> > I think it's wonderful that scientists get so much value out of
> > mathematical software, but they are not the only ones -- why does this
> > mean that every piece of mathematical software needs to be filed in the
> > science drawer?
>
> Because it is not always possible to draw a clear line
> I added another section named "Analysis", that contains general data
> analysis/plotting/calculation applications. I find them very similar to
> what is found in "Math", so I consider moving "Mathematics" to "Science"
> a good idea.
Again: we see that scientists make heavy use of mathematics,
I went on and made a list of applications that are currently found in
"Science" [science] and another one with these applications roughly
sorted into sections [science_sorted].
The short version:
Analysis [10]
Astronomy [12]
Biology [16]
Chemistry [11]
Geoscience [5]
Medicine [1]
Physics [
I actually find splitting "Science" a good idea.
I did a little research and came up with this list of possible
subsections, along with example fields they cover:
Astronomy
* Astrodynamics
* Astronomy
* Astrophysics
* Cosmology
* Radio astronomy
Biology
* Anatomy
* Bioinformatics
* Botan
Hello,
On Mon, 2006-05-15 at 01:25, Daniel Leidert wrote:
[snip]
>
> Ok. Let's say, the main function/job/role makes the difference, so only
> applications which are real teaching programs (like e.g. tools to teach
> langauges or the PSE like kalzium or gperiodic) have to go into
> Education. A
Hello,
On Sun, 2006-05-14 at 19:20, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Sun, May 14, 2006 at 06:20:25PM +0200, Thomas Walter wrote:
[snip]
>
> > In general, my understanding of "Science" is in the sense of research
> > and not education.
> > Thus an example breakdown within Sience could be like
> >
> Unconvinced. Theoretical chemistry, as an example, is largely
> mathematics. But not only in the sense below engineering/physics. To
> develop novel theoretical chemistry, new mathematics has to be
> invented. The same for physics/mathematics: remember that Newton had
> to invent (I know that in
Unconvinced. Theoretical chemistry, as an example, is largely mathematics. But
not only in the sense below engineering/physics. To develop novel theoretical
chemistry, new mathematics has to be invented. The same for
physics/mathematics: remember that Newton had to invent (I know that in some
q
To answer here, taking into account other suggestions, i believe that the less
we cut science into pieces the better the result. Specialisation has resulted
to be a negative trend in university education (all over the world). When
industry seeks for a fresh graduate biologist, industry seeks for
> >FWIW, I would argue that mathematics is not a science -- it does not use
> >the scientific method, there is no hypothesis and experimentation -- it
> >is a more self-contained discipline that, while it seeks to be useful,
> >is not bound to modelling the physical world.
>
> I think of new ways
Ben Burton wrote:
Hi,
I think Mathematics is also part of Science.
FWIW, I would argue that mathematics is not a science -- it does not use
the scientific method, there is no hypothesis and experimentation -- it
is a more self-contained discipline that, while it seeks to be useful,
is not bou
Hi,
> I think Mathematics is also part of Science.
FWIW, I would argue that mathematics is not a science -- it does not use
the scientific method, there is no hypothesis and experimentation -- it
is a more self-contained discipline that, while it seeks to be useful,
is not bound to modelling the
Oh, and a minor typo:
> The relevant sections are:
>
> Mathematics [was:Math]
> Mathematics-related software.
> gcalctool, snapea, xeukleides
The "snappea" package has two "p"s.
Ben (the snappea maintainer).
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe
Am Sonntag, den 14.05.2006, 23:42 +0200 schrieb Thomas Walter:
> On Sun, 2006-05-14 at 22:26, Daniel Leidert wrote:
[..]
> > Where do you make the difference between a scientific and an educational
> > software product? Let's say: What is a chemical structures editor? What
> > is a (software reali
Hello,
On Sun, 2006-05-14 at 22:26, Daniel Leidert wrote:
> Am Sonntag, den 14.05.2006, 21:55 +0200 schrieb Thomas Walter:
> > On Sun, 2006-05-14 at 20:52, Daniel Leidert wrote:
>
> [..]
> > > > In general, my understanding of "Science" is in the sense of research
> > > > and not education.
> > >
On Sun, May 14, 2006 at 05:57:31PM +0200, Francesco Pietra wrote:
> I received this message after I answered Bill Allombert.
>
> The list below is a reasonable one, when "Bio" is written in full "Biology"
> and "medicine" is added; medicine is largely biology but with special needs.
>
> I disag
Am Sonntag, den 14.05.2006, 21:55 +0200 schrieb Thomas Walter:
> On Sun, 2006-05-14 at 20:52, Daniel Leidert wrote:
[..]
> > > In general, my understanding of "Science" is in the sense of research
> > > and not education.
> >
> > I do not agree. Education also means science. It doesn't just mean
On Sun, 2006-05-14 at 20:52, Daniel Leidert wrote:
> Am Sonntag, den 14.05.2006, 18:20 +0200 schrieb Thomas Walter:
> > On Sun, 2006-05-14 at 17:01, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > Hello Debian Science people,
> > >
> > > There is a discussion (in bug #361418) on the future of the Debian
> > > menu st
Hello,
On Sun, 2006-05-14 at 17:57, Francesco Pietra wrote:
> I received this message after I answered Bill Allombert.
>
> The list below is a reasonable one, when "Bio" is written in full "Biology"
> and "medicine" is added; medicine is largely biology but with special needs.
>
> I disagree w
Am Sonntag, den 14.05.2006, 18:20 +0200 schrieb Thomas Walter:
> On Sun, 2006-05-14 at 17:01, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > Hello Debian Science people,
> >
> > There is a discussion (in bug #361418) on the future of the Debian
> > menu structure. In case you missed it, we would like to have your
> >
On Sun, May 14, 2006 at 06:20:25PM +0200, Thomas Walter wrote:
> Hello,
>
> >From my point of view this 2 section names are arbitrary and too global.
> It also opens a long discussion about the hirarchy. I think Mathematics
> is also part of Science. At least for application like axiom, octave,
On Sun, May 14, 2006 at 05:45:44PM +0200, Francesco Pietra wrote:
> etc., what about chemistry? Chemistry is at the basis of "natural sciences"
> mentioned below, and a basic science in its own. Think about chemistry (there
> are great debian packages for chemistry, first on the line - in my view
I received this message after I answered Bill Allombert.
The list below is a reasonable one, when "Bio" is written in full "Biology"
and "medicine" is added; medicine is largely biology but with special needs.
I disagree with the distinction science/education. Scientific education is
science,
etc., what about chemistry? Chemistry is at the basis of "natural sciences"
mentioned below, and a basic science in its own. Think about chemistry (there
are great debian packages for chemistry, first on the line - in my view -
mpqc. At any event, there are chemists under the "Science section" u
Hello,
On Sun, 2006-05-14 at 17:01, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Hello Debian Science people,
>
> There is a discussion (in bug #361418) on the future of the Debian
> menu structure. In case you missed it, we would like to have your
> opinions on the entries for scientific applications.
>
> The relev
25 matches
Mail list logo
