> Which brings up the issue of making sure a paper knows what to tell
> Axiom. I suspect what might happen (and might be a good way of doing
> it) is that Axiom based papers will reference other Axiom based papers
> as dependancies for their paper. (I guess this is what you've had in
> mind Tim?) In some sense, perhaps it would even be possible to examine
> the implications of some alternative algorithm on other papers - i.e.
> are the results obtained using *new algorithm* in the papers that
> depend on *old algorithm* impacted by the change?
The pamphlet is intended to reference other pamphlets thru the
bibliogrphy. Pamphlets are intended to stay very close to the
what scientists know and extending it carefully. The next step
is to introduce semantic latex tags like \concept{ }
> Two questions:
>
> 1) Are you hoping to eventually integrate Magnus's capabilities into
> Axiom?
Yes. Magnus represents a competely new challenge because it contains
almost no algorithms. Almost everything is a procedure and may not
terminate. You kick off several algorithms in parallel and let them
compete for a solution. Infinite Group Theory is provably non-algorithmic
for almost every question.
>
> 2) Is there some systematic approach that should be put in place for
> how to go back and document what's already there? I.E., start with the
> most basic code and document one's way up the capabilities?
erm,... I retype the papers from pdf format to TeX format and then
include the code (making it a pamphlet). Almost no-one posts TeX
so there appears to be no choice. Fateman has been looking at
recognizers for file formats but a push to collect and store the TeX
files would save a tremendous amount of time. In the last year I've
retyped approx 500 pages of pdf to TeX.
Tim
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 09/04/20-12:55:05 AM Z CEST