3 ms·
You have to think of Mathematica code as a specification of what your science does. As long as the expected output of the function is clearly defined, then your
by mvardin 11y ago
You have to think of Mathematica code as a specification of what your science does. As long as the expected output of the function is clearly defined, then your work is replicatable/verifiable (with enough effort) which makes it good science. I am much more concerned about occaisional places where the documentation of Mathematica is poor, than whether the soruce is viewable.
Open Source is just the ultimately precise but horribly inconvenient documetnation.
- rotorblade 11y agoFair enough. Perhaps my issue more correctly lies in the close-to absolute trust some of my colleagues have for mathematica. Since mathematica is so much faster and feature rich people use it and only very occasionally is it verified by some other software. I would prefer, and would make things easier and faster, if we had (verifiable code) + (one result), instead of (no code) + (one result) + (independent check of result), since only rarely one bothers/have the time to make the independent check. In some cases there is no option to make an independent check (e.g. "with enough effort" is usually too much effort).
- Chris2048 11y agoMathematica is not verifiable, it doesn't have the authority to define 'good science'. Code spec =/= proof.