Will Mathematica 3.0 replace LaTex?

Will Mathematica 3.0 replace LaTex?

Post by schil.. » Sun, 24 Nov 1996 04:00:00



Recently the people from Wolfram Research gave a demonstration
of the new Mathematica version in our town.

They seem to have a system now which should be able,
together with some macro package still to be written,
to simulate an interactive WYSIWYG*system.

Already now one gets beautiful typesetting, interactive formatting of
equations, on the fly reformatting when one edits, etc. And all is
WYSIWIG.

Is that the future of LaTeX? Will Mathematica replace LaTeX?

Is anybody already working on this?

 
 
 

Will Mathematica 3.0 replace LaTex?

Post by Dmitrii V. Pasechn » Tue, 26 Nov 1996 04:00:00



>Recently the people from Wolfram Research gave a demonstration
>of the new Mathematica version in our town.

Yep, reminded me of circus a bit... :-)

Quote:>They seem to have a system now which should be able,
>together with some macro package still to be written,
>to simulate an interactive WYSIWYG*system.
>Already now one gets beautiful typesetting, interactive formatting of
>equations, on the fly reformatting when one edits, etc. And all is
>WYSIWIG.

It's not the first system of this type...
Although they could claim anything -
like Wolfram inventing a new area of maths, or something like that...

Quote:>Is that the future of LaTeX? Will Mathematica replace LaTeX?

Yes, and Mathematica will replace mathematicians...

 
 
 

Will Mathematica 3.0 replace LaTex?

Post by Gary A. Churc » Tue, 26 Nov 1996 04:00:00



: >Is that the future of LaTeX? Will Mathematica replace LaTeX?
: Yes, and Mathematica will replace mathematicians...

Funny how some people beleive this. Mathematics, like art and science, is
a human endeavor; people, not machines, do mathematics. Machines can,
however, facilitate mathematicians in their task.

Gary.

--

 
 
 

Will Mathematica 3.0 replace LaTex?

Post by James Youngm » Tue, 26 Nov 1996 04:00:00




Quote:>Is that the future of LaTeX? Will Mathematica replace LaTeX?

Almost certainly.  Where did you say  I download its freely available source
code from again?

--
James Youngman       VG Gas Analysis Systems |The trouble with the rat-race
 Before sending advertising material, read   |is, even if you win, you're
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/227.html|still a rat.

 
 
 

Will Mathematica 3.0 replace LaTex?

Post by Sales Hyp » Wed, 27 Nov 1996 04:00:00




|>Recently the people from Wolfram Research gave a demonstration
|>of the new Mathematica version in our town.
|>They seem to have a system now which should be able,
|>together with some macro package still to be written,
|>to simulate an interactive WYSIWYG*system.
|>Already now one gets beautiful typesetting, interactive formatting of
|>equations, on the fly reformatting when one edits, etc. And all is
|>WYSIWIG.
|>Is that the future of LaTeX? Will Mathematica replace LaTeX?
|>Is anybody already working on this?

Have you not seen Scientific WorkPlace (WYSIWYG-type*for
MS-Windows, with WYSIWYG-type Maple and a link to Mathematica)?
Power Macintosh version due shortly. It *is* commercial software.
For our free information pack just Email us your postal address.
Cheers,

Christopher
--
Sales Hype, Scientific Word Ltd., UK
Tel: (0345) 660340; Intl: +44 (1779) 490500; Fax: (01779) 490600

 
 
 

Will Mathematica 3.0 replace LaTex?

Post by Stefan Schmie » Wed, 27 Nov 1996 04:00:00



> Already now one gets beautiful typesetting, interactive formatting of
> equations, on the fly reformatting when one edits, etc. And all is
> WYSIWIG.

> Is that the future of LaTeX? Will Mathematica replace LaTeX?

I do not think so. At least not in the areas where the specific
strengths of the TeX document preparation system are. I am talking about
preparing high-quality indices and table of contents.

I think you have to make a distinction between documents intended to be
on printed paper and docs for online viewing.
While in the second case you can use hyperlinks and search commands for
navigation, you have to do this by yourself in the first case.

The two systems are very well adapted to the different needs but not
meant to fulfill the other task.

By the way, did you ever notice that books are portable, interactive, do
not produce radiation, work almost indefinitely without electrical power
supply, and with a simple peripheral tool --Pencil(tm), now available in
enhanced version-- you can make notes everywhere you want ... ;)

--

                           regensburg.
                              netsurf.
                                   de>

 
 
 

Will Mathematica 3.0 replace LaTex?

Post by Paul Seel » Wed, 27 Nov 1996 04:00:00


Quote:> Already now one gets beautiful typesetting, interactive formatting of
> equations, on the fly reformatting when one edits, etc. And all is
> WYSIWIG.

> Is that the future of LaTeX? Will Mathematica replace LaTeX?

Oh wow! Can Mathematica typeset music and phonetics and whatever replacing
all these fine macro packages developed over the years? Is it it already
freely available via FTP? Since when has Wolfram decided to do more than
math and declare their software product available in the public domain?
Very interesting proceedings indeed!, ;-)
                                                      P. *8^)
--

   African Music Archive - Institute for Ethnology and Africa Studies
   Johannes Gutenberg-University   -  Forum 6  -  55099 Mainz/Germany
   Our AMA Homepage  in  the WWW at  http://www.uni-mainz.de/~bender/
 
 
 

Will Mathematica 3.0 replace LaTex?

Post by Richard J. Fatem » Thu, 28 Nov 1996 04:00:00




>Recently the people from Wolfram Research gave a demonstration
>of the new Mathematica version in our town.

>They seem to have a system now which should be able,
>together with some macro package still to be written,
>to simulate an interactive WYSIWYG*system.

Unfortunately, you seem to believe things that you are told
by what are called in the computer industry "marketing slime".

Quote:

>Already now one gets beautiful typesetting, interactive formatting of
>equations, on the fly reformatting when one edits, etc. And all is
>WYSIWIG.

A major difference between WYSIWYG editors and TeX-based systems is
that the latter are structure-based and thus one deals fairly
consistently with notions like "chapter heading" rather than "a bunch
of stuff that is in 14 point Helvetica bold".  One can, by changing a
definition or a macro or a setting early in the text, change the
meaning of subsequent text.  Many people take advantage of this.  With
most WYSIWYG systems, what you see is ALL you get.  Structure-based
editing, for serious large-scale work, is still interesting, and it is
not such a problem to "batch process", at a time when re-typesetting a
document is done at a rate of 10 pages/second e.g. on a 200MHz
Pentium. TeX still has many advocates.

Previous mixtures of TeX and WYSIWYG have been proposed and
implemented, including work by Bill Schelter (unfortunately only on a
Lisp Machine) called something like InFoR; something done at Berkeley
by Peehong Chen (VorTeX), and probably others too.  They didn't catch
on, but perhaps that is unrelated to technical matters.  A commercial
system combining WYSIWYG and TeX is Scientific Workplace.  I don't
know how large their market is, but it does much of what you think
Mathematica might do in the future. This starts with a rather full
complement of text, data-base, graphics stuff and adds active
mathematics (your choice of Maple or Mathematica) from menus or
keyboard selection..

Now, perhaps one can introduce into Mathematica 3.0 structures that
correspond to (say) \begin{section} .... \end{section}.  etc.  In fact
one could, in principle, translate all of TeX into Mathematica's
language, etc. etc. So, sure you can do it.  You lose some immediacy
when you do this, however.

Quote:

>Is that the future of LaTeX? Will Mathematica replace LaTeX?

TeX is available free and is supported by the American Mathematics
Society (etc) as a standard. It is used by many people as is.

Quote:>Is anybody already working on this?

Wolfram believes all mathematicians should disambiguate
sin(x)  by writing it as Sin[x]  "standard form."  I assume that
people at WRI would try to wean people away from old stuff to
new Mathematica stuff for TeX if they could.  Just like any
commercial enterprise trying to sell their product.
(No harm in that if they provide fair value, of course!)

If you want to look at this ball of wax, you will also have to
look at other publishing systems, other computer algebra systems,
and other communication systems like HTML 3.0, SGML, OpenMath, as
well as the notebook interfaces for Maple, Macsyma, Axiom, Theorist,
MathCAD, etc.

Some people think that a big negative in using Mathematica for TeX is
that even using Mathematica for mathematics leads to bogus results.
Downright incorrect. Wrong branches of functions, wrong signs, wrong
precision of numerical stuff.  Some people (Fortran-fans) just find
Mathematica about 1000 times too slow.  For those people, paying big
bucks for a system that they would not use and could not use for their
kind of work, just so you could typeset, is a major disadvantage.

I encourage the use of better typesetting technology in computer
algebra systems, but history favors the primacy of the text,
with links to active mathematics, as a model. While it is possible
to begin stuffing any and all possible text into a math model,
it might not be comfortable, and it might be a mistake to insist
that everyone buy a particular expensive program in order to
run on your paper  to read it.  

--
Richard J. Fateman

 
 
 

Will Mathematica 3.0 replace LaTex?

Post by Richard J. Kin » Thu, 28 Nov 1996 04:00:00


: Is that the future of LaTeX? Will Mathematica replace LaTeX?

Ten years ago I thought TeX would be withered by 1990, what with all those
WYSIWYG math editors coming for MS Word, WordPerfect, etc.

TeX is now more widely used and popular than ever.  Who knows how long it will
last?  There's no long-term history in computing to even base a guess on.  It
is hard to judge what is disposable and artificial in computer technology from
what is durable and genuine.  TeX is peculiar in that it has elements of both;
the language endures while the implementations and device drivers keep
changing and improving.

My hunch is that TeX (or perhaps an improved, backwards-compatible successor)
is a natural component of the software canon, and will endure for a long time.


6994 Pebble Beach Court                  Publisher, TrueTeX (R) brand
Lake Worth FL 33467                          typesetting software.
Tel (561) 966-8400                       See http://styx.ios.com/~kinch
FAX (561) 966-0962

 
 
 

Will Mathematica 3.0 replace LaTex?

Post by jp » Fri, 29 Nov 1996 04:00:00


Some like \texing, some like clicking,
Some like sharing, some like spending,
Some like(this) and others Like[That].

Summing it up, :-) here and $$$ there!

 
 
 

Will Mathematica 3.0 replace LaTex?

Post by Paul Rud » Fri, 29 Nov 1996 04:00:00


[snip]

 Richard> A major difference between WYSIWYG editors and TeX-based systems is
 Richard> that the latter are structure-based and thus one deals fairly
 Richard> consistently with notions like "chapter heading" rather than "a bunch
 Richard> of stuff that is in 14 point Helvetica bold".  One can, by changing a
 Richard> definition or a macro or a setting early in the text, change the
 Richard> meaning of subsequent text.  Many people take advantage of this.  With
 Richard> most WYSIWYG systems, what you see is ALL you get.  Structure-based
 Richard> editing, for serious large-scale work, is still interesting, and it is
 Richard> not such a problem to "batch process", at a time when re-typesetting a
 Richard> document is done at a rate of 10 pages/second e.g. on a 200MHz
 Richard> Pentium. TeX still has many advocates.

This isn't, IMHO, entirely fair. Many commercial WYSIWYG word processors
allow you to mark text as "Chapter Heading" (or any another format you
care to define) and you can then change the formatting of all text so
marked in one go.

Its not so much that you can't do structure-based editing with modern
WYSIWYG editors, but that people are not taught to use them in that
way.

[snip]

 
 
 

Will Mathematica 3.0 replace LaTex?

Post by Marcel Olive » Fri, 29 Nov 1996 04:00:00



> This isn't, IMHO, entirely fair. Many commercial WYSIWYG word processors
> allow you to mark text as "Chapter Heading" (or any another format you
> care to define) and you can then change the formatting of all text so
> marked in one go.

> Its not so much that you can't do structure-based editing with modern
> WYSIWYG editors, but that people are not taught to use them in that
> way.

WYSIWYG word processors are also not ideally suited for structure-based
editing.  In my good old Emacs I see what I get (structure-wise).

If I am interested in editing correct structure in Word, for example,
I don't see what I get in the sense that I don't SEE if my "code" will
behave correctly when I change the style sheet.  So it's not that
surprising that people don't use word processors in that way, because
it's difficult.

  Marcel

 
 
 

Will Mathematica 3.0 replace LaTex?

Post by Marcel Olive » Fri, 29 Nov 1996 04:00:00



> Is that the future of LaTeX? Will Mathematica replace LaTeX?

I am sure it's going to be a big temptation for
US American authors of beginning Calculus textbooks.

I am less sure if that's going to improve the
quality of Calculus instruction in this country.

  Marcel

 
 
 

Will Mathematica 3.0 replace LaTex?

Post by Paulius Stepan » Fri, 29 Nov 1996 04:00:00



> <snip>   Many commercial WYSIWYG word processors
>allow you to mark text as "Chapter Heading" (or any another format you
>care to define) and you can then change the formatting of all text so
>marked in one go.

>Its not so much that you can't do structure-based editing with modern
>WYSIWYG editors, but that people are not taught to use them in that
>way.

Although commercial word processors are tending towards a more structured
approach, there are still many gaps in this, resulting perhaps from the
essentially flat internal document model.  This can become very obvious
(in Word, for example) when trying to nest lists, or when formatting
different parts of a document in different ways.  What's more, vertical
formatting is dreadful in modern word processors (though gradually
improving).

The reason, I feel, why TeX is still so popular is that as soon as you
lift a hand from the keyboard to go for a mouse, productivity decreases.
Same thing happens when simply reaching for a CTRL or ALT key.  My
perfect*system would have two windows.  One would show the text
source that I'm typing;  the other would show a progressively updated
picture of what my current page will look like.  Admittedly, this doesn't
fit the TeX model very well, but immediate feedback would be a wonderful
thing!

        Paulius
--

~|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|~  These musings from:
~|~  It's a mistake trying to cheer up camels.  ~|~   Paulius G Stepanas
~|~  You may as well drop meringues into a      ~|~   Telstra Research Labs
~|~  black hole.                                ~|~   Melbourne, Australia.
~|~                Terry Pratchett  (Pyramids)  ~|~

 
 
 

Will Mathematica 3.0 replace LaTex?

Post by David Carlisl » Fri, 29 Nov 1996 04:00:00


Quote:> My perfect*system would have two windows.  One would show the text
> source that I'm typing;  the other would show a progressively updated
> picture of what my current page will look like.  Admittedly, this doesn't
> fit the TeX model very well, but immediate feedback would be a wonderful
> thing!

What you describe is the textures system. TeX for the Macintosh.
I've never used a Mac, so don't ask me anything about it:-)

David

 
 
 

1. Mathematica 3.0 Fonts

Hi there!

I'm a Mathematica user and recently I downloaded Mathematica's virtual
fonts from the Wolfram Research web site.

The font package includes the *.tfm and *.vf font files for TEX , *.fd for
LATEX and Type1 fonts for DVIPS. With all this i can produce a PS file from
the DVI which in turn comes from the TEX source.

My problem is to read the DVI using YAP (from Miktex 1.10b), since I don't
have the *.mf  or *.PK fonts needed by METAFONT or YAP respectively.

I know that I can generate Pk's from Type1 using ps2pk, but what I don't
know are the options required to create the fonts needed by YAP.

In principle METAFONT writes a transcript of the error message in a file
mfput.log , but I can't find it anywhere !!!

2. Syncronization of All Contact Information

3. TeX/Mathematica for Mathematica 2.0

4. iPAQ 3870 BT LAN Access

5. replace lasy* with wasy* in LaTeX?

6. Experiences with NAG Gateway Generator?

7. (Q) Replace {\em foo} by [foo] in LaTeX?

8. Forsale: Atari SC1224, SM124 or Trade

9. replacing math font in latex?

10. Newbie question - mathematica fonts in Latex

11. converting mathematica notebook to latex

12. Mathematica In & Out in LaTeX

13. possible Mathematica/Latex FAQ