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.'""

10 of 352 comments (clear)

  1. Lol by Matt867 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Thanks for the article, now some crazed company is going to try to copyright math.

    1. Re:Lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I am going to copyright 0 = 1.
      Any software that contains i = i+1 must license my math.

  2. Python is part of the answer by Ckwop · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

    1. Re:Python is part of the answer by snarkh · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I have seen from personal experience, how a compiler error (some sort of incorrect optimization) led to a subtle difference in the results of a simple classification task.

      The insidious thing about that particular result was that it looked very similar to the correct. In fact the difference would not have been found if two people did not run different versions of code independently (and more or less coincidentally) arriving to slightly different error rates.

    2. Re:Python is part of the answer by nwbvt · · Score: 5, Informative

      I used Python fairly extensively in my number theory course back in college, it did the job fairly well. Its support for large integers was especially important for that class. And the fact that it was very familiar to me (I was a double major in CS and math), it was very easy for me to crank out an algorithm in it. However, most of the book's examples were in Mathematica, which I ended up getting as well. It was a neat tool, but now that my student license has expired and I don't feel like spending a few grand on another license, everything I wrote in that is useless. However I can still pull out my old Python programs and see what it was I was doing.

      --
      Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
    3. Re:Python is part of the answer by El_Isma · · Score: 5, Informative

      Let me recommmend you Maxima http://maxima.sourceforge.net/
      It's a GPL Computer Algebra System and it's in active development. I use it all the time.

  3. Re:speaking of proprietary by Main+Gauche · · Score: 5, Funny

    "While it was typeset with TeX (open), only the PDF (closed and uneditable) is provided."

    Indeed. Now we are left wondering whether the TeX code is buggy. Like maybe an extra character accidentally slipped into the file.

    therefore mathematics software should %not
    be open source!

    Now we'll never know.

  4. Maths...... by Seoulstriker · · Score: 5, Funny

    Look around you. Look around you!

    That's how I learned maths in high school.

    --
    I am defenseless. Use your button. Mod me down with all of your hatred.
  5. Math is "Free", MY LILY-WHITE ASS. by mosel-saar-ruwer · · Score: 5, Insightful
    In mathematics information is passed on free of charge and everything is laid open for checking.'

    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:

    Atiyah & MacDonald, Commutative Algebra; $57.54, http://www.amazon.com/dp/0201407515/

    Eisenbud, Commutative Algebra; $41.30, http://www.amazon.com/dp/0387942696/

    Hartshorne, Algebraic Geometry; $59.10, http://www.amazon.com/dp/0387902449/

    Elements de Geometrie Algebrique; out of print, http://www.amazon.com/dp/3540051139/

    Rudin, Real and Complex Analysis; $142.50, http://www.amazon.com/dp/0070542341/

    Rudin, Functional Analysis; $137.16, http://www.amazon.com/dp/0070542368/

    Dym & McKean, Fourier Series and Integrals; $85.00, http://www.amazon.com/dp/0122264517/

    Sugiura, Unitary Representations and Harmonic Analysis, 2nd Edition; Out of Print, http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=Sugiura&tn=Representations[Someone wants $495.00 for the first edition.]

    Or try a few titles which might be a little more familiar to Slashdotters:

    Knuth, The Art of Computer Programming, Volumes 1-3 Boxed Set; $145.00, http://www.amazon.com/dp/0201485419/

    Sedgewick, Algorithms in C++, Parts 1-5; $93.00, http://www.amazon.com/dp/020172684X/

    Cormen, Leiserson, Rivest & Stein, Introduction to Algorithms; $61.88, http://www.amazon.com/dp/0262032937/

    Aho, Ullman & Hopcroft, Data Structures and Algorithms; $53.20, http://www.amazon.com/dp/0201000237/

    McLachlan, Discriminant Analysis and Statistical Pattern Recognition; $90.40, http://www.amazon.com/dp/0471691151/

    Haykin, Neural Networks: A Comprehensive Foundation; $120.12, http://www.amazon.com/dp/0132733501/

    Duda, Hart & Stork, Pattern Classification; $117.00, http://www.amazon.com/dp/0471056693/

    Fukunaga, Introduction to Statistical Pattern Recognition; $74.40, http://www.amazon.com/dp/0122698517/

    Bishop, Neural Networks for Pattern Recognition; $82.81, http://www.amazon.com/dp/0198538642/

    Bishop, Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning; $66.54, http://www.amazon.com/dp/0387310738/

    Higgins, Sampling Theory in Fourier and Signal Analysis: Volume I; $171.60, http://www.amazon.com/dp/0198596995/

    Higgins & Sten, Sampling Theory in Fourier and Signal Analysis: Volume II; $264.00, http://www.amazon.com/dp/0198534965/

    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

    1. Re:Math is "Free", MY LILY-WHITE ASS. by William+Stein · · Score: 5, Insightful
      > In mathematics information is passed on free of charge and everything is laid open for checking.'

      > I'm not going to disagree with the "laid open" part, but the "free of charge" nonsense
      > is just typical marxist university professor hypocrisy.

      Taken out of context the quote might not make sense to you. The full quote from Neubuser is:

      You can read Sylow's Theorem and its proof in Huppert's book in the
      library [...] then you can use Sylow's Theorem for the rest of your
      life free of charge, but for many computer algebra systems license
      fees have to be paid regularly [...]. You press buttons and you get
      answers in the same way as you get the bright pictures from your
      television set but you cannot control how they were made in either
      case.

      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. Not applying
      these rules to computer algebra systems that are made for mathematical
      research [...] means moving in a most undesirable direction.
      Most important: Can we expect somebody to believe a result of a
      program that he is not allowed to see? Moreover: Do we really want to
      charge colleagues in Moldova several years of their salary for a
      computer algebra system?


      When Neubuser says that mathematics is "free of charge" he means that
      one can use theorems one reads without having to pay to use those theorems.
      He is of course not at all claiming that publishers do not charge for
      books and papers that contain mathematics. Put simply, if I want to use
      the "FactorN" function in Mathematica, I have to pay for the privilege
      every time I use it. If I want to use the theorem that every integer
      factors uniquely as a product of primes, then I never have to pay, even if
      I am using that theorem in a published proof.

        -- William