Skip to main content

history - Why did the Mathematica Language choose term rewriting instead of the Lambda Calculus as its basis?


Now we can see that Church was associated with the Simply Typed Lambda Calculus. Indeed, it seems he explained the Simply Typed Lambda Calculus in order to reduce misunderstanding about the Lambda Calculus.



Now when John McCarthy created Lisp - he based it on the Lambda Calculus. This is by his own admission when he published "Recursive functions of symbolic expressions and their computation by machine, Part I". You can read it here.


Now we know that at the core of Mathematica is a Lisp-like system, but instead of being based purely on the Lambda Calculus, it is based on a term-rewriting system.


Here the author states state:



Mathematica is fundamentally a term rewriting system... a more general concept than the Lambda Calculus behind Lisp.



My question is: Why did the Mathematica Language choose term rewriting instead of the Lambda Calculus as its basis?



Answer



The short answer is that the Mathematica Language did not choose anything. It was Stephen Wolfram back in 1979 when he started working on his own system after he reached the boundaries of Maxima which was his program of choice then.


There is a very interesting talk about this which is called How Mathematica, Wolfram|Alpha & the Wolfram Language Came to Be. In this talk, he described some of the reasons why he designed it the way he did. You might want to watch it from minute 24 when he talks about Algy - the algebraic manipulator which later became SMP and finally Mathematica.



Here is the probably most related part, freely transcribed by myself:



I knew most of the general-purpose Algol-like languages and as well as languages like Lisp and APL and so on at the time, but somehow they didn't seem to capture sort of the things that I wanted my system to do. So I guess what I did was what I learned to do in physics which was I tried to sort of drill down to find kind of the atoms; the primitives of what was going on in all these computations that I wanted to do.


I knew a certain amount about mathematical logic and the history of attempts to formulate things using logic and so on, even if my mother's textbook about philosophical logic didn't exist yet, but the history of all the effort of formalization I was quite aware of through Leibnitz, Hilbert, [...]


Back in 1979, I was sort of thinking about this kind of thing and that led me to design the design that I came up with that was based on the idea of symbolic expressions and doing transformations on symbolic expressions.



This all does not sound to me as it was an active decision to create a term rewriting system but rather, Wolfram wrote down the specifications of how he thought an expression manipulator should be designed. When we look at it now, it seems clear that it is of course a term-rewriting system, but maybe it wasn't so clear back then.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

plotting - Plot 4D data with color as 4th dimension

I have a list of 4D data (x position, y position, amplitude, wavelength). I want to plot x, y, and amplitude on a 3D plot and have the color of the points correspond to the wavelength. I have seen many examples using functions to define color but my wavelength cannot be expressed by an analytic function. Is there a simple way to do this? Answer Here a another possible way to visualize 4D data: data = Flatten[Table[{x, y, x^2 + y^2, Sin[x - y]}, {x, -Pi, Pi,Pi/10}, {y,-Pi,Pi, Pi/10}], 1]; You can use the function Point along with VertexColors . Now the points are places using the first three elements and the color is determined by the fourth. In this case I used Hue, but you can use whatever you prefer. Graphics3D[ Point[data[[All, 1 ;; 3]], VertexColors -> Hue /@ data[[All, 4]]], Axes -> True, BoxRatios -> {1, 1, 1/GoldenRatio}]

plotting - Filling between two spheres in SphericalPlot3D

Manipulate[ SphericalPlot3D[{1, 2 - n}, {θ, 0, Pi}, {ϕ, 0, 1.5 Pi}, Mesh -> None, PlotPoints -> 15, PlotRange -> {-2.2, 2.2}], {n, 0, 1}] I cant' seem to be able to make a filling between two spheres. I've already tried the obvious Filling -> {1 -> {2}} but Mathematica doesn't seem to like that option. Is there any easy way around this or ... Answer There is no built-in filling in SphericalPlot3D . One option is to use ParametricPlot3D to draw the surfaces between the two shells: Manipulate[ Show[SphericalPlot3D[{1, 2 - n}, {θ, 0, Pi}, {ϕ, 0, 1.5 Pi}, PlotPoints -> 15, PlotRange -> {-2.2, 2.2}], ParametricPlot3D[{ r {Sin[t] Cos[1.5 Pi], Sin[t] Sin[1.5 Pi], Cos[t]}, r {Sin[t] Cos[0 Pi], Sin[t] Sin[0 Pi], Cos[t]}}, {r, 1, 2 - n}, {t, 0, Pi}, PlotStyle -> Yellow, Mesh -> {2, 15}]], {n, 0, 1}]

plotting - Mathematica: 3D plot based on combined 2D graphs

I have several sigmoidal fits to 3 different datasets, with mean fit predictions plus the 95% confidence limits (not symmetrical around the mean) and the actual data. I would now like to show these different 2D plots projected in 3D as in but then using proper perspective. In the link here they give some solutions to combine the plots using isometric perspective, but I would like to use proper 3 point perspective. Any thoughts? Also any way to show the mean points per time point for each series plus or minus the standard error on the mean would be cool too, either using points+vertical bars, or using spheres plus tubes. Below are some test data and the fit function I am using. Note that I am working on a logit(proportion) scale and that the final vertical scale is Log10(percentage). (* some test data *) data = Table[Null, {i, 4}]; data[[1]] = {{1, -5.8}, {2, -5.4}, {3, -0.8}, {4, -0.2}, {5, 4.6}, {1, -6.4}, {2, -5.6}, {3, -0.7}, {4, 0.04}, {5, 1.0}, {1, -6.8}, {2, -4.7}, {3, -1....