🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <17769@glacier.STANFORD.EDU>, jbn@glacier.STANFORD.EDU (John B. Nagle) writes:
>       Now a algebraic simplifier for expressions written as a TeX macro
> would be really somthing.  This would add a whole new dimension to the
> concept of "pretty-printing" of mathematical formulae.

I have not had a crack at using S. Wolfram's _Mathematica_, but I 
understand that it either does or will lead us to something like
``living'' math texts. It does this by presenting color graphics
to illustrate formulae, in such a way that the reader does not
have to settle for a static text. Anyone out there know more? And
does Mathematica know about TeX/LaTeX?

How many times I have longed for a computer smart enough to ``understand''
applied math literature. Since paper-based journals have space limits,
most authors have to severely compress their models, methods, etc., to
the very highest-level description. Therefore days, weeks, or months
must pass from the time I read such a paper until I can either write or
beg and port code to implement the model, method, etc. on my own
machine. However, the translation is entirely mechanical---i.e.,
expanding the high-level description into code is only detail work
(most of the time :-). So why can't I simply hand the paper to my
computer and say, ``Run this.''

In the old days people published things you could use immediately
(plots, nomograms, closed-form solutions, etc.). Now everyone
announces their latest interactive, object-oriented, globally
optimizing gizmo, but we still have no universal way to really
disseminate such results. This retards our ability to understand,
benefit from, and review each other's work.

Dan Mocsny