This is awesome! You have to understand this stuff. Wolfram is not a "standard" computer language. That was Wolfram's goal. It's not tied down to what the computer does. It's more general and abstract. Interesting interview with Lex Fridman where Wolfram discusses this. However, this feature of the language is also what makes it hard if you're not expecting it. Wolfram Language is not really a language. It's a system, because it's doing evaluations as it interprets the code.
While one might argue, that the talk could benefit from being a bit more dynamic and varied, this has to be one of the best introductions to the WL/Mathematica I have come across. While a lot of introductions start out with "doing" (e.g. using Mathematica as a caluculator, plotter etc.), this talk aims at "programming" and the fundamentals of the language, that is very different from many others. Starting out very simplistically, Prof. Gaylord quickly hits the deeper workings of the "Term-Rewriting-System" that Mathematica/WL really is. If that really is understood, a lot of the nice applications are really straight forward and easy to do.
Guido Wolf Reichert what Applications are your referring too? and this video could have been done in 10 mins not an hour, but on the plus side at least he's not that cab driver Daniel trying to vomit English
This set of videos has really helped me in understanding the wolfram/mathematica paradigm. Especially useful if one has been brought up in the procedural programming paradigm. It is finally beginning to make sense. Brilliant series of lectures!!!!!!!
There is a mistake at 24:47 where the second expression shows: integrate over a to b x^n dx = (b^(n+1) - a^(n-1))/(n+1) while later on the fourth expression shows: integrate over a to b x^2 dx = (b^3-a^3)/(n+1). These are at odds with each other because a^(n-1) in that instance would be 1, not 3. It can't be checked against the other expressions because if a is 0 then any power of a is also 0. Instead, if we evaluate the expression: integrate over 2 to 3 x^2 dx we find the answer is 19/3. 19 is equal to 3^3 - 2^3, thus the former expression should have: a^(n+1) instead. The - in the original should be a +. This mistake is also present in the notes linked in the description, so be aware of that if you happen to be using integral calculus.
Hi @Jackalope I'd like to contact you for Mathematica assistance. I have a code written in Mathematica, it runs but it gives incorrect output. May you please share your contact.
@@nomsaledwaba8931 I'm sorry, I'm not able to help you because I haven't studied or practiced any math of this level in several years and I can't even follow my own comment.
14:28 Not *just* letters, numbers, and spaces - and in fact not just ASCII characters, which would be a larger set (including e.g. punctuation) - Unicode in general works fine.
In a string unicode characters are represented by their code, so it is also just "\:" and a bunch of letters and numbers. You can see it directly by applying FullForm to a string containing unicode. It only gets converted to the proper characters when displayed by Mathematica notebook.
Great set of lectures for those with Wolfram Language (Mathematica) experience. In Fundamentals Part One, at 36:08/59:46, in the upper pane, I believe it should be "Apply[List, 6]" in the last sentence, not "Apply[Plus, 6]".
yes Professor GAYLORD, is all about the "Head" in this video, lol, on a serious note, a great introduction, could definitely be explained in about 10 mins but over all great video. ✊👊💦
Reading out a book doesn't equal explaining stuff. The content is very good, it's just not presented very well. I'd really love to see some didactically thought through introduction to Mathematica, as that would allow a broader audience to understand how great it is and how well it could help solving many problems.
This was not meant to be an intro to mathematica this is an intro to wolfram language. I think the audience of this video could have dealt with a higher paced presentation.
I think this is irrelevant stuff for a beginner to explain how the language works on the inside. I think it's better to just show a bunch of coding examples that are most generalizable for all people, instead of explain the mechanics of how the language works (kind of similar to explaining how Python works),
Can't quite see where the "much much" is coming from - "useless" quite honestly applies to shouting out opinions without giving any kind of reasoning. For those who want to have a more nuanced picture: mathematica.stackexchange.com/q/86058/764
Guido: the discussion on the linked website, misidentifies WL (it refers to Mathematica, not WL) as a functional language. it is actually a term rewriting system (as described in the video).
"Python is much much better" I've programmed Python for 10 years, 6 years professionally. Sorry to say but Python and its mish-mash disunified set of packages do not hold a candle to the power of the Mathematica system, for scientific computing.
This is awesome! You have to understand this stuff. Wolfram is not a "standard" computer language. That was Wolfram's goal. It's not tied down to what the computer does. It's more general and abstract. Interesting interview with Lex Fridman where Wolfram discusses this. However, this feature of the language is also what makes it hard if you're not expecting it. Wolfram Language is not really a language. It's a system, because it's doing evaluations as it interprets the code.
This is a fantastic intro to the language. Showing how to look into what's going on using functions like Head, Trace, etc. is awesome.
While one might argue, that the talk could benefit from being a bit more dynamic and varied, this has to be one of the best introductions to the WL/Mathematica I have come across.
While a lot of introductions start out with "doing" (e.g. using Mathematica as a caluculator, plotter etc.), this talk aims at "programming" and the fundamentals of the language, that is very different from many others.
Starting out very simplistically, Prof. Gaylord quickly hits the deeper workings of the "Term-Rewriting-System" that Mathematica/WL really is. If that really is understood, a lot of the nice applications are really straight forward and easy to do.
Guido Wolf Reichert what Applications are your referring too? and this video could have been done in 10 mins not an hour, but on the plus side at least he's not that cab driver Daniel trying to vomit English
This set of videos has really helped me in understanding the wolfram/mathematica paradigm. Especially useful if one has been brought up in the procedural programming paradigm. It is finally beginning to make sense. Brilliant series of lectures!!!!!!!
really great video even for experienced mathematica user like me, thanks a lot Professor Gaylord. I also like your books a lot!
There is a mistake at 24:47 where the second expression shows:
integrate over a to b x^n dx = (b^(n+1) - a^(n-1))/(n+1)
while later on the fourth expression shows:
integrate over a to b x^2 dx = (b^3-a^3)/(n+1).
These are at odds with each other because a^(n-1) in that instance would be 1, not 3. It can't be checked against the other expressions because if a is 0 then any power of a is also 0. Instead, if we evaluate the expression:
integrate over 2 to 3 x^2 dx
we find the answer is 19/3. 19 is equal to 3^3 - 2^3, thus the former expression should have:
a^(n+1)
instead. The - in the original should be a +.
This mistake is also present in the notes linked in the description, so be aware of that if you happen to be using integral calculus.
Jackalope ur so smart! were you only dropped twice as a baby? or was it more like 5? Take a Bow you amazing person
Hi @Jackalope
I'd like to contact you for Mathematica assistance. I have a code written in Mathematica, it runs but it gives incorrect output. May you please share your contact.
@@nomsaledwaba8931 I'm sorry, I'm not able to help you because I haven't studied or practiced any math of this level in several years and I can't even follow my own comment.
Excellent, especially the pattern matching. Thanks!
14:28 Not *just* letters, numbers, and spaces - and in fact not just ASCII characters, which would be a larger set (including e.g. punctuation) - Unicode in general works fine.
In a string unicode characters are represented by their code, so it is also just "\:" and a bunch of letters and numbers. You can see it directly by applying FullForm to a string containing unicode. It only gets converted to the proper characters when displayed by Mathematica notebook.
Great set of lectures for those with Wolfram Language (Mathematica) experience.
In Fundamentals Part One, at 36:08/59:46, in the upper pane, I believe it should be "Apply[List, 6]" in the last sentence, not "Apply[Plus, 6]".
Jeff Dunham wow another genius, do you also like Head?
Very useful, detailed video. Thanks for this!
The ultimate higher boss at the end of coding dungeon, 'Richard Gaylord'
Thanks Professor, this was very helpful
very much helpful,
So... His name is Dick Gaylord? Huh? Alright, still interesting lection.
I think it would be easier to watch this if it was at least a bit quicker.
Haha, same thing. Using 1.5x UA-cam playback speed feature )
I typed all that stuff nothing happened...
Cool!
yes Professor GAYLORD, is all about the "Head" in this video, lol, on a serious note, a great introduction, could definitely be explained in about 10 mins but over all great video. ✊👊💦
Reading out a book doesn't equal explaining stuff. The content is very good, it's just not presented very well. I'd really love to see some didactically thought through introduction to Mathematica, as that would allow a broader audience to understand how great it is and how well it could help solving many problems.
This was not meant to be an intro to mathematica this is an intro to wolfram language. I think the audience of this video could have dealt with a higher paced presentation.
This is an intro to the Wolfram PROGRAMMING Language
I think this is irrelevant stuff for a beginner to explain how the language works on the inside. I think it's better to just show a bunch of coding examples that are most generalizable for all people, instead of explain the mechanics of how the language works (kind of similar to explaining how Python works),
gaylord...hehehe
Richard Gaylord😐😐😐😐.....🤣🤣😂😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣😂😂
Useless and expensive language Python is much much better
Can't quite see where the "much much" is coming from - "useless" quite honestly applies to shouting out opinions without giving any kind of reasoning. For those who want to have a more nuanced picture: mathematica.stackexchange.com/q/86058/764
Julio: you're supposed to review the video , not the language.
Guido: the discussion on the linked website, misidentifies WL (it refers to Mathematica, not WL) as a functional language. it is actually a term rewriting system (as described in the video).
"Python is much much better"
I've programmed Python for 10 years, 6 years professionally.
Sorry to say but Python and its mish-mash disunified set of packages do not hold a candle to the power of the Mathematica system, for scientific computing.