|Thread title||Replies||Last modified|
|Delete QtiPlot||1||20:29, 16 December 2018|
|What's about Math?||4||21:23, 27 June 2011|
So I wanted to update the screenshot from QtiPlot and I'm not sure QtiPlot is still or was a KDE Project. They only provide binary for a evaluation version: "*The evaluation version has the following limitations: saving to project files as well as Python scripting are disabled and it can only be used for maximum 20 minutes per session. " https://www.qtiplot.com/download.html. It's still open source but don't provide a git repo, only source dump. We should probably remove this app from userbase. That do you think?
You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason:
You can view and copy the source of this page.
Surely, we can. But does it make sense? Every natural science in a modern world has mathematical core as well as any computer program.
What is the sense to separate physics, molecular biology, material science, programming, etc. from pure maths? For example, if GSoC project will be successful Cantor will have Scilab backend. Scilab can be used for pure mathematics (matrix algebra) or for engineering computation (Xcos). What is the right method to classify Scilab?
Of course, science uses math to describe their theory. But math itself is an abstract theory and has nothing to do with describing or understanding real nature. So it doesn't fit into the science category, imho. E.g. I think I would not expect a CAS like Maxima in the science category. Adding "Math & " or " & Math" and then we could add Kig, too, couldn't we?
Probably we misunderstand ech other because of the meaning of "science". I mean that math is not a natural science, but of course it is a science in a more general sense. If science is understood in the more general way commonly, then we don't need to add math in the title.