Timeline for Computer algebra errors
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 25, 2010 at 6:17 | comment | added | Junkie | I personally agree wholeheartedly here. Science grows on independent confirmation, as almost any part of the supply line can fail (software, compilers, hardware). As Mike Rubinstein put it (I think): Why do we trust software to compute zeros of $L$-functions? Well, we keep tweaking the program (that is, fixing bugs) until it gives $14.1347...$ for the Riemann $\zeta$-function, and then the same for all other cases... In other words, the answer it "correct" when it matches our expected reality. :) | |
| Feb 25, 2010 at 15:17 | comment | added | kakaz | Human Algebra Systems often implements some correction algorithms based on redundancy which works with analysing analogies and symmetries. As far as I know no CAS implement something which may find error because result is not so symmetric that expected... | |
| Jan 13, 2010 at 7:34 | comment | added | David Lehavi | Human errors when doing math tend to be very different then human errors when writing computer programs. The most famous example to how hard it is to write a correct program is binary search (see e.g. Bentley's "programming pearls", or Knuth TAOCP). It's a completely trivial algorithm, but try to code it - I promise you you'll get it wrong. | |
| Jan 13, 2010 at 4:33 | comment | added | Kevin O'Bryant | Are you more trusting of Human Algebra Systems? | |
| Jan 12, 2010 at 13:09 | history | answered | David Lehavi | CC BY-SA 2.5 |