Slashdot Mirror
Open Source Math
An anonymous reader writes "The American Mathematical society has an opinion piece about open source software vs propietary software used in mathematics. From the article : "Increasingly, proprietary software and the algorithms used are an essential part of mathematical proofs. To quote J. Neubüser, 'with this situation two of the most basic rules of conduct in mathematics are violated: In mathematics information is passed on free of charge and everything is laid open for checking.'""
I am no a mathematician but surely if you're going to submit a computer aided proof you must submit a full copy of the program. The are all manor of subtle mistakes that can be made in a program that could cause serious problems with a proof.
Suppose you inspect the source and find it to be faultless, how can you trust the compiler. And if you hand compile the compiler, how can you trust the CPU? Surely it's turtles all the way down.
In many ways, establishing the correctness of a computer-aided proof is very much like security engineering. You want to verify that the whole software stack is operating correctly before you can trust the result. Having the source-code is a pre-requisite to this exercise.
Changing to topic slightly, I was particularly heartened to see that the open-source mathematics framework being developed one of the authors of the article involves the use of Python.
My immediate thought when seeing the title to the article was "Python is the answer." When some problem or algorithm intrigues me the first thing that happens is that I reach for the Python interpreter.
Python seems to deftly marry precision with looseness. When code is laid out in Python I find it is easier to see what it's trying to do than other languages. It's aesthetic qualities aside, it supports a number of features out of the box which I imagine would be ideal of mathematicians. To list a few, it's treating of lists and tuples as first class objects, support for large integers, complex numbers, it's ability to integrate with C for high-performance work.
I often think of Python as "basic done right" and it's ideal for mathematicians (or anybody) who don't want to think about programming but the problem at hand.
Simon
The article (which is actually a PDF, thanks for the warning) uses proprietary fonts (LucidaBright). While it was typeset with TeX (open), only the PDF (closed and uneditable) is provided.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Algorithms cannot be protected by copyright, only by patents and trade secrets. If the algorithm is a trade secret, it has no place in a mathematical proof because it cannot be shared with the world and verified or refuted by anyone interested in doing so.
If the algorithm is part of a patented device or piece of software, its use in a mathematical proof is not subject to the patent on the grounds that pure math cannot be patented.
If journals and academic societies refused to publish proofs based on trade secrets and insisted on a covenant not to enforce the patent against researchers doing purely mathematical research or those who publish the research, the problem would mostly go away. An alternative to the covenant is congressional action or a court ruling that says with absolute clarity that mathematical research is exempt from math-related patents directly related to the research.
--
Personally, I'm against all such patents but I'm not holding out hope that Congress or the Courts will agree with me.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Why does this keep coming up on ./? What is wrong with PDF? It's undeitable, sure, that's kind of the point. However, the spec is accessible, and there are plenty of open readers, e.g. xpdf and ghostscript.
Really, what is wrong with PDFs and why should they require a warning?
By the way, all scientific papers are disseminated by PDF.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
In other cases, like the proof of the four color theorem, it seems like the source code is important to see, but not essential. Pseudocode should suffice. Providing pseudocode is akin to saying things like "Simplifying expression (1) yields..."; we don't have to provide EVERY step, but with pseudocode you have enough to determine whether the algorithm itself will work. Checking the source code beyond that is akin to checking someone's algebra.
Just because we don't know how the program arrived at the steps it did doesn't mean that we shouldn't use it; we can usually check the steps. After all, the human brain has been a closed-source proof machine for thousands of years, and no one has complained about that :) Just require pseudocode in computer aided proofs, and it should be sufficient.
I would think that hardware errors would be an even worse problem, like the old Pentium bug, since they are so insidious.
Well, don't get your panties in a big bunch over this. Humans make mistakes in proofs all the time, many of which are not caught before publication (and many not even for some time afterward).
Also, although it's not in the field of theorem-proving, the mathematical package I use the most -- MATLAB -- is a million times better than the open source equivalent, Octave. I'm not going to use Octave simply because I can inspect the code, because who does that? An error in a software proof would be pretty obvious if it were checked with another independently written piece of software. With MATLAB, I can write my own alternative algorithm using C if I need to, though with significantly more effort and annoyance.
Furthermore, mathematicians are smart people who are fully aware of the implications of their assumptions, probably moreso than any other group of people I have encountered. Reading the set of comments accompanying this article, saying what mathematicians should and should not consider a proof, is like watching monkeys trying to use a can opener.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
I'm not going to disagree with the "laid open" part, but the "free of charge" nonsense is just typical marxist university professor hypocrisy.
Let's price some math texts:
Or try a few titles which might be a little more familiar to Slashdotters:
Princeton, which has the finest mathematics department in the world [or at least had the finest mathematics department in the world, before Harold Shapiro & Shirley Tilghman decided they wanted to turn the
The issue is not whether software companies should make their source code open - the real issue is should mathematicians accept proprietary applications as proof of theorums?
As pointed out in the editorial, software developers make mistakes, and this is true regardless of whether that developer is a proprietary software vendor, or a free/open source software project. There is one key difference however, the validity of any given proof can be determined independently when using free/open source code by the very nature of the product (availability of source code). There is no validation for proprietary software beyond the assurances of the company involved.
When mathematic theory becomes applied mathematics (such as the creation of buildings, bridges, aircraft, or thermonuclear devices), which proof would you prefer to hang your life upon - Microsoft's guarantee, or independent verification and peer review? This becomes ever more critical as we create more complex systems that can not be easily verified by hand, yet rushed into applied use by the expediency/efficiencies they deem to provide.
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
On the subject of open source math, Axiom is an interesting 30 years-and-running project started (I believe) at IBM research that recently became open source. A new branch of the project started recently: http://www.open-axiom.org/ and has several people actively working on it. It differs perhaps most significantly from Maple and Mathematica in its use of strong static type checking. This allows its library creation language to be compiled into C, which gets compiled and loaded back into the interactive top-level. Altogether, a very neat system and a gigantic resource.