Re: [Axiom-developer] Symbolic Algorithms Standards

[William Sit]

Dear Tim:

This would be a very ambitious project. In brief, I think 
it would be more manageable to collect survey papers and 
books rather than a list of papers leading up to the most 
recent or efficient algorithms. The reason is, it is 
difficult to "order" the latter (chronological order by 
publication dates is only an approximation due to the lag 
between the research work and final publication, and may 
lead to claims difficult to adjudicate). Survey papers or 
books have done the "distillation" and are usually easier 
to follow. At least, I think that might be a first step. 
The next stage can be a refinement to include the critical 
papers themselves.

William

On Sat,  9 Aug 2014 22:54:14 -0400 (EDT)
 Tim Daly <address@hidden> wrote:
> The time has come, it seems to me, to organize an effort 
> to
> collect and standardize symbolic algorithms, similar in 
> spirit
> to the NIST Handbook of Mathematical Functions.
>
> It should be possible to order algorithm development for 
> things
> like integration, starting with Liouville's work, then 
> Risch, etc.
> The idea is to provide the algorithm and a series of 
> improvements
> in some reasonably accessible pseudocode, perhaps with 
> some
> agreed-upon benchmark of time and space complexity. 
> There should
> also be an associated website with a cache of the papers 
> for each
> algorithm. The book would be updated yearly with new 
> developments.
>
> I have been collecting bibliographic references as part 
> of the 
> Axiom project and have recently started organizing them 
> by topic.
> http://axiom-developer.org/axiom-website/bookvolbib.pdf
>
> Is a NIST-like algorithm collection reasonable? Opinions 
> welcome.
>
> Tim Daly
> address@hidden

William Sit, Professor Emeritus
Mathematics, City College of New York
Office: R6/291D Tel: 212-650-5179
Home Page: http://scisun.sci.ccny.cuny.edu/~wyscc/