This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
That’s the argument of Peter Liljedahl, a professor of mathematics education at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, who has spent years researching what works in teaching. These are the students who end up hitting a wall when math courses move from easier algebra to more advanced concepts in, say, calculus, he argues. “At
One can view a symbolic expression such as f[g[x][y, h[z]], w] as a hierarchical or tree structure , in which at every level some particular “head” (like f ) is “applied to” one or more arguments. So how about logic, or, more specifically Boolean algebra ? We’ve looked at axioms for group theory and for Boolean algebra.
And, yes, when you try to run the function, it’ll notice it doesn’t have correct arguments and options specified. As an example, here’s a small piece of code (from my An Elementary Introduction to the Wolfram Language ), shown in the default way it’s rendered in notebooks: But in Version 13.3 And now in Version 13.3 But in Version 13.3
In addition to whole courses, we have “miniseries” of lectures about specific topics: And we also have courses —and books—about the Wolfram Language itself, like my Elementary Introduction to the Wolfram Language , which came out in a third edition this year (and has an associated course, online version, etc.): is PositionSmallest.
For example, we know (as I discovered in 2000) that (( b · c ) · a ) · ( b · (( b · a ) · b )) = a is the minimal axiom system for Boolean algebra , because FindEquationalProof finds a path that proves it. And we can trace the argument for this to the Principle of Computational Equivalence.
In the end—after all sorts of philosophical arguments, and an analysis of actual historical data —the answer was: “It’s Complicated”. I’m particularly interested in how people develop through their lives—leading me recently, for example, to organize a 50-year reunion for my elementary school class.) OK, so that’s a lot of projects.
Events are like functions, whose “arguments” are incoming tokens, and whose output is one or more outgoing tokens. In physics, those “topological phenomena” presumably correspond to things like elementary particles , with all their various elaborate symmetries. One is so-called Böhm trees.
Events are like functions, whose “arguments” are incoming tokens, and whose output is one or more outgoing tokens. In physics, those “topological phenomena” presumably correspond to things like elementary particles , with all their various elaborate symmetries. One is so-called Böhm trees.
My first big success came in 1981 when I decided to try enumerating all possible rules of a certain kind (elementary cellular automata) and then ran them on a computer to see what they did: I’d assumed that with simple underlying rules, the final behavior would be correspondingly simple. Back in 1987—as part of building Version 1.0
Then McCarthy started to explain ways a computer could do algebra. It was all algebra. And the only conclusion we can arrive at is that a person can’t do this much algebra with the hope of getting it right.” Richard Feynman and I would get into very fierce arguments. And he says “There’s a problem. It’s just my nature.
An instantaneous moment (or perhaps a single elementary time from our Physics Project )? Almost any algebraic computation ends up somehow involving polynomials. can be manipulated as an algebraic number, but with minimal polynomial: ✕. Oh, and then what granularity of time are you talking about? ✕.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 28,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content