually do the reduction (instead of flailing away for a while before dying or my killing it) but that's not all that useful for students. My main complaint was that it didn't seem useful if you didn't know Scheme, or at least how to cope with a Scheme interpreter. So if you typed the wrong thing, it dropped into the Scheme debugger. Also, no graphics.

    Mathomatic choked on the Giant Equation and died. On the other hand, it built painlessly and seems reasonably simple. Once again, it's text-only. I wasn't very impressed with it, but on the other hand, I gave up on it as soon as I realized it couldn't handle my equation.

    YACAS seemed better organized. It has a C-ish interpreted language that seems to implement a lot of the system and it looks pretty well-documented. When I tried it on my equation, it ran for about 24 hours without returning a result so I killed it. Once again, it's textual but it'll talk to a plotting program called Superficie to, uh, plot stuff.

    You may want to try these out and see if they'll do what you want.

  89. Have you checked out the pricing on math products by melted · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Have you checked out the pricing on math products lately? I have. It's freakin' stratospheric, and then they nickel and dime you for extensions.

    My main issue with this pricing structure is that a hobbyist like myself simply can't justify the expense. And that's very unfortunate.

  90. grafeq or dpgraph by shopi · · Score: 1
    these are not open source, but I found them invaluable in helping visualize equations in an intuitive manner. For 2d use GrafEq, and for 3d DPgraph. They are both amazingly intuitive tools, and complement each other rather nicely. You should check if the college has licenses for the last one.

    Another useful tool maybe Maple, again, if the college has the proper license. The lastest version has a number of "tutors" geared toward the first years of college (meaning calc I-III, and lin. alg.). There is a step by step symbolic integrator, for instance.

    Anyway, my advice would be using tools that help creativity and visualization, not tools that do their work for them. And like other people have said, if they know a language like python or c++, they might be motivated to use it as a "playground" to explore ideas. This is very cool.

  91. Re:OT: Learn the math, then use the tools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Flashy graphics shut off the imagination.

    If you show them a simple, drawn graph, then it requires some work on the part of thier brain to bring it inside.

    If you show them a movie of a flyby of a 3d rendering of a graph, thier eyes will glaze over and thier imagination will shut down.

  92. Scilab by bobscealy · · Score: 1

    Scilab might not be a bad choice either - http://scilabsoft.inria.fr/. It is available for both *nix and Windows, and is quite powerful.

  93. Typical /. BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stop preaching and telling this guy not to use software to teach these kids. He's asked what's out there. Either help him or shut up. Computers like anything else are a tool. If you don't think they're useful for math go back to 1900 and leave this guy alone.

  94. Postscript... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...why not show them how to embed Postscript code in a Word document, and use a Postscript printer to make their pretty graphs?

  95. what about breadth of knowledge? by viva_fourier · · Score: 1

    Okay, there's something to be against recommending to the poster: "math software is for fancy lads -- why don't you just whip them there kiddies 'til they learn their 'rithmatic."

    It's just that we live in a visual age. Why not put some of these Clinton-funded Pentium III's to good use! Give these kids a lab once a month that exposes them to some of the applications of math. It's a lot easier to lead a horse to water if the horse knows the water will satiate its thirst.

    I've seen Mathematica do some awesome abstract math. I've used matlab to run control algorithms on live freakin' motors. If these students are serious about engineering/physics/applied math, a little exposure to what they could *actually be working with someday* would not impede their understanding of the maths behind the software -- it would more likely motivate them and give them some end goal.

    --
    and now back to the fallout shelter...
  96. SciPy by BroncoInCalifornia · · Score: 1
    How about SciPy. This is scientic extensions added to Python. This includes Numeric to give arrays that act the way we expect from using Matlab®.

    Scipy.org

    --

    Religion is the main cause of atheism.

    1. Re:SciPy by Doppler00 · · Score: 1

      I've been using this as a replacement for Matlab until I get a student ID and have a chance to purchase Matlab. It works, and I like using python and all, but the graphing capabilities of Scipy are just horrible. You simply don't have as many options as Matlab for visualizing your data, which is an important feature to me.

      I've also tried matplotlib but it lacks many features and crashes often on my machine.

      I would recommend Mathcad as the simplest, easiest to use math tool. It's not as powerful as Matlab, but much easier to use.

    2. Re:SciPy by BroncoInCalifornia · · Score: 1

      scipy comes with gnuplot. It lacks a lot but you should try it.

      >>from scipy import gplt
      >>gplt.plot(xlist,ylist)

      --

      Religion is the main cause of atheism.

  97. Mathematica, of course by Ed+Pegg · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Full disclosure: I work for Wolfram Research. But oh -- the irony! I am also a columnist for Math Games at maa.org, and I wrote an article about the Quantian Distribution. I didn't want a spammer to start using quantian.org just as the distro was getting popular, so I bought it, and provided a redirect to the main Quantian site. So now, I'm getting doubly Slashdotted. Huzzah. A student should definitely be getting Mathematica for Students -- but check with the college first. They might be on a Mathematica Campus, and can get it for free.

  98. PlanetMath.org - Maths wiki by Lord+Satri · · Score: 1

    I don't know about math.com, but there's

    http://planetmath.org/

    "PlanetMath is a virtual community which aims to help make mathematical knowledge more accessible. PlanetMath's content is created collaboratively: the main feature is the mathematics encyclopedia with entries written and reviewed by members. The entries are contributed under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (FDL) in order to preserve the rights of both the authors and readers in a sensible way."

  99. Wait by Adolph_Hitler · · Score: 0

    What about interactive software that TEACHES math.

    --
    People don't exist to serve systems, systems exist to serve people.
  100. Re:Maple & Matlab - not free but work well on by woah · · Score: 1

    Mathematica is actually available for Linux, as well.

  101. Re:Maxima history by xtermin8 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Macsyma was actually started at MIT, written in lisp, part of Project MAC. At least two different versions came out, Maxima was from the Department of Energy's version, which has been open sourced. Another version was owned by Symbolics, then was spun off into its own company. I beleive there's still another version and MIT still retains the rights to it. Feel free to correct me on any of this- but for sure the software has a long and tangled history.

  102. Theory is most important. by katharsis83 · · Score: 1

    You don't want your kids using mathematical software to learn math, especially if they're going to be high school seniors/college freshmen. Every single serious math class in college bans the use of calculators and is heavily theory based; it's a lot more important to understand the theoretical underpinnings of statistics (pdf's, poisson processes, transforms, etc..." than it is to calculate the std. deviation from a set of data. It's trivial to calculate lots of numbers from a formula; it's much more intellectually rewarding to re-derive fundamental equations governing stochastic processes. The same holds of calculus and linear algebra. The Berkeley Engineering program requires multi-variable calculus, linear algebra, discrete math, and for certain programs, even real/complex canalysis are highly recommended. In not a single one of those classes has a calculator been allowed on tests. There's really no reason to need Mathematica or Matlab unless you're solving transcedental equations or your data set is so complex that you need to solve using iterations.

  103. dc by kisielk · · Score: 2, Funny

    uh.. comes in the same package as parent, but its RPN :)

  104. Mathematica? by nihilogos · · Score: 1

    I can't stand mathematica. It only ever gives useful output to problems a human could do by hand in an hour or so, and the exercise is good for you. Anytime a human couldn't do the algebra, calculus etc in a reasonably short period of time it just produces pages and pages of unintelligable rubbish. And to top things off it's occassionally wrong.

    --
    :wq
  105. mathematical tools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While people have suggested maple and mathematica they are both fairly expensive (even for students). magma is another paid alternative.

    mupad is a decent alternative, that, while not open source, is free to download.

    To comment on the many pencil+paper posts, I would like to add that a whiteboard is an essential mathematical tool. Besides ease of erasure, they allow for much more collaboration than a pencil and paper.

    1. Re:mathematical tools by fishbowl · · Score: 2, Interesting

      [whiteboard]

      I cannot stand them. Chalkboards seem to have completely disappeared. And now all these stupid empty Expo markers are going to landfills. There was nothing, NOTHING wrong with chalk, except that it was cheaper, and that the Sanford corp wasn't getting money for it.

      Whiteboards made sense in some environments, such as where it was absolutely crucial not to have chalk dust (but in those environments, you should not use alcohol pens either; they also make dust).

      I hate whiteboards. I also hate the fact that I'm basically forced to have white backgrounds on my os windows, since there is invariably some app, and *many* websites, which hardcode the textcolor to black, but assume you have a light background. grr.

      Blackboards are absorptive and whiteboards are reflective. Black windows on a computer screen are neutral, white windows radiate.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  106. Make 'em do it by hand! by skoda · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't recommend using math software for students before graduate school.

    I took the computer-assisted calculus and differential equations courses in college, and watched a wave of students follow me with even more computer-oriented mathematics. My conclusion is that I should have take the normal classes.

    The mechanics of manipulating equations, memorizing identity theorems, and just plain brute force is something that sticks with you longer than knowing -ENTER is how to evaluate a command in Mathematica.

    Do these kids a favor and make them learn the hard way. The skills will stick with them longer. They'll hate you now, but it's for their own good.

  107. Remove the federal government from our schools by Adolph_Hitler · · Score: 0


    When you remove the influence of the federal government over our school systems, the system will regulate itself. The students will be judged by the teachers who will be judged by the community. Why do we need federal standards? The no child left behind act is part of the problem instead of the solution.

    Tools for learning are important and if they're not working properly examination of why is equally, if not more, important. Kids that don't care are fairly well doomed, but kids that do should be given every chance and tool to help them along be it "hard" or "soft" course work.

    Of course most kids don't care. It's our jobs to make kids care. This requires you give kids the freedom to learn at their own pace and not be stuck in a government loop.


    " US ranks very low in academics especially in Math and Science, "


    We invented science. Computers are our invention so to say we arent the best at science is silly. Math however is something we arent so good at and this is due to the way its taught. Finally you need to understand that its government regulation that holds schools back. You cannot give students federal guidelines on what to learn and give teachers federal guidelines on what to teach and expect them not to go above and beyond expectations. They will pass the test and they wont know shit.

    --
    People don't exist to serve systems, systems exist to serve people.
    1. Re:Remove the federal government from our schools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "We invented science."

      Obviously History teaching is in particularly poor shape in the USA.

    2. Re:Remove the federal government from our schools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look who posted this! Opposition to federal education standards is the stance of the Nazi party!

    3. Re:Remove the federal government from our schools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The no child left behind act is part of the problem instead of the solution.


      True. It is part of a poltical agenda that is being extended into college. That a kid makes it to college is proof that he hasn't been "left behind" and begs the question as to the real purpose behind the "no child left behind" legislation.

      Seven Trillion Dollars spent on welfare in this country since 1965 and all we have to show for it is high schools with day care centers to baby-sit the children of the female HS students. And when they get out of HS they still have to be trained to hold a job at Burger King.

    4. Re:Remove the federal government from our schools by I_Love_Pocky! · · Score: 1

      The students will be judged by the teachers who will be judged by the community.

      Great, so if some town decides that math and science are the work of the devil, then no more math and science for the students in that community. Standards exist to ensure some kind of even playing field for all students. It would be a shame if most universities decide to stop admiting students from a particular school district, because of that district's community standards.

      I already feel sorry for the students who are being forced to learn creationism in their public high schools. I would bet that top universities will be hesitant to admit them if they are interested in majoring in biology.

  108. Do it the old fashioned way - p&p by GomezAdams · · Score: 2, Interesting
    For years the Russians and Indians have turned out some of the best theoretical mathematicians on the planet because they have always done math The Old Fashioned Way(tm). Pencil and paper were available for everyone, computer time was not. The Chinese and other asians are great at computational concepts because they learn to use arithmetic rules to work the abacus. The abacus only holds the result of each step the of the operations. Machines are only good when you know that the questions and answers are correctly mapped.

    It's still GIGO unless you know what you're doing without the use of the machines.

    --
    Too lazy to create a sig...
  109. J Software by CompuGlobalHyperMega · · Score: 1
    J Software

    "J is a modern, high-level, general-purpose, high-performance programming language. J is portable and runs on Windows, Unix, Mac, and PocketPC handhelds. J runs both as a GUI and in a console (command line)."

    "J is particularly strong in the mathematical, statistical, and logical analysis of arrays of data. It is a powerful tool in building new and better solutions to old problems and even better at finding solutions where the problem is not already well understood."

    1. Re:J Software by zoeith · · Score: 1

      J syntax is difficult to learn and time consuming -- mainly because it is different than most other programming languages that are of such a high level. But it is very rewarding and has excellent built in functions for math purposes and the built in support for OpenGl is nice for graphing, but that also gets complicated. I am a fan of J but unless the students applied math intrests involves computer science I am not sure how this helps? Also, it is not open source.

      --
      Zoeith
    2. Re:J Software by lahvak · · Score: 1

      I think there are some old open source version of APL, though. Of course j is an APL on some powerful steroids, so it doesn't really compare.

      --
      AccountKiller
  110. Pari-gp, Lisp and interfaces by Wolfbone · · Score: 3, Interesting

    No-one's mentioned the superb pari-gp yet. It'll draw graphs using gnuplot and unlike much other software of it's type it has excellent documentation.

    Lisp is also prominently absent but I agree with what Chaitin says about it being the natural computer language for mathematically minded computer users. Actually I'm surprised it isn't more popular with other software developers - it seems to me to make any kind of programming easier and more pleasurable.

    People who've mentioned Maxima also haven't said anything much about graphical (non-plotting) interfaces to it. I like imaxima in emacs and also TeXmacs - which will act as a graphical front end to many other mathematical programs.

  111. Use as a tool... by lotus87 · · Score: 1


    I don't know of any open source efforts in this area, but both Maple (http://www.maplesoft.com/) and MathCAD (http://www.mathcad.com/) are excellent packages. From personal experience, I'd say Mathematica or Matlab are the most powerful tools, but that Maple and MathCAD are significantly easier to learn and teach. Both also have really cheap academic versions with support, between $99 and $150, I believe. They're also fully compatible with Matlab & Mathematica, so upgrading later doesn't lose you all your old projects.

    Caveat:

    The danger with software that does complex problem solving is that students, especially pre-college the variety, get so dependent on using the tool to find the answer that they forget the basics of what they're doing and what it means. I saw this happen to a lot of my peers during my undregraduate degree, because my university was piloting laptop-based courses for math and physics. By the time they got to differential equations, the laptop kids knew the commands to get the answer, but had no idea what it meant or how to solve the problem sans software.

    I avoided this by always doing the work by hand, and then checking it with the software. My teachers forced that on us from the first time we used Maple version 3 in high school. I stuck to it throughout college (except the really insane engineering problems that take days to solve by hand). I strongly suggest that you enforce similar policies for your students, especially for the fundamentals.

    1. Re:Use as a tool... by ishmaelflood · · Score: 1

      Good answer

      I'm puzzled by what engineering problem you were set that took 'days' to solve by hand. Really puzzled.

      I lurve Mathcad, but I'm gradually moving over to Scilab, it is powerful, fairly easy to figure out, and improving.

  112. you might be able to get mathematica for free by Hinde01 · · Score: 1

    I got mine through my math department. They are participating in some kind of licence to students. The long and short of it is that i got mathematica 5 for free from my school, so you might want to check at your school if they have something similar.

  113. Scilab by myklgrant · · Score: 1

    It may be overkill but Scilab http://scilabsoft.inria.fr/ is a very powerful math program. I can't even begin to list what it does. I don't know how open the code is, but it is free (beer). Comes with most large distros too.
    Michael

  114. From the front lines. by kevinrbing · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'm a high school senior and I would love to have software like this.

    There are times in my high school calculus course where I would love to be able to see practical applications of the things I learn in class. Or get extra help on a difficult concept I didn't quite understand in class.

    I've tried to use recouces like wikipedia, open course ware (though MIT is a bit out of my leauge), and Sparknotes; but, its hard to learn a concept without a good explanation and instruction.

    In conclusion, software that could achually teach or at least tutor math would be a godsend to me and thousands of other confused math students.

    P.S. Please don't complain to me about getting better math teachers - thats an issue you'd have to take up with the union. Also, bad students isn't always their fault.

  115. try XCAS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www-fourier.ujf-grenoble.fr/~parisse/giac.h tml

    1. Re:try XCAS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Giac/Xcas is a free computer algebra system for Windows, Mac OS X and Linux/Unix. It has a compatibility mode for maple, mupad and the TI89. It is available as a standalone program (graphic or text interfaces) or as a C++ library.

      http://www-fourier.ujf-grenoble.fr/~parisse/giac.h tml/

  116. Fractals (Was: Re:Why software?) by lahvak · · Score: 1

    But it doesn't have to be an advanced course. Using fractals, you can introduce complex numbers, dynamical systems, chaos, pde's etc on very elementary level, while slowly introducing the equations and formulas. That's exactly what computers are good for -- visualizing and modeling.

    --
    AccountKiller
  117. Fractals easy... by oliverthered · · Score: 1

    You can do l-system fractals with pen and paper.

    You can also do q-tree and r-trees and show how they can be used for fractal compression, and you don't even need a calculator.

    --
    thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    1. Re:Fractals easy... by cjl224 · · Score: 1
      I'm in my final year of Maths at university, and only about two weeks ago my Maths professor (who's quite respected) laughed at me for not having a calculator...

      Doesn't mean I'm particularly good, just if you're at a good level you don't need calculators but for the things that are actually tedious...

      Which isn't long division, I seem to have an endless sense of satisfaction about getting them.

    2. Re:Fractals easy... by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      The point is that you can demonstrate in a way that people actually think about what's happening.

      I remember doing calculus by the book, I didn't learn any more than 'take one of of this and multiply' etc.. which I could have done with mathcad and learnt just a much.

      Later on I took up some home study and found out what calculus was, now I could sit down with a piece of paper and work out how to integrate and differentiate various things without having to remember the formula, I can do splines, tell you why the are of a circle is pi.r^2 etc..

      This is the benfit of not having a calculator.

      I took my exams about 10 years ago and only used a calculator for the trig questions, the paper was easy enough that I still finished before time and since we couldn't leave until everyone had finished I'm glad I didn't use a calculator!

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    3. Re:Fractals easy... by cjl224 · · Score: 1
      Yep, my point. I can't for some reason remember the cosine of 79.3 or whatever...

      But I could work it out. I'm not sure these kids could...

  118. Braintrax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Braintrax is a system being developing by one of my officemates at the University of Missouri-Rolla. It tracks your progress and hands you problems in algebra and calculus depending on your skill level. Braintrax

  119. Self guided learning? by Mordack · · Score: 1

    I enjoyed calc and all my other math classes in college etc. But now I want to explore more math on my own. I want to focus on concepts and the end result and not get bogged down in mechanics. Using computer software will be much more enjoyable and productive than using paper.

    This is a great question and I'm really interested in trying out all the software that has been mentioned!

    --
    I don't need no stinkin' sig!
  120. COW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Check out this site. A free Web-based interactive math site that grades your work, uses some AI to verify answers using maple in the background, and covers content from fractions thru algebra, calculus I, II, III, linear algebra, and elementary number theory.

    It's free, developed by mathematicians over the last 8 years, and even keeps track of grading the exercises, for those who may wish to use it as an aid in their course.

    COW (Calculus On the Web) is currently used by 50 universities and high schools around the country.

  121. try POVRAY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    POVRAY is a good tool to learn solid geometry. The results union, intersection, difference operations can be visualized. It has a programming language which allows the manipulation of objects and creation of animations. Trig and other math functions may be used. It has some interesting possibilities.

  122. I've been wondering something similar myself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm a lapsed overachiever who went off the rails a bit during high school. I did well enough to get into and through a CS degree and now write software for a living, but feel like I don't have a strong enough grasp of many of the fundamentals which puts me at a disadvantage to many of my colleagues who have engineering degrees.

    Given that I don't have any of my old high school text books anymore, are there any resources, online, open source or otherwise, that people could recommend to revisit the high school mathematics that wasn't fully imprinted way back when, with a view to continued (personal) studies into more complex "practical" engineering mathematics as well as more "abstract" mathematics.

  123. Maxima is your best bet by amundson · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I lead the Maxima project, http://maxima.sourceforge.net/. Maxima is a full-featured GPL'd computer algebra system under active development. We don't hear much from people who want to use Maxima for high school mathematics, but we would welcome the input.

    1. Re:Maxima is your best bet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Maxima is a great piece of software. I use it regularly. Yet there's some bugs/features that annoy me: The commenting is broken or very awkward. When I write lines of statements, I can't just quickly comment out some lines:
      a : 1;
      #b : 0;
      b : a;
    2. Re:Maxima is your best bet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would like to use Maxima to solve
      simultaneous partial differential tensor
      equations in connection with work in
      general relativity documented at www.aias.us.
      I'm not sure that Maxima is up to this yet.
      A user guide for this levelof Maxima use
      would be helpful.

      dfeustel located at mindspring

    3. Re:Maxima is your best bet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if your entries form a commutative ring then an inverse
      can be found in the usual way, namely divide the adjunct matrix
      (which is formed by ring operations from the entries of the
      original) by the determinant (which is as well). If the determinant doesn't have an inverse then neither does
      the matrix. I'm not sure about non-commutative entries though. Determinatns don't really make sense in that situation.

  124. Haskell by sleepingsquirrel · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Haskell is also a great language for performing math. It'd be hard to get a nicer notation for the factorial than something like this...
    fac n = product [1..n]
    1. Re:Haskell by Wolfbone · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes - it looks conceptually attractive and it appears possible to have the all-important (to me anyway) interpreter mode. I always found doing any kind of programming but especially mathematical work a real drag until I discovered these kinds of language: CMUCL and SLIME radically improved every aspect of any kind of programming for me.

    2. Re:Haskell by mistersooreams · · Score: 1
      Uh, what about
      fac n = product [2..n]
      ?
    3. Re:Haskell by JacquesC · · Score: 1
      Oh, I don't know, what about
      n!
      for factorial, as you can do in Maple?
    4. Re:Haskell by GlobalEcho · · Score: 1

      As the Maple guy points out, in Maple and Mathematica, it's just n! .

      Note that in Mma (and this is probably also true of Maple) you also get reasonable results for noninteger arguments, e.g. Gamma(1+n) or

      4! = 52.3428

      which is a sign of a symbolic mathematics package rather than a programmer's package. Matlab takes the programming view of the factorial, but of course has the gamma function available for this who want it.

      I don't really have a point about Haskell itself here. It looks reasonable to work with, but I'm not sure why in a mathematical context one would choose it over Octave, Python, Mma, Maple, or Matlab.

  125. COW URL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    I didn't get that auto-URL thing right, here it is: http://cow.math.temple.edu/

  126. Why not Mathomatic by janoc · · Score: 1
    Mathomatic

    Works, free, nice

  127. Quantian article by Ed+Pegg · · Score: 5, Informative
    I own the quantian.org domain. The following is from my article on the Quantian Distribution. Here is a brief run down of links, programs, and other goodies in Quantian.
    1. Re:Quantian article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you could add "jscl-meditor" to your list? It can run on everything from full blown java to midp (mobile phones), old and now palms (compiled via Jump).

      Link: http://jscl-meditor.sourceforge.net/

      The source is of very good quality and the program has many capabilities.

      Disclaimer: I did the palm port.

    2. Re:Quantian article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice distro, but why don't you replace Sodipodi with Inkscape? Inkscape started as a fork but is much better by now, imho.

      Full disclosure: I'm an Inkscape contributor :)

    3. Re:Quantian article by gr8_phk · · Score: 1
      That's a nice list of packages. The problem that people will look at it and ask "WTF is 'R'?". Most of the names are absolute $h|t and you offer little in the way of descriptions. Quantian should take a hint from the gnome HIG (human interface guidelines) and put meaningful text in the menus rather than the meaningless names of the programs. I rather liked the mandlebrot zoomer program, but I'm not sure why I even tried the menu item called xaos (was that it?) to find it.

      BTW, I also recommend not having multiple programs that do the same task, or at least not too many. Pick the best in terms of functionality and support and drop others that offer little above this choice. OTOH, if you've got room on the CD... But people need some way to sift through and make sense of it all. Quantian looks like shovelware because it is.

  128. Dynamic geometry software by dolmen.fr · · Score: 1

    To learn geometry, I recommend C.a.R. (Compass and Ruler), a Java application.
    The Java WebStart is here :
    http://mathsrv.ku-eichstaett.de/MGF/homes/groth man n/java/zirkel/doc_en/JavaWebStart.html

    The SVG export is excellent, and I'm using it to import figures in Inkscape.

    Another popular one is GeoNext. Select the english flag, then scroll the page to the "run Online!" link (Java WebStart too).

    1. Re:Dynamic geometry software by lahvak · · Score: 1

      Pretty cool! There are several other programs like this, for Windows, there is free of charge WinGeom by Peanut Software, for Unix there is Kseg, Dr. Geo, and KIG, all free. Plus several commercial programs.

      --
      AccountKiller
  129. Octave is good by meowsqueak · · Score: 1

    I've used Octave for digital filter design and general purpose mathematics. As a previous Matlab user, it makes a nice alternative when price is an issue. With some care and practice, you can make nice plots using gnuplot too.

  130. Mandelbrot set by sleepingsquirrel · · Score: 1
    Scrounging around on my hard-drive, I also located this haskell example which plots the mandelbrot set (of course, you'll have to fix some white space, since slashdot mangles it, and haskell has significant whitespace).
    -- Fractal.hs mandlebrot example
    -- dumps a *.ppm graphics file to stdout

    import Complex

    main = putStr $ "P3\n" ++
    show (floor width) ++ " " ++ show (floor height) ++ "\n255\n" ++
    (showPPM fractal) ++ "\n"

    width = 1024
    height = 768
    limit = 2
    iter = 50

    pts = [(2*x/width - 1) :+ (2*y/height - 1) | y<-[1..height], x<-[1..width]]

    mandel c z = z * z + c

    fractal = map
    (\f -> length (take iter (takeWhile (\x -> magnitude(x)<limit) (iterate f (0:+0))))
    (map mandel pts)

    showPPM [] = []
    showPPM (x:xs) = l ++ l ++ l ++ "\n" ++ showPPM xs
    where l = (show n) ++ " "
    n = if (x == 50) then 0 else 255
  131. Open source in the lab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  132. GNU Emacs Calc by dlakelan · · Score: 1

    Emacs's Calc (the full one) Is basically motivated by the HP 48G series of calculators. It's all a high schooler would need to do calculus, graph equations, basic stats, and numerical solutions. Graphing requires gnuplot.

    It includes a lot of functionality and it's generally accessed by key combos, so reading the manual is necessary. in particular inputting algebraic formulae requires typing the quote key first.

    it will do symbolic and numeric integration and differentiation, and solutions of matrix equations. I use it all the time for basic homework type problems in engineering.

    Other software that might be appropriate is maxima, octave, and R. R is especially good for data analysis and statistics.

    I don't recommend axiom for high school level, but it is quite good. (type system adds extra complication for high schoolers though).

    --
    ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) http://www.endpointcomputing.com a scientific approach to custom computing.
  133. Software can be better than pencil and paper by beej · · Score: 1
    When it comes to visualizing concepts, a well-placed interactive animation can beat stills-on-paper virtually every time.

    Try to imagine the future of school text books. You think it's going to only be a bunch of static graphs and equations? Not a chance. It'll be "enter some test numbers here" or "slide this bar back and forth and see what happens to this graph."

    And sometimes the hard equation work does get in the way of seeing the concepts, which are no less important. I know a lot of students tend to focus on how to do a math problem instead of what the math problem is, since you get graded on how well you do them!

    Pencil and paper? I'll bet that no matter what software the questioner uses, pencil and paper will also be put to good use crunching equations away just like we all have done. You can rest easy knowing that, I hope. Computers are not a replacement for everything, after all.

    But to say, "Why not use pencil and paper like I did and forget about this software nonsense?" is to ignore an extremely valuable learning tool that has only recently started to be utilized.

  134. MuPAD by tmontes · · Score: 1


    Check this one out at http://research.mupad.de/. According to the website, "MuPAD is a mathematical expert system for doing symbolic and exact algebraic computations with almost arbitrary accuracy."; I know it includes several math libraries and has the ability of doing 2D and 3D plots... I don't think it is open source, but there seems to be a free (beer), older version for non commercial use under both Linux and Windows. Good Luck.

    PS: I remember using an even older version quite a few years ago and it was really nice.

  135. student version by austad · · Score: 1

    Get the student version of Mathematica, last I remember, it was like $89.

    --
    Need Free Juniper/NetScreen Support? JuniperForum
  136. Matlab! by Stevyn · · Score: 1

    Alright, I know it's not free. But if he's thinking of being an engineer, it will help him to know how to use this program. Lots of my classes require it (computer engineering) and knowing it before he enters the class would help him.

  137. Pari/GP by dfinney · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I often use Pari/GP:

    http://pari.math.u-bordeaux.fr/

    Pari is a command line calculator with graphing capabilities. It was developed by Henri Cohen, a number theorist. It has an incredible number of functions, plus it can calculate really big numbers.

    From the FAQ:

    PARI/GP is a widely used computer algebra system designed for fast computations in number theory (factorizations, algebraic number theory, elliptic curves...), but also contains a large number of other useful functions to compute with mathematical entities such as matrices, polynomials, power series, algebraic numbers, etc., and a lot of transcendental functions.

  138. J? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I recently have been playing around with a very good free and math-heavy programming language. Truthfully, I have no idea if it's what you are looking for, but I suspect it's worth a look nontheless.

    http://www.jsoftware.com/

  139. Mac OS X v 10.4 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not open source or free, but many students at the high school level may have free access to Mac OS X v 10.4 Tiger when it ships in the first half of next year. It will offer 2d and 3d graphing features along with some fill-in-the-blank formulas for working out simple conversions (area, currency, etc.) Apple used to provide a nifty graphing calculator in pre-OS X versions of the OS, but it never made the transition to Mac OS X.

    Personally, I hope that they include the RPN as well as more traditional binary entry modes for the calculator. RPN is great for engineers and statisticians who have to enter a lot of data in a hurry before they want to start worrying about order of operations or even which operators to pair with what data.

    And even though using the calculator in the computer labs will be free as in beer to the students, free beer is probably perfectly acceptable to 'em.

  140. Re:OT: Learn the math, then use the tools by cjl224 · · Score: 1
    Infinite-term series is an approximation!

    Probably Taylor series - maybe MacLaurin!

    And that's not what you need or high (-ish) order maths...

  141. Wouldn't Recommend R for High School by Faramir · · Score: 1

    R is very difficult to use with rather poor documentation. I'm all about the appropriate use of open source software, with appropriate being the key word. R is great for advanced undergrads and beyond, but learning to code in R will just distract from statistical and mathematical simulations for high schoolers. Stick with Octave or Scilab for now.

    1. Re:Wouldn't Recommend R for High School by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I started using R in highschool for data analysis for my science project (which did well in the ISEF, but thats another matter)... I now use it almost daily in a professional capacity.

      Sure, it has a learning curve, but if they have the motivation to learn than it makes sense to just use the real thing from day one.

    2. Re:Wouldn't Recommend R for High School by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Programming in R is much the same as Lisp or Scheme. I guess for high schoolers, you're probably right.

  142. Java Educational software by darkone · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The company I work for creates open source educational software from federal grants. Most of our software is Physics or Chemistry based, but most of it is Java and written and tested on MacOSX, Linux, and Windows. Some of our software is written more for classroom use (with tests and all) but some is standalone. Here is a link to our download center.

  143. LaTeX any one? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Speaking as a soon-to-be graduate student with horrible handwriting, I'd recommend that high school students be given a little tutorial on LaTeX. Sure, there are plagarism concerns, but I think it would level the playing field for kids bad handwriting.

  144. MathCAD by nuggz · · Score: 1

    I loved mathcad, so simple and graphical, but I never found a free alternative.

    It makes it really easy to document equations for reports and stuff.

    I know the nice GUI makes some real mathies flinch, but for those who just want to get work done it's great.

  145. Re:Pari/GP second that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Has big ints, etc

    plus has simple scripting language, as well as lib for linking to C prgrams.

    Don't worry about the fact that it has hundreds of functions you never heard of; still useful at any level. GPL

  146. software ruined my grades by Oct · · Score: 0

    i can honestly say that computing software ruined my grades, not in college, sometimes mathmatica/mathcad are absolutely necessary, but the fact that i used computing software and my holy TI-89, ruined my learning in high school. Sure, i love them now, that i'm passed calc 1-3 and matrix math..ect...but because i did even the basic graphing/matrixes/differentiation..ect....all upper math, i did horrible on my tests where i was not allowed to use my 89 or a computer. Take if from me, using computers in math at too young an age/development in mathmatics is a VERY BAD THING. Hell...i have enough problems figuring out what 7*12 is..... and yes...i do run an emulated ti-89 on my computer Oct

  147. Don't do it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Computers only fuck things up.

  148. No Software Needed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why? Since Euclid (500BC!) mathematics is about proving theorems and solving interesting questions, not crunching numbers!.Ancient Greeks were extreme concerning this problem, they believed that performing numerical calculations is beyond the dignity of real mathematicians (geometers), a job for merchants or soldiers. Numerical operations were despised and for this reason there are no records what methods they used for numerical operations . In a sense arithmetic is closer to commerce and accounting than to mathematics.

    Using calculators in class or during the exams is merely a US custom; as a European I have a hard time understanding it. Three decades ago, while in high school they did not burden us with heavy numerical computations in mathetmatics tests; numerical computations, if ever needed were 'fixed', so that you would not waste time with arithmetics. After all arithmetics was a subject taught the first five grades, we started learning algebra in the sixth grade when we were 12 years old. We never ever used calculators in class; logarithm tables an sliding rules, yes, in the ninth grade. However, even then we were not alowed to use sliding rules during exams.

  149. Re:OT: Learn the math, then use the tools by geekoid · · Score: 1

    Blah blah blah..inmyday...blah blah blah.

    either you won't use math and it doesn't matter or you go into a field that does use math and you will learn it. Using a calculator won't prevent those interesxted in math from learning it in detail.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  150. Maxima, Octave, R, Sclilab and Gnuplot by 183771 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Maybe one of these could be interesting for you:

    Maxima 5.9.0
    Maxima is a fairly complete computer algebra system with an emphasis on symbolic computation.

    Octave 2.1.42
    GNU Octave is a high-level language, primarily intended for numerical computations. It provides a convenient command line interface for solving linear and nonlinear problems numerically, and for performing other numerical experiments using a language that is mostly compatible with Matlab. It may also be used as a batch-oriented language.

    R 1.8.0
    R is `GNU S' - A language and environment for statistical computing and graphics. R is similar to the award-winning S system, which was developed at Bell Laboratories by John Chambers et al. It provides a wide variety of statistical and graphical techniques (linear and nonlinear modelling, statistical tests, time series analysis, classification, clustering, ...).

    Scilab 2.6
    Scilab is a scientific software package for numerical computations in a user-friendly environment.

    Gnuplot 3.7.x
    gnuplot is a command-driven interactive function plotting program. It can be used to plot functions and data points in both two- and three-dimensional plots in many different formats, and will accommodate many of the needs of today's scientists for graphic data representation.

    Source: http://gnuwin.epfl.ch/classes/en/sciences.html

  151. TexMacs by Guillermito · · Score: 1


    TexMacs,
    best TeX editor ever.

  152. Don't obsess about doing things the hard way! by ediron2 · · Score: 1

    Get 'em a good graphing calc, or some software that takes the pain out of visualizing math.

    I see repeatedly how people are suggesting wetware (one's brain) and a pencil and graph paper.

    While I don't disagree with the value, since there is a lot of value to understanding things well enough thru these methods, this reminds me of piano lessons:

    99% of the world doesn't want music theory. They just want to be able to play along while folks sing.

    99% of the world isn't going to keep any of the deeper mathematical education they get. Yeah, I know that is damn depressing, but I console myself with my fat paycheck and the bonuses I get when I can trivially solve my clients' problems because I actually *paid attention* and retained that technical/scientific knowledge.

    I put a few years into learning the piano. Paid music teachers, etc. Net result: not much. Friends that learned thru other means (in a band, from someone with improv talent, etc) got what they needed (the ability to play recreationally) in less time and they all have more fun with that skill.

    For anyone seeing a math-oriented career, software and calculators can prevent deeper learning. For everyone else, the most useful thing that one can get is a usable sense of these things. Graphing software is a crutch, but it can do a better job of letting a younger student explore: 1/x functions, trig, logarithms, asymptotes, limits, derivatives, integrals, transforms, special functions, etc. And since most folks don't plan to carry this wisdom very far, it's better that we lighten the hell up and stop trying to make everyone walk uphill both ways thru a meter of snow to get their education. I'm sick of hearing everyone say 'I never use any math in my life'.

    As a student, I found a small PC app that would graph almost any equation I could put into it. Mathematica was just a few years old and prohibitively expensive, but this little freebie did simple graph work nicely. While I was using it to attempt to hand-fit polynomials to data I was collecting, it later did wonders for my comprehending various nastier things I was learning (grad physics E & M functions)

    So, I say again:

    Get a good graphing calculator. Or use any of the above software items others here have mentioned. Splurge on matlab or mathematica, or find a trial/warez/academic version you can use. Use that to get an innate sense of what each function *should* look like, and let that carry you along (a good goal is to understand the equation enough to recognize obviously-wrong results).

    A side effect: several of those 99%'ers are going to be controlling the financial future of your world, as managers, policy wonks, or managing a fund you're applying to. Would you rather their view of tech is unpleasant memories of hand-graphing, or a healthy respect for the subject's underlying beauty and a respect for your work, when you submit that funding application?

    Years ago, nobel physicist Leon Lederman spoke at our university, and he put a lot of time into talking about 'Physics for Poets': a U of Chicago course specifically aiming to give nonphysicists a working understanding, and deep appreciation for what we're doing. Insisting on everyone doing math by hand is, incidentally, the same as not seeing a need for improving the UI for linux or other apps, and a zillion other 'techie-vs-Them' friction points.

  153. OTOH by geekoid · · Score: 1

    I think I might want to pick up a spelling and grammer book.
    Damn internet has ruined my grammer and spelling!

    and by 'ruined' I mean it lets everyone see how bad I am.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  154. For 3D fun by Kludge · · Score: 2, Interesting

    To the person who claims it is a poor choice for High Schoolers, I disagree, especially if statistics is of interest. It forces you to actually THINK about what you are doing

    I agree here. Many people are posting that these mathematical sorts of programs aren't for high schoolers. While it is true that such programs shouldn't be used as a crutch for passing math class, it is also important to teach students programming, in particular mathematical programming. For this R would be good.

    Poor documentation

    I'll have to disagree here. R is an implementation of the S language standards. There a number of good S language references out there. Also the help.search() facility is great and the R-help mailing list archives are google searchable.

  155. Perl Data Language by Kludge · · Score: 2, Interesting

    http://pdl.perl.org/

    If you're already teaching your kids perl (for some strange reason), pdl adds vector numeric features and access to all sorts of numeric libraries.
    It's good for number crunching and data display.

  156. thanks by pyrrho · · Score: 1

    now I can use that money to pay my rent.

    --

    -pyrrho

  157. It's called a "Graphing Calculator" by KalvinB · · Score: 1

    In high school you aren't using any math that's so advanced you need a computer to do it for you. High school is the time to learn how to do things yourself. College is when you get to start finding tools to do the stuff you used to do by hand by computer to reduce tedium since the object isn't to learn how to solve an algebraic equation for another variable.

    High School (especially math) text books are designed to be used with graphing calculators. The book explains what is going on, expects you to do it by hand and then tells you, "oh by the way, these are the buttons you push to do it on a calculator a zillion times faster." If you don't understand what's going on inside the blackbox then you won't know how or when to use it.

    It's kind of hard to take a test with a laptop at your desk, much less a desktop loaded with a bunch of software just so the student doesn't have to solve 2+2 on their own. That's why high schools advertise graphing calculators to students.

    Stop hurting the students with technology that only cripples their learning experience. If you give them X piece of software and let them use it like a crutch they're only going to know how to do things with X piece of software and be completely lost in the real world.

    If you want to be use technology to improve their education, only let them use mathematical tools that they themselves write or only after they demonstrate mastery of the technique with paper and pencil. I understood linear algebra quite a bit better when I personally wrote software that implemented things I was doing by hand. Same with statistics. I learned statistics by writing a very powerful statistics package from scratch using only equations I found on various math web-sites.

    Otherwise you're just hiding things they need to know behind black boxes.

  158. Too much IP for open source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Disclaimer: I work for maple, as a developer but not in R&D. I speak from my knowledge of this company but I'm sure the others have similar situations.

    The problem with OSS for something like a mathematics package (especially a package with symbolics) is they contain IP obtained with research partnerships with institutions. You won't find a OSS solution that competes with any of the big 3 (Maple, Matlab and Mathematica) because the the algorithms for symbolics and so forth are just too complex and important as IP to the companies.

    All 3 of the packages I believe/know have much reduced student pricing ($100 USD for a downloadable on Mac, Linux or Win) and many of the schools in North America either have a partnership or you can obtain the software directly from your department. Also many of the calculus texts include 4 or 8 month trial versions.

    I know this doesn't help much and it is unfortunate that you can't obtain OSS alternatives for software that has a educational purpose, but on the otherside with out the 1000's of freshman in Calc101 I wouldn't have a salary.

    1. Re:Too much IP for open source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IP indeed makes it difficult.

      without 1000's of freshman paying for 'your' software you could have them paying for books, courses, etc., etc. Just giving options. Not saying anything about feasibility of business models for your situation

  159. NetLogo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/

  160. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  161. Octave: Why no development for SIX years? by sammyo · · Score: 1

    Seems like a dead project, although a useful and popular dead project.

    Ah, on a close look, there have been minor dot releases... but it seems like a 3.0 should be happening.

  162. Look again by cameldrv · · Score: 1

    Mathematica has become quite capable in the numerical department in the past couple of versions.

    1. Re:Look again by Bingo+Foo · · Score: 3, Funny
      Rui Carmo: I'm looking for a good solid, off-road vehicle.

      mvdw: Have you considered a Toyota Camry?

      Anonymous Coward: Oh, geez, does anyone know the difference between an off road vehicle and a sedan?

      cameldrv: High-end off road vehicles have become more sedan-like lately.

      Rui Carmo: WTF?

      --
      taken! (by Davidleeroth) Thanks Bingo Foo!
    2. Re:Look again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Much as I prefer Mathematica, there are still a lot of M-file related things you'd much rather do in Matlab.

  163. Re:try POVRAY - I second that! by lahvak · · Score: 1

    I was actually going to suggest Povray. Great tool for learning trigonometry and basic linear algebra.

    Or if you are too unpatient to mess with povray, get geomview. You get faster output, and it is more interactive.

    --
    AccountKiller
  164. Python, SciPy, and Numarray by LM741N · · Score: 1

    I would recommend Python, with SciPy, and Numeric Python or Numarray. Not only can be math be learned, but valuable programming skills can be learned in the process. Simply put, Python does not get in your way of developing algorithms, and supports complex numbers "out of the box"

    Rob.

  165. I use CALC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Start-Programs-Accesseries... Right there. gets the job done in .5 the time... :)

  166. OpenOffice.org Math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too lazy to sign in. How about along the lines of OpenOffice.org's Math? The latest development version is superb.

    ________________
    "Live as if you were living for the second time and had acted as wrongly the first time as you are about to act now." - V. E. Frankl

    1. Re:OpenOffice.org Math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good point. Mod parent up.

    2. Re:OpenOffice.org Math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too lazy to understand the question. Try pencil and paper.

  167. make sure it has MathML by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    the open format for mathematics is
  168. Re:OT: Learn the math, then use the tools by mako1138 · · Score: 1

    Definitely. Calculators in the classroom can be useful, but too often they can be used to cheat. For example, the TI-89 will do symbolic integration for you. A lot of people took advantage of that in my high school Calc class, and when the (no-calculator) test came around, well... I've been using a simple scientific, and it gets me through college physics just fine.

  169. This is not symbolic math. by Axe · · Score: 1
    Just another frigging language with some nice libraries.

    Maple and Mathematica are the only ones worth mentioning.

    --
    <^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
  170. Scilab - one of the best programs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is one of the best mathematics software packages available today: http://scilabsoft.inria.fr

  171. MuPAD for education by eric_hawk · · Score: 1

    MuPAD light and MuPAD for linux are free. It is a rich environment for symbolic math, numerical computing, and graphical visualization. It is, however, not open source software.

  172. Necessity of Computers? by pyite · · Score: 1

    The merits of using computers for this sort of thing reminds me of Dijkstra's famous statement: "Computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes." The statement is very applicable to math as well. I have a book on my shelf called Concrete Mathematics - A Foundation for Computer Science. It's all math, the fact that it's for computer science is irrelevant. You needn't a computer to make sense of it. Until kids have actually learned the math (and in high school, they really haven't), I don't see the need for computers.

    --

    "Nature doesn't care how smart you are. You can still be wrong." - Richard Feynman

  173. pencil and paper by js290 · · Score: 1

    High school kids should be cranking out simple mathematical proofs with pencil and paper. In the end, the analytical solutions (if possible) to very complicated engineering and science problems are formulated on paper. Computers are then used to calculate the solution as doing them by hand at that level is simply not reasonable. High school and most college students will not be solving such problems. Pull out a pencil, paper, and a good eraser.

    --
    "Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
  174. "Triple", you say??? by PaulBu · · Score: 1

    How do you calculate or code something that has triple integrals in it?

    usually, the case which requires triple integration is much easier to be thought of as 'integration over VOLUME", which can be converted to something else...

    I (after getting my M.S. in Physics in "Soviet Russia" -- literally -- and my M.S. in CS in the good old U.S.ofA.) was quite shocked to read rather recently that in the original Maxwell's equations there were, like, 21 of them -- one for each spatial direction, I guess... the ones I remember are 4, and the one I vaguely remember is just one (the relativistic one, with a square symbol instead of the upside-down triangle for nabla ... ;-) ).

    Paul B.

  175. Why Maple? by PaulBu · · Score: 1

    Just a serious Q for someone with 5-digit UID -- really, do you think Maple gets anywhere near Mathematica in symbolic capabilities? last time I checked a couple of yours ago I was still inclined to go with "the crazy Steve"'s creation... ;-)

    Not to mention the fact that I personally was friends with two real theoretical physicists (one in high energey, another one in solid state), and they BOTH had their favorite "integrals that Mathematica can not do symbolically", but them were extremely bright guys and they did spend time searching for the "wrong" one. _I_ myself encountered ones that Maple could not do in the course of day-to-day engineering work... ;-)

    1. Re:Why Maple? by JacquesC · · Score: 1
      Just a serious Q for someone with 5-digit UID -- really, do you think Maple gets anywhere near Mathematica in symbolic capabilities?
      Maple beats the #$%%^ out of Mathematica in differential equations solving and in solving systems of algebraic equations. For specialized Linear Algebra applications (ie structured matrices), it beats everyone else too. There are also a bunch of packages in Maple for 'research' type mathematics that Mathematica doesn't touch. But for integration, Mathematica cleanly wins. Which to go for really depends on what kind of work you will do with them. It is easy to come up with scenarios where either is 'clearly' better than the other. In other words, they are worthy competitors to each other ;-)
  176. Mod it up!!! by PaulBu · · Score: 1

    if it not a troll, it is a great story !!! (and I feel good about not being able to distinguish one from another, but I can actually imagine it to be true! ;-) )

    Paul B.

    1. Re:Mod it up!!! by Skjellifetti · · Score: 1

      Not a troll. Another story: Dad was buying some memory to beef up a home PC one time and remembered attending a conference in the early '70s where he overheard a conversation between Don Knuth and one of the senior Macsyma folks. The two were arguing about how fast memory prices would drop. As he paid for his RAM, Dad said that it turned out they were both off by a factor of 1000 or so.

  177. Bad Computers! by geomon · · Score: 1

    I've seen about a dozen posts that denounce integrating computers with math instruction. They have the following flavor to them:

    "Consarn it! When we was young'uns, we didn't need no newfangled addin' machin' to do our cypherin'!"

    Consider this: Computers are to computer science what telescopes are to astronomy. I know this canard is meant to emphasize that computers and telescopes are only a small part of the science in these fields. But ask a computer scientist to give up their computer or an astonomer to give up their telescope, and you may have a fight on your hands.

    Computers, calculators, etc. are just tools. Applied correctly, they can not only aid in the instruction of everything from mathematics and science in general, but they can also help learn a foreign language (Babelfish!), or aid in the diagnosis an automotive problem.

    For those who *truly* believe that computers hinder the education of mathematics, consider this: Would you prohibit the use of a hammer in teaching carpentry?

    --
    "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
  178. TI-89 by haut · · Score: 1

    The TI-89 is about the most useful device I've seen for most levels of math. It can do symbolic expressions well and won't be stumped in this department until late undergrad or graduate level work. It integrates, derives, and finds limits all symbolically or numerically. Plus its portable and you can use it on most tests (I used mine on the AP tests for Calc and Physics). I've had mine since sophomore year in HS and am now a senior in college If I lost it, I'd replace it instantly. As for the use pen and paper argument, I agree that these concepts need to be learned first without aid. Once learned, however, having a calculator to check your answers and do the dirty work for you allows you to do more complex problems correctly. TI-89s also do pretty print, so you can see if you got all of your parentheses right when doing long equations.

  179. Why software?-Fractal Antennas. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "One thing I learned is that knowledge of fractals is almost useless. Fractal compression doesn't compete very well with Wavelet compression (used now), and there's virtually no other area to which they have been applied successfully."

    Spoken like a true Slashdotter.

    http://www.fractenna.com/

  180. Why software?-GrayBeards. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I've also been a math tutor recently, and students aren't as baffled by technology as you seem to be."

    Maybe we should ask everyone what there ages are? How many "no technology" posts are coming from the graybeards category, and how many are from those who grew up with these tools?

  181. Re:OT: Learn the math, then use the tools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most math problems seen in the wild are really approximation problems.

    Basically everything done in engineering is of this nature.

  182. Fractals easy...Cave Math. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    " Yep, my point. I can't for some reason remember the cosine of 79.3 or whatever...

    But I could work it out. I'm not sure these kids could... "

    Maybe, but as science and technology advance. There are some things that are going to have to be left behind. Back in my day we had to find square roots by hand, and use lots of tables. Now you just push a button. What other items, on one end are we going to relegate to our technology, so that we can understand something new on the other end?

    1. Re:Fractals easy...Cave Math. by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      Your so wrong, if anything we are trying to find smaller and smaller things, knowing how the little things work is very important.

      Now, I could show someone how to implement a quick sort instead of a bubble sort, but wouldn't it be better if I explained to their how a quick sort worked so that they could implement btrees and leaf merging in other parts of their code.

      Other things like doing a a=(a2)+a; instead of a=a*5; or being able to build a computer out of lego wouldn't be possible if we all relied on calculators to do the work for us.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
  183. Derive by Oizoken · · Score: 0

    Derive is the program that was most usefull to me when being in highschool. I know it's a windows program but I don't think you'll have any trouble running it under Wine (especially the older versions). It's not as bloated as mathematica or mathcad or mathlab, but it's also not in their price range (much more affordable for a standard family: 99-199$). It also features integration with some Texas Instruments Calculators right out of the box.

    --
    Live, let _them_ die
  184. WIMS by azuredu · · Score: 1
    Take a look at WIMS. It allows you to use most major OS math softwares without battling with the syntaxes, via a user-friendly web interface.

    Many features are not directly offered by the individual software packages, OS or not. In particular the capability of generating sophisticated random exercises that can be used for open-question examinations.

    More is to come but our experience shows that the existing tools are quite sufficient for freshmen needs in math computation.

    WIMS can be accessed eith as a website, or as a local installation.

  185. Solid Foundations... by NousCS · · Score: 1

    The key to success in mathematics is solid foundations. Help your son master general math topics and he'll never feel limited in upper level classes. I suggest buying a cheap ACT, SAT, or GRE study guide and working through the math tests. This will help him discover problem areas. After that I recommend buying high quality books; hardback and if you need ideas check out what the colleges are using. Don't get bogged down with software - it will only become a crutch. A simple graphing calculator would likely be best. Remember: he won't be able to use anything more than that on tests, so he might as well get use to it now.

  186. Symbolic maths toolbox? by buchanmilne · · Score: 2, Informative

    Oh, geez, does no one understand the difference between a symbolic mathematics package (like Mathematica, Maple, or Calculation Center) and a numerical mathematics package (like Octave and Matlab)?

    There might not be such a great difference in functionality between Mathematic/Maple and Matlab, if you have the symbolic math toolbox (although the UI is totally different ...).

    Of course, I don't think Octave has a symbolic math toolbox or equivalent at present ...

    1. Re:Symbolic maths toolbox? by gnalle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The next question is whether or not a symbolic math package is useful at highscool/freshman level. Maple and Mathematica can look really flashy when you see them for the first time, but after half an hour you end up asking a question that can only be solved if you spend a lot of time looking through the manual, trying to understand all the list operations.(I don't know if Maxima is advanced enough to create this kind of problems) When using Matlab or Octave it is easier to guess what is possible and what is not. This way the students have a better chance of trying to do something on their own hand.So even if Octave cannot integrate it may still be the better education tool in a highscool computer lab. If I understand correctly the the poster just wishes to give his students a glimpse of what computers can do in mathematics. Therefore I would advice him to use Octave. By the way you can also find a great deal of very specialized java applet on the web. Perhaps they are more accessible to the students than Octave.

    2. Re:Symbolic maths toolbox? by dbateman · · Score: 1

      Try looking at the link, if you want a symbolic toolbox for octave..

      Cheers

      D.

    3. Re:Symbolic maths toolbox? by JacquesC · · Score: 1
      There might not be such a great difference in functionality between Mathematic/Maple and Matlab, if you have the symbolic math toolbox (although the UI is totally different ...).
      Well duh - that would be because Matlab's symbolic math toolbox is Maple.
  187. Scilab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Scilab is a free (as in free beer) matlab like software. Available for Unix, Linux, windows and MacosX. It is developped in INRIA, France.
    the last stable versions is 3.0
    many external contributions and documentation are available.

    The syntax is very similar to matlab and a matlab to scilab converter is also available.

    visit <URL :http://www.scilab.org/>

    It is taught in many universities as a free replacement for matlab.

    It is also used by researchers in scientific computation.

  188. SciGraphica by mamer · · Score: 1
    Allow me to introduce SciGraphica : "A scientific application for data analysis and technical graphics. It pretends to be a clone of the popular commercial application "Microcal Origin", supplying plotting features for 2D, 3D, and polar charts. It features opening several worksheets and plots to work with at the same time, fully-configurable plots using a control panel dialog, a completely WYSIWYG look and feel, and publication-quality PostScript output."

    Disclaimer, I'm the main developer, and I'm working actively in the new generation that's going to work on top of a plugin system, with the ultimate goal of integrating it into Gnumeric. Latest version of gtkextra, libscigraphica, and sg1 are currently in CVS. Hope you like it!

  189. Giac: (New) Open Source CAS by author of HP48 CAS by daniel.probst · · Score: 1

    Haven't tried it myself but probably worth checking out: http://www-fourier.ujf-grenoble.fr/~parisse/giac.h tml An Open Source CAS from the principle author of the HP 48/49 CAS. Available for Linux/Win/Mac/Arm.

  190. Planet Math encyclopedia by bit01 · · Score: 1

    One piece of open source math "software" I haven't seen mentioned yet is Planet Math, a math encyclopedia and community. Highly recommended and with a snapshot download if you need it.

    ---

    It's wrong that an intellectual property creator should not be rewarded for their work.
    It's equally wrong that an IP creator should be rewarded too many times for the one piece of work, for exactly the same reasons.
    Reform IP law and stop the M$/RIAA abuse.

    1. Re:Planet Math encyclopedia by bit01 · · Score: 1

      Broken slashdot link quoting Planet Math

  191. Engineering by ishmaelflood · · Score: 1

    Speaking for my field, engineering, I need careless students who get the concepts like a hole in the head.

    Engineers have to know the concepts /and/ be accurate.

    1. Re:Engineering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      That's why you're generally a dry and boring sexless bunch. Luckily, the people who get the concepts and don't care about the details are the ones driving the creation of new companies, ideas and products. I'm looking forward to hiring a bunch of mindless drones (engineers) for my company! (Oh and they won't be paid too much either, universities are shitting out engineers like diarrhea on a bad cruise ship)

    2. Re:Engineering by jbolden · · Score: 1

      How acccurate are you in doing square and cube roots by hand?
      How many of the 1/3rd and 1/4th of an angle rules of 3D geometry do you use?

      Accurate arithmetic at the levels that were common in the 16th century aren't needed today. Log based calculation (like the slide rule) and using calculus approximations for the angles forumas are common. What is considered "accurate" is a question of technology.

    3. Re:Engineering by Bush+Pig · · Score: 1

      > ... the people who get the concepts and don't care about the details are the ones driving the creation of new companies, ideas and products.

      What, kind of like the dot-con bubble? Oh, wait ...

      (Oh, it'd help if you learnt how to spell 'diarrhoea', too.)

      --
      What a long, strange trip it's been.
    4. Re:Engineering by ishmaelflood · · Score: 1

      Tremble tremble. ACtually, I'll be happy to work for your start-up. It'll cost you. I'll take a neato wage and quite a lot of your equity.

      If you are really, amazingly, good at /your/ job you can afford to ignore the details. But I bet if you ask any of your heroes, guessing you are young enough to have heroes, you'll find that they are shit-hot on details.

    5. Re:Engineering by ishmaelflood · · Score: 1

      Ok, let's do one as I type.

      cube root of my first ever phone number,

      33462^(1/3)

      ok, it's about ten, leaves us 33, so its about 30, that's pretty close, maybe its 35, 35 sqd is 1225, yes its less than 35, (I'm typing this at about half normal speed, working it out as I go) OK, do 35^3 properly thats 36900+6125 =43025, pause, OK, it's a bit less than 35. OK, switch to Taylors expansion, delta is 10000, call it thirty percent, knock 10 percent off 35 that'll be 32, oh that's easy 32768, delta is 1000, call it 3 %, add 1% to 32=32.3.

      32.3^3 is 33698

      OK, I haven't proved much, but in my career being able to get within 10% has usually been good enough, since the measured data is rarely that accurate. I do it with logs as well, dBs are my bread and butter.

    6. Re:Engineering by jbolden · · Score: 1

      OK so in about 6 steps you were able to get into within 250. 400 years ago people would have known their table of cubes so

      1) 32^3 = 32768 (~700 too small), 33^3 = 35937 (~2500 too big).

      2') They slope at 32^3 is around 1/3000 so (32+700/3000)^3 = 33490

      (which is within 30)

      Note there is almost no calculation yet and they do it in two steps. OK so was it worth knowing the table of cubes? Was it worth having slopes memorized?

      That's the point. I don't doubt you can do estimates. I claim you can't do them nearly as well or nearly as quickly as the people 400 years ago could. They recieved formal training in estimation and rapid calculation you were using ad-hoc methods and mathematical talent.

    7. Re:Engineering by ishmaelflood · · Score: 1

      Neat. Why didn't I do it that way?

      Because I don't know all the cubes, in fact hardly any. Which is what you were saying.

  192. YACAS by JBv · · Score: 1

    http://www.xs4all.nl/~apinkus/yacas.html

    I never used it myself, but people have recommended it to me as a (small) substitute for mathematica symbolic calculations.

    1. Re:YACAS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YACAS is cool, it is "just" a shell that does maths.

      It isn't pretty, but it does smart stuff quickly and is extensible(!)

      from fractions
      In> 1/2 + 1/3
      Out> 5/6
      through to predicate logic, and calculus.
      In> D(x) Sin(3*x)*Cos(4*x)
      Out> 3*Cos(3*x)*Cos(4*x)-Sin(3*x)*4*Sin(4*x)

      I think it is a very elegant and effective tool, but you have to be prepared to brave a command line! The syntax is simple, but not always intuitive.

      It will "simplify" expressions, and do series expansion, basically everything I ever did in maths from primary school to graduate level theoretical physics and mathematics.

      No big GUI, GNU Plot plugin for graphs, but graphs are well catered for elsewhere. You can use it as a language, but the real beauty is you can use it like a pen knife.

  193. Mathomatic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    <URL:http://mathomatic.orgserve.de/math/>

  194. I don't by DrHyde · · Score: 1
    I recommend that students are taught properly so that they can - given enough time - solve problems using paper, pencil, and log/sine tables, and understand the operations that are going on. Then, and only then, should they be allowed to use programmable calculators, computers, or what-have-you. Even then, using computers should not be required.

    If a teacher is setting problems which are too large to be solved by hand, then the teacher is setting the wrong problems. Maths lessons should be about learning how to do stuff, not about producing pretty pictures.

  195. Avoid computers... by knutal · · Score: 1

    Frankly, I feel the best way to learn math is the old way with pen and paper. The people who advocate computers as a necessity for learning math seem to be the ones who don't really know math...

    In Norway we had this major restructuring of the high schools, they are now allowed to use advanced calculators (which are almost like computers for that purpose). It has gone so far that if you answer math questions (really simple stuff, no actual need for a calculator) by explaining the key combinations you used on your calculator, the answer is as good as one solved by hand. No one seems to stop and think about what way proves that you really know this stuff.

    Perhaps this is also the reason why knowledge in math is on a steady downward trend in Norway, when compared to many other countries. The problem is that authorities do not want to go back to the old way of teaching math, because ''computers are the way of the future blah blah''....

    1. Re:Avoid computers... by bhima · · Score: 1
      Actually, I'd go so faw and say that learning how to use other devices like a sliderule, an abacus, and various old tables are also a good way to learn about math. They provide interesting insites on the relationships in math.

      Providing a correct answer using a calculator proves only that you know how to use it and pushed the right buttons!

      --
      Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
  196. OpenOffice.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OpenOffice.org has a formula editor, a charting application and a spreadsheet application.

  197. SalStat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The easy to use statistical analysis package. Written in Python & wxPython. See at http://www.salstat.com.

  198. Re:Octave? - Q: MuPAD vs. Octave by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How does Octaveforge's symbolic algebra module compare with MuPAD? http://research.mupad.de/

  199. Re:OT: Learn the math, then use the tools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    As for calculus, we did all our graphs by hand, sub-$200 graphing calculators weren't available back then.

    This one in particular I hope all classes continue to require. Making graphs by hand in calculus is an important aid in understanding. Making the graphs curve properly shows you understand first and second derivatives. (Remember terms like "concave up" and "concave down"?)

  200. maths by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The use of calculators and computers should be minimized at school. These days many kids use calculators all the time and never use their head to do simple maths. Calculators should only be used for very difficult maths. And the same for computers. It's rediculous that pupils should need computers now, while there was almost no computer at school 10 years ago. The only thing we achieve is a lot of kids not being able to do maths without electricity.

  201. Maxima, SciLab and Eigenmath by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maxima is probably the best free alternative to Mathematica. http://maxima.sf.net/
    SciLab is the free alternative to MathLab. http://scilab.org/
    EigenMath is very light and fast CAS, you can handle 7 different versions on single FDD (just kidding) :) I tried this not in details, but it looks promising http://eigenhead.com/
    Yacas is CAS too and the only one, which is available for SymbianOS. Soon version for Series60 will appear. If you want to be maximum portable, you can use PC and mobile version of same product. http://yacas.sf.net/
    All of these programs has versions at least for Windows and Linux, and some are available for MacOS and Symbian. Go ahead...

  202. OFSET is a good start point for FOSS and Education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hi dude :)

    i didn't read all of the comments and i apologize if someoneelse has already told you about ofset.

    http://www.ofset.org/

    Igghibù Zwandir

  203. Re:You want to run screaming? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's people like you that make me realise the gene pool needs some chlorine.

    GIMP is free. Photoshop costs more than I can afford to spend in a month.

    Thus, it seems to me that GIMP has a quantifiable advantage over Photoshop in that, as it costs nothing, it's value for money slightly outweighs Photoshop's value for money.

    Oh, it's got an interface you're not used to. Tough shit - I'd guess that a woman has, too, otherwise you wouldn't put so much effort into whining about it. A little work and you're away. It's really not that hard.

    Get it through your head that for everyday needs, GIMP does everything that most people need, and those of us who are professionals probably don't even need Photoshop anyway. One of my friends works as a photographic editor for a popular "exotic" site, and he uses only a couple of features that GIMP doesn't have. So, you better work it out soon, before someone realises that the name "GIMP" reminds them of you and changes it. Now run along, and go back to drawing your anime porn. It's the only pussy you'll be seeing for a while.

  204. Re:Octave is good (nice plots) by datalife · · Score: 1

    For nice plots, there is an extra package:

    Look at:
    http://epstk.sourceforge.net/epstk/

    Looks better than gnuplot

    --
    There are only 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary and those who don't.
  205. r and scilab by lejatorn · · Score: 1

    in case they weren't already there (it's too much of a pain to read other comments cuz you have to filter all the crap): For statistical computing: http://www.r-project.org/ For numerical computations in a user-friendly environment: http://scilabsoft.inria.fr/

    --
    -- We are Microsoft. Linux is irrelevant. Openness is futile. Prepare to be assimilated. --
  206. GCalc by Humble+Star · · Score: 1

    This is a plug for my project: GCalc.net. It's a graphing calculator written in Java so it'll run uniformly on any Java-enabled browser.

    It's used by many mathematics classrooms around the world for demonstrations and assignments.

  207. You want Mathomatic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mathomatic is very similar to maple but much lighter.

  208. Open Source Mathematics Software. by Shawn+Way+PE · · Score: 1

    There are a number of software packages in the public eye, but like everything else, you need to really define the purpose.

    If the purpose is just to get the right answer to a question, then Maxima or some other CAS systems will work. However, it is good to use to get the right answer and then go off and determine the method to get to the answer. (This was my failing)

    If the purpose is to truly learn, then do not use the computer as a crutch. In the real world, most of the time you will have this crutch, but if you are going into the engineering fields, licensure as an engineer requires you to use simple calculators, nothing more.

    Remember, on any computer system Garbage in = Garbage Out.

  209. Limited to 128x128 matrices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Educational" version sucks for image processing.

  210. Open Source Math Software For Education? by marc04 · · Score: 1

    I have used gnuplot for some very simple graphing of functions. For higher math gams.nist.gov provides a wealth of functions and subroutines for math solutions in c and fortran.

  211. computer learning vs. brain learning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've found that the use of computers for learning math creates a dependence that hinders learning more advanced topics in the future. For example, take two students studying calc, one learning with the aid of a computer, one without. The one learning without the computer is forced to memorize many of the common derivatives and integrals while the one with the computer can complete the same tasks more quickly by plugging in to a symbolic math program. A few years down the road, when they're learning vector calc, the student who's memorized the integrals can focus on vector calc, without being distracted by the effort to plug basic integrals into the computer.

    The common response to this is that all students should learn the basics first, then use the computer to speed up the repetitive task in the future. This works well in theory, but in practice, I find that students with access to computers rarely spend enough time learning and committing to memory before succumbing to the temptation of instant gratification by computer.

    Visualization by computer is also devastating to learning, as it robs the developing mind the ability to do visualization on its own.

    I've worked with older aerospace engineers who can approximate and visualize flights to the moon with pencil and paper. They can glance at such a problem and quickly determine if the solution is reasonable. On the other hand, an engineer trained by computer just plugs in the numbers and accepts the output, with little or no intuitive knowledge of the answer's reasonableness.

    1. Re:computer learning vs. brain learning by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 1

      Computer learning vs. brain learning. But if its learning, its learning. I detect bias.

      I don't suggest that students should learn the basics first and then use the computer to speed up repetitive tasks, but rather that computers could be used to teach vocabulary and concepts while doing the detail work for the student. Repetition and by-hand drilling would come after the motivation of seeing what can be accomplished (i.e., solved) with the toolset.

      Consider: very few people memorize logarithms any more. Lots of work, little return. Hmmm...

      Visualization is a wonderful example, by the way, but for exactly the other side of the arguement. I've worked with students who couldn't get through Solid State because they couldn't visualize well enough. The thing is that with practice one can develop the skills to visualize. One has to be able to see it, first, to be able to imagine variations. Exposure to visual models (ball and stick, etc...) eventually almost always helps.

      Of course "real men" don't use computers. And true "real men" don't use chalk, they draw with a stick in the sand. I guess uber-geeks should take classes in the dark, visualizing everything. Might take longer to get through an equivalent amount of material, though.

  212. spss open source clone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Our sociology department would move to the Linux platform immediatly, when there would be a open source equivalent of SPSS.

  213. Basic Economics by ghereheade · · Score: 1

    Let's assume the Cost to develop a good package = $1.25M (5 developers for one year)

    If Sales=1000000 units priced at $20 each, profit = huge
    ElseIf Sales=20000 you have a dotbomb size deficit

    But if price=$250, the break even (not counting the opportunity cost) is 5000 units. At 10k sales, you might have a decent return on investment.

    Given the volume of sales on niche software such as Math packages, that's why the sales price needs to be high for a company to invest in development.

    1. Re:Basic Economics by melted · · Score: 1

      I understand the math behind it. But still if you look at it the pricing is way up there, even considering this math. I do agree that they're not a charity, but personally I can't shell out a thousand bucks for matlab with dsp extensions.

  214. Matlab Does Symbolic Math by dunc78 · · Score: 1

    MATLAB has a symbolic math toolbox that you can also purchase. I don't know how this toolbox compares to Mathematica. Also, I don't know if octave has a similar symbolic toolbox or not.

    1. Re:Matlab Does Symbolic Math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      MATLAB has a symbolic math toolbox that you can also purchase.
      Yes they do. IT'S FROM MAPLE.

      Geez.

    2. Re:Matlab Does Symbolic Math by dunc78 · · Score: 1

      Geez, sorry I don't spend much time looking into which kernel Matlab uses to solve symbolic math problems. Also, I highly doubt, the teachers students would care about what Matlab calls to solve the problem. The point point still stands, that I the user can do symbolic math with "Matlab". In your original post, you seem to be saying that he won't be able to do symbolic math using Matlab. This may be semantics, but to me the tool Matlab includes any toolboxes availble. Whether or not a Maple kernel is doing the computation for me doesn't matter, as long as when I enter my problem into Matlab it gives me a correct answer.

    3. Re:Matlab Does Symbolic Math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The point point still stands, that I the user can do symbolic math with "Matlab".


      That is not the point. The user can do symbolic math in MatLab only with an add-on package manufactured by one of the companies the AC mentioned. That is, you basically have to buy Maple to do it. Recommending plain Octave or MatLab to someone looking for symbolic math is just stupid.
  215. Fortran by beliavsky · · Score: 1

    Students who like math and want to learn how to program should consider learning Fortran. There is a free compiler called g95 -- see http://www.g95.org/ . A clean subset of Fortran 95 called F, especially useful for teaching, is available -- see http://www.fortran.com/F/index.html/ . Yes, Fortran is an old language, and some people have written spaghetti code in it -- in what language have they not? But versions of Fortran since the 1990 standard have all the features needed to write clean, modularized code.

  216. Symbolic math - Maxima by gr8_phk · · Score: 2, Informative
    "The guy's looking for a symbolic mathematics package."

    Use Maxima. It does symbolic math very well. And if you're over in Linux, you can use Maxima as a plugin for TeXmacs for really pretty mathematical documents.

    I always site Octave and Maxima when people ask about math software. One for numeric and one for symbolic.

  217. Symbolic Software by Roger_Wilco · · Score: 1

    There are three major pieces of symbolic software: Maple, Mathematica, and GiNaC.

    Maple is great, especially for Calculus students. I consider Mathematica to be evil since they apparently bought out the major players in Reduce (an older symbolic math system still used in Russia), tried to buy out a major GiNaC developer, and send him threats when he refused. They're not as successful as Microsoft, but they might be giving MS's evilness some competition.

    GiNaC is a GPL'd library for symbolic computation. You interface with it using C++. It's particulary good for physics, but if you use it, you can make it do what you need it to do....

    The symbolic processing in Octave [-Forge] uses GiNaC.

  218. Re:OT: Learn the math, then use the tools by kryptkpr · · Score: 1

    Well.. yes, and no.

    If you sum an infinite (very large) number of terms, the Taylor/MacLaurin/Laurent series of a function will converege exactly at the point that you're expanding it around.

    The problem is that the infinite-series expantions of trig functions given in textbooks (sin being the sum of odd powers of x, cos being the sum of even powers of x, alternating sign on each term, and each term divided by x's power factorial) are expanded around x=0.

    However, as long as you're using the right approxomation (centered around a point near the one you're interested in; this would likely require you knew at least 3 series: centered at 0, -pi/2 and pi/2) they're good enough ;)

    (Math exam is on saturday, complex algebra course, deals heavily with infinite series expansions of functions)

    --
    DJ kRYPT's Free MP3s!
  219. Re:OT: Learn the math, then use the tools by mutterc · · Score: 1
    On the other hand:

    I learned calculus (at the college freshman level; my high school was way too rural back then for anything like calculus courses) from the OSU Calculus&Mathematica program and thought it was great.

    The advantage was being able to learn the principles of which you speak, without having to get bogged down in the mechanical aspects. For example, we'd be given a problem, we'd have to figure out the relevant equations and set up a system of simultaneous equations to solve (this is the real principle), then let the computer do the crunching to arrive at the solution.

    (We also had paper-and-pencil tests where we had to demonstrate knowledge of the principles and a little of the mechanical stuff).

  220. Squeak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a great tool

    http://www.squeakland.org

    It is cross platform, open source, and is the heart of a 3D environment called Croquet that will eventually supplant operating systems as we know them. But in the meantime, you have an integrated programming and graphing environment in which you can do anything you need as long as you have the equations and algorithms. And anyone going into math or engineering really does need to learn those equations and algorithms.

  221. great mailing list by hopeless+case · · Score: 1

    While the R manuals might not be good from the point of view of someone not willing to spend a lot of time with them, R has to have one of the best mailing lists out there. Last time I checked, there were 50 emails per day.

    I once had a question about how to get the plot command to do something and I had an answer from 3 different continents in under two hours. Often, the people answering you have a PhD in statistics.

    The R community is very enthusiastic, welcomes newcomers, and seems to be expanding at a great rate.

    There are a ton of libraries available for R at any of the CRAN (comprehensive R Archive Network) mirrors, such as:

    http://cran.stat.ucla.edu/

    While it is true that R loads data sets into memory and that can put an upper limit on the size of the data sets you might want to manipulate in it, it also has a great MySQL interface that lets you use the MySQL engine as a sort of virtual memory manager to, in some circumstances, break out of the memory limitation.

  222. Graphs by hand learns a LOT by gr8_phk · · Score: 1
    "As for calculus, we did all our graphs by hand"

    So did we. We learned to sketch graphs in calculus. Use calc to quickly find minima, maxima, points of inflection and zero derivatives (flat spots). Algebra to find zeros, asyptotes, and zero denominators. There was a list of like 10 features we were supposed to find - by the time you get all that stuff on there, the graph is actually quite good. You learn a hell of a lot more than sticking the equation in a calculator or computer and looking at the resulting picture.

  223. Mod parent up - very informed comment, re: Axiom. by mapnjd · · Score: 2, Informative

    I wrote my PhD thesis using Axiom's source - Axiom has had c. 300 man-years work done on it. It is an unbelievable piece of work.

    (It started in the early 1970's at IBM and was called Scratchpad, later Scratchpad 2 before being "sold" to NAG and rebranded).

    Axiom 2 included a new compiler and a new language called Aldor (which was going to be called A# but apparently Sharp objected to the name. WTF about C# then?) and ran on other platforms than AIX 3.x. Solaris, Irix and in the end even Win32.

    Unlike the "M'n'M" systems (Maple, Mathematica, etc). it is strongly typed and has its roots in Category theory and/or Universal Algebra - which is pretty much a necessity for and Algebra system to even make any sense. (OK, that's a loaded point - obviously Maple is a very good product without this basis).

    Some things are currently missing from Axiom: Aldor - the re-implementation of Axiom's language by Pete Broadberry et al.; HyperTex - the online documentation browser with hyperlinks predating HTML! which are all loaded from the source files); and I believe the pretty GUI bits for graphs, 3D trefoil knots, etc.

    Debian and Ubuntu users can just download it, the rest of us have to build it. (It takes about 2 hours on my 1133MHz box).

    It is good. If you can grab a copy of Jenks and Sutor's manual then even better.

    --
    Bus error in your favour. Collect 200kB
  224. Corolla, too by Migraineman · · Score: 1

    I was on assignment in Arizona with a Toyota Corrola as my rental car. I must say, the Corrola handles desert off-roading quite capably. I'm glad it has a minimal skid plate up front - it got used several times. Don't ever, ever, ever, buy a used rental car ... they really mean "used."

  225. One small thing by gr8_phk · · Score: 1

    A version or two back, I tried some operations on recursive matricies with Maxima. For example, construct a 2x2 matrix whose entries are 2x2 symbolic matricies. Take the inverse, you'll get a result but it is not correct. Note that the result should be the same as that of the 4x4. I'm not even sure this recursive definition of inverse is possible (that's what I was exploring), but Maxima gave me an answer with no warnings. I think the problem stems from having different operators for (matrix vs scalar) multiplication in Maxima. My other experience indicates it's a fantastic program.

  226. Wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought calc and trig were basic math.

  227. KnowledgeDoor: Unit Conversion of Expressions by theDoorMan · · Score: 1

    I'll plug my site, http://www.knowledgedoor.com/, which has some unique unit conversion capabilities. We can take mathematical expressions with embedded units and convert them to units you specify (like Google) but we can also go directly to metric units. That is, you can put in a mathematical expression and we will suggest metric units for it. We can also take two mathematical expressions and check for unit consistency or extract their base units and dimensions. We return detailed error messages in response to conversion problems and warn you when you use units with different variations (like the pint, calorie, etc.). We've also got some great base conversion of integer and fractional numbers.

  228. Dont by gymsocks · · Score: 1

    I am a graduate of the University of Illinois (Computer Engineering). The school had a pilot program of using Mathematica (developed in town- yes that's a throw down) to teach first year calculus. I didn't do it that way, I used a book, paper, chalkboard, and a professor. But I watched my roommate and several others I knew go through the course using the computer based course exclusively and simply learned very very little about basic calculus. They did the course on the computer, but took the regular exams on paper. By the end of the year he was still pausing on something like d/dx (x^2) (He eventually switched out of engineering altogether, by the way). These sorts of computer based tools are great, and particularly useful in many situations. But, having seen the results at my school, with the calculus class among others, they are terrible learning tools.

    As a recommendation to aspiring engineers, there's simply no substitute for the basic classroom environment, learning from a book, and understanding what you're doing, rather than having the computer figure it out for you.

  229. MuPAD by Raunch · · Score: 1

    "MuPAD is a mathematical expert system for doing symbolic and exact algebraic computations with almost arbitrary accuracy"
    Homepage. RPM
    German software that will run on windows and linux. It will run graphically and also in a terminal.
    Good Stuff.

    If I remember correctly, you need to get a key to be able to use more than 6MB but the key is free for non-commercial use.

    --
    George II -- Spreading Freedom and American values, one bomb at a time.
  230. Iverson's 'Calculus' and a J interpreter by William+Tanksley · · Score: 1

    Iverson, one of the developers of the APL and J languages, wrote a brilliant text on calculus which uses his notation/language, "J", to teach and compute calculus. The reason I call it brilliant is that it takes a completely different approach to calc than I've ever seen before, starting with polynomial approximations rather than limits, and including fractional derivatives and other amazing oddities. Oh, and in the process you'll learn J, which is worth the study -- you won't learn to program in it, but you'll learn to express yourself in it better than most programmers.

    Check it out!

    -Billy

  231. DrGeo for geometers sketchpad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're looking for a good "geometer's sketchpad" like program try drgeo

    http://www.ofset.org/drgeorg/

  232. Black backgrounds by Dlugar · · Score: 1

    *many* websites, which hardcode the textcolor to black, but assume you have a light background. grr.

    I'm not sure about Firefox (or whatever your browser of choice is), but with Opera you can have customizable style sheets that are interchangeable with a single hotkey press, so you can override their background colors and foreground colors to make it white-on-black. If perchance it doesn't work with some particular site, or you want to see their actual color scheme, you can switch to their style sheet with the press of a button.

    Just thought you might like to know.

    Dlugar

    --
    Computer Go: Writing Software to Play the Ancient Game of Go
    1. Re:Black backgrounds by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      I got sick of Opera charging for updates.
      I just threw up a little when I tried to use my
      Opera6 regcode on the current version. Early adopter, left in the dust. Ungrateful pigs.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  233. Matlab by eagleyezx · · Score: 1

    After years of doing C/C++ work, I had to take a MATLAB class as part of the freshman engineering cirriculum here at my college. And although I'm slowly being converted to a MATLAB liker, I still think its evil and so is the freshman engineering department behind it. Case in point, the lecture notes for the class cost $6.66. Coincidence? I think not.

    Never put off until tomorrow what you can do the day after tomorrow.
    ~Mark Twain

  234. Open Source Math Software For Education by KitB · · Score: 1

    Two excellent open source programs with a lot of mathematical and statistical power are R ( www.r-project.org) and MacAnova ( www.stat.umn.edu/macanova). Both are used in college level teaching of elementary and advanced statistical topics. R is almost a clone of S-Plus and MacAnova is in the same family but is not closely related. Both are extendable by writing functions or macros.

  235. R is Open Source by Rude+Clerk · · Score: 1
    Since you want both Windows and Linux, as well as support for physics and statistics in addition to mathematics, then I recommend R - http://www.r.project.org

    Easy to install and test out, and great package tools are onboard.

    Recent versions are outperforming Matlab in number crunching benchmarks.

    For a symbolic package, I personally prefer Maple to Mathematica.

  236. GraphCalc and Equation Grapher by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I like GraphCalc the best [3d, GUI!], but it doesn't do calculus or series.
    Equation Grapher does basic calculus in 2d, also with gui buttons.

  237. One humble calculus instructers opinion by agwookie · · Score: 1

    I have taught calculus at the college level for a few years and I have a few thoughts....
    Having taught off of matlab, maple, and mathematica I can tell you that NONE of them is instructive for beginning students. If you want to know the biggest problem that my students have, it is not calculus, statistics, or physics. They tend to understand the 'ideas' behind what they are doing. The area that they truly need to work is basic algebra and problem solving skills. Learning what a derivative is and the basics of how to find it are not difficult. Most of the students who fail, fail because they lack the skills to take a concept and apply it properly. Its like knowing syntax for a programming language but not having any idea how to write an algoritm that actually accomplishs a goal. Without these skills, the best software isn't going to help. That being said, understanding is enhanced much more with a symbolic language of which there have been a few good suggestions.

  238. For anyone interested in science... by Zx-man · · Score: 1

    ...without having to sponsor development of any corporations, it is high recommended to visit the following page:
    FSF's Scientific Software Directory

  239. List of Computer Algebra Systems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wikipedia has an extensive list of such software at the entry on Computer Algebra System.

    However (and this has been pointed by other users, but cannot be emphasized enough) I would NOT recommend high school students using these software packages for their school work. Any mathematics done by a high school student can and should be done with pencil and paper alone. Depending on computer software or programmable calculators is academic suicide - students must master such skills without the aid of a computer, if they wish to pursue advanced edubication in the mathematical sciences. If a high school student needs a programmable calculator in order to evaluate trig functions, limits, derivatives, and integrals, or to graph functions, then that student is going to have a very difficult time in higher mathematical education. I would go so far as to say that HS students who are allowed to use calculators should nevertheless abandon the use of a calculator - this will benifet them for their whole lives.

  240. Re:OT: Learn the math, then use the tools by wenchmagnet · · Score: 1

    How about the names of some good text books to get him started then? :-)

    Are there any decent online resources to jumpstart someone who is VERY rusty with mathematics?

  241. Educational software, not number-crunchers. by gurrufio · · Score: 0

    Fine, you all proved there are many good and free number crunchers out there, but I think what is being requested is educational software. Any recommendations?

  242. math software by chtank · · Score: 1

    I would start with MIT: http://ocw.mit.edu/index.html
    It's free and openly available to all. This is not actually software but rather much better, it is the MIT courseware.

    --
    Retired dinosaur, simple user, volunteer, guinea pig
  243. Axiom by plasmaroo · · Score: 1

    Interested how nobody's mentioned Axiom which is a general purpose CAS, most probably what the poster is looking for. It's a very mature calculation system with over 33 years of development (open sourced after the company decided that the product was not financially viable) that should do most if not all of the things the other systems such as Maxima can and more...

  244. mathematica by bltzfsck · · Score: 1

    You could, at one time, get a dual-boot copy of mathematica, full-featured, for a hundred and fifty bucks. If you were a student. My daughter did this when it was in version three, I think. A small additional charge gave you a license to run it under either windows or linux. Probably the best commercial software deal I ever saw...

  245. Axiom by kratt6 · · Score: 1

    Since it fits nice:

    Announcing Axiom 3.0 BETA

    This is to inform you that the free computer algebra system Axiom has now reached a very usable state.

    Axiom is a general purpose Computer Algebra system. It is useful for research and development of mathematical algorithms. It defines a strongly typed, mathematically correct type hierarchy. It has a programming language and a built-in compiler.

    Axioms homepage is at http://axiom.axiom-developer.org/

    Instructions to download Axiom for the various platforms, including Linux and MS Windows can be found at
    http://page.axiom-developer.org/zope/mathaction/Ax iomDownload

    The licenses under which the various parts of Axiom are released can be found at
    http://page.axiom-developer.org/zope/mathaction/Co pyright

    Clearly, Axiom is not free of bugs. For some of them, patches are proposed. However, these patches have not been applied yet. It is easy to do it yourself, as can be seen from
    http://page.axiom-developer.org/zope/mathaction/Ax iomDocumentationAndCommunity#bugsandpatches

    Since the wish list
    http://page.axiom-developer.org/zope/mathaction/Wi shList
    is long, we decided to provide bounties, i.e. small amounts of money, for people willing to implement some of these features. Among others, we need people who would

    * like to integrate a LaTeX-rendering engine into our Wiki http://page.axiom-developer.org/zope/mathaction

    * know how to resurrect the connection to the alternative compiler Aldor

    * know enough Lisp to make graphics work on MS Windows

    * implement some of the missing mathematical algorithms.

    Join us at axiom-developer@nongnu.org!