| bio | website | facstaff.unca.edu/mcmcclur |
|---|---|---|
| location | Asheville, NC | |
| age | ||
| visits | member for | 1 year, 4 months |
| seen | 36 mins ago | |
| stats | profile views | 1,160 |
I've been a professor of mathematics at The University of North Carolina - Asheville since 1997. I've been using Mathematica since I started graduate school in mathematics at Ohio State in 1989. At that time, we used version 1.1 (as I recall) to teach calculus in our Calculus and Mathematica classes. I've used it pretty much continuously in my teaching and research since then.
In addition to my posts on SE, you can find some of my papers, teaching notebooks and other Mathematica based oddities strewn throughout my website.
In recent years, I've also worked as a part-time consultant to Wolfram Research focusing on development of mathematical content for WolframAlpha.
|
21h |
comment |
Having used Mathematica as a “gateway” language, where to from here? I'm not the downvoter, by the way, and I don't generally approve of downvotes without explanation. I'd probably upvote with reasonable explanation, for that matter. |
|
21h |
comment |
Having used Mathematica as a “gateway” language, where to from here? Could you expand on this, particularly, in light of some of the comments on the original post? I don't doubt that you have value to add; I'm specifically curious how your thesis code might have benefitted from Python? |
|
22h |
comment |
Having used Mathematica as a “gateway” language, where to from here? @Stefan Well, there's no question that Perl's original design was quite domain specific and it's expanded name reflects that. (That's why I referred to its "originally intended domain".) Of course, it's grown since then and it's fair to ask how well it's done at expanding into other domains. I honestly don't know, as I've not used it a lot since the mid-90s. In this regard, I think your example is not too good. |
|
22h |
comment |
Having used Mathematica as a “gateway” language, where to from here? To be clear, I rather like Perl for some of the same reasons that I like Mathematica. Both of them allow you to specify a program using a very small number of symbols and figuring out the way to do so can be quite fun. I used Perl quite a bit back in the mid 90s when I was first trying to seriously interact with students over the web. At that time, CGI via Perl or C was the only way to go. However, both Perl and Mathematica are rather domain specific and I don't know that I'd use either too much outside of their originally intended domain. |
|
1d |
comment |
Having used Mathematica as a “gateway” language, where to from here? I guess your primality tests are based on the regular expression primality checker. Cute, but I'm not sure that's the right code to convince the uninitiated that perl is readable. :) |
|
May 17 |
comment |
Solving an ODE in power series @J.M. Yes, that's definitely correct. Holonomic functions, in fact, satisfy linear ODEs by definition, which is exactly why I asked for an example, rather than post an answer. |
|
May 17 |
comment |
Solving an ODE in power series @J.M. Not true! It's buried in the Holonomic context |
|
May 17 |
comment |
Solving an ODE in power series Yes, there's a way. Do you have an example problem? |
|
May 13 |
answered | Importing images from the web using ImportString & URLFetch |
|
May 11 |
comment |
3D orbits and inaccuracy over time Very cool looking! I wonder how you might edit it to get your planets to interact with one another? |
|
May 11 |
reviewed | Approve suggested edit on 3D orbits and inaccuracy over time |
|
May 11 |
answered | Convert Graph to Graphics |
|
May 6 |
comment |
Implementing the Farey sequence efficiently @Dror Well, you did ask for a functional approach and this certainly provides it. Also, you never indicated that speed was your primary concern and I see no immediate reason that it should be. The primary advantage of this approach that I see is the clarity provided by its immediate connection to the mediant. By removing the DeleteCases step, for example, we essentially recover the Stern-Brocot tree. |
|
May 6 |
comment |
solving a cubic equation I agree that it should probably be a comment but I couldn't help upvoting, as I think it's an interesting point. For specific irreducible cubics, you can often (always??) express the roots in this form using ComplexExpand. For example: ComplexExpand[Re[z /. Solve[z^3 - 3 z - 1 == 0, z]]]. In this case, the Re simply removes the imaginary parts, which we know to be zero anyway. |
|
May 6 |
reviewed | Approve suggested edit on Parallelizing is much slower than single kernel evaluation? |
|
May 6 |
comment |
Custom File Palette @beli I think I pushed him over the top! |
|
May 5 |
comment |
Confused about Unevaluated I agree with this analysis. I guess this behavior of Unevaluated is exactly why we use it in a case like Length[Unevaluated[1+2+3]]. An even simpler example would be f[x_]=x^2; f[Unevaluated[2]]. |
|
May 5 |
comment |
Confused about Unevaluated Now, I'm not claiming to fully understand the whole deal here (which is why I wrote a comment, rather than an answer). I'm simply stating that Table and Map have different evaluation procedures and that's what leads to this behavior. Also, functions like Unevaluated and attributes like HoldAll are intimately connected with these issues. |
|
May 5 |
comment |
Confused about Unevaluated Yes. Try your "two kinds of evaluate" with Unevaluated[1+1] as input vs Evaluate[Unevaluated[1+1]] as the input. |
|
May 5 |
comment |
Confused about Unevaluated I'm just saying that Table evaluates it's arguments in a non-standard way and (by implication) that Map does not. Thus, when the documentation says that Map "constructs a complete new expression and then evaluates it", it does so in the standard way. Thus, Map[Unevaluated,{1,2}] produces the same output as {Unevaluated[1],Unevaluated[2]}. |