Re: Adding a generic mathematical library

[Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org>]

Christopher Dimech wrote:

> To get what you want, you have to agree with something.
> Otherwise you get the resistance you have witnessed. I am in
> agreement with Eli on this thing. We should first discuss
> its scope and design.

Maybe there is some field of math that isn't taken by all
mighty Calc already?

That can happen. Scope would then be that. Design would be to
program a bunch of functions, operators, constants, combine
into popular formulas and so on.

I think the names are the only thing one has to agree on, what
to call everything. Is there and ISO document to tell you?

If not, one could agree to use some hefty Anglo-American
textbook with a good reputation and a modern edition and then
just consistently do whatever they do.

Most important thing is to have a plan, a good plan, and then
stick to it.

In general quite clearly: "Straight math" (Linear Algebra) is
easier to program than the derivative, limes functions,
probability distributions, and such stuff - also integers, as
in Discrete Math, are easier than floats (Analysis).

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal