Where communities thrive


  • Join over 1.5M+ people
  • Join over 100K+ communities
  • Free without limits
  • Create your own community
People
Activity
    Albert D. Rich
    @AlbertRich
    @halirutan Nice. I like it.
    Albert D. Rich
    @AlbertRich
    @halirutan I would like to change "An extensive set of symbolic integration rules" to "An extensive system of symbolic integration rules" to suggest that Rubi is not just an ad hoc collection of rules, but is based on an integrated system of rules able to integrate large, well-defined classes of expressions.
    Patrick Scheibe
    @halirutan
    @AlbertRich Please go ahead an change it then!
    @AlbertRich Did it for you (I wasn't sure where exactly this phrase was used)
    Albert D. Rich
    @AlbertRich
    @halirutan I was going to, but didn't know how. Did not see a pencil or Edit button...
    Patrick Scheibe
    @halirutan
    @AlbertRich It is in the settings of the organization here https://github.com/organizations/RuleBasedIntegration/settings/profile
    Albert D. Rich
    @AlbertRich
    Now I know.
    Patrick Scheibe
    @halirutan
    @AlbertRich Hey Albert. The website should now be reachable under rulebasedintegration.org.
    I figured that a 1-page layout might be too sparse. Therefore, I have made a menu-bar. The buttons for the package, rules, and (later) tests link currently directly to the repositories, because the repositories themselves have a large README that is instantly displayed.
    But if you think we should make a small page for them on the website that explains some stuff and link from there to the repository, that would also work.
    Patrick Scheibe
    @halirutan
    You "Vision" page sounds at the moment a bit too personal for my taste. There is a lot of good information, but maybe we can pull your personal information (eg, what you worked on) to the "About" section and make statements like "I am convinced.." a bit more object ("We believe"?).
    I'm not entirely sure about this, but it feels to me that for your personal Rubi site this is perfectly fine, but for an organisation page with (hopefully) many collaborators, we should reword some things. What is your opinion about this?
    @AlbertRich In any case, in the website repo you find now the files index.md (the home site), vision.md, and about.md and if you have some time, you can edit them and add content.
    Patrick Scheibe
    @halirutan
    @AlbertRich Ha, forget what I said about the Vision page. I just realised we already have this on the Wiki and there, you put a disclaimer "Comments by Albert...". I think this is perfect.
    Albert D. Rich
    @AlbertRich
    @halirutan Hi Patrick. Sorry I can't respond to this until tomorrow. Albert
    Albert D. Rich
    @AlbertRich
    @halirutan I am relieved you are ok with the revised vision statement on Rubi's WIki that had already been edited to delete what I thought inappropriate for GitHub. However, if you feel additional changes need to be made, please let me know.
    Patrick Scheibe
    @halirutan
    @AlbertRich I think it is fine that way. I started copying the Vision from your original site and made changes on the way, but then I though it is really for you to decide and I shouldn't simply edit your thoughts. That's why I brought it up. And then I remembered you had created a similar page for the Wiki.
    Albert D. Rich
    @AlbertRich
    @halirutan I just visited rulebasedintegration.org for the first time. Wow! It looks great.
    Albert D. Rich
    @AlbertRich
    @halirutan In _config.yml, I just changed the description to "An extensive system of symbolic integration rules". Ok?
    Albert D. Rich
    @AlbertRich
    @halirutan I would like to encourage the development of definite integration rules in addition to indefinite integration rules. To that end, should we add two subsections under IntegrationRules named DefiniteIntegrationRules and IndefiniteIntegrationRules?
    Albert D. Rich
    @AlbertRich

    @halirutan You wrote:

    But if you think we should make a small page for them on the website that explains some stuff and link from there to the repository, that would also work.

    Yes, as on Rubi's old website, clicking on the "Integration Rules" menu option should lead to another website page with the text at the beginning of the current README.md file and a menu-bar with the options: "Algebraic", "Exponential", "Log", "Trig", "Inverse Trig", "Hyperbolic", "Inverse Hyperbolic", "Special Functions", and "Miscellaneous".

    Albert D. Rich
    @AlbertRich
    @halirutan At the risk of asking for way too much :smile:, even better would be drop-down menus that appear when you hover over "Algebraic", "Exponential", etc that lead directly to the pdf files in the repository.
    Albert D. Rich
    @AlbertRich
    @halirutan I just heavily revised about.md.
    Patrick Scheibe
    @halirutan
    @AlbertRich Nice!
    Patrick Scheibe
    @halirutan

    @halirutan At the risk of asking for way too much :smile:, even better would be drop-down menus that appear when you hover over "Algebraic", "Exponential", etc that lead directly to the pdf files in the repository.

    Such nested drop-down-menus are realy old-school and not used anymore nowadays. But more importantly, all we do at the moment is a compromise between two things: (1) Having a clear design and all information in one place (that is used by almost all today's developers) and (2) simplicity so that you can easily grasp how to change and edit things without learning too much useless web-dev stuff. Such a nested drop-down is certainly possible, but it would mean that I have to re-create the web-site on each change. I would very much not go this way :)

    Patrick Scheibe
    @halirutan

    The current menu is a bit of a hack and I'm using buttons that are originally not meant to be a menu, but it looked great when I tested it and therefore I used it. So for the website, I would like to keep this simple "one level" menu where each entry either leads directly to a repository or it has exactly one page behind it. Therefore, this

    @halirutan I would like to encourage the development of definite integration rules in addition to indefinite integration rules. To that end, should we add two subsections under IntegrationRules named DefiniteIntegrationRules and IndefiniteIntegrationRules?

    is absolutely fine when it stays on one page. I'm not sure I completely understood this though. The current state is that Rubi only has indefinite integration rules, right?

    Albert D. Rich
    @AlbertRich
    @halirutan Yes.
    Patrick Scheibe
    @halirutan
    @AlbertRich What about the following: The Wiki is at the moment only duplicating most of the information that we can now present on the website. This is something I had not anticipated because my plan was to make a one-page website only. Therefore, I suggest:
    1. We use the website to represent the current state of Rubi. We explain what it is and what repositories are available
    2. On the Wiki, we can present and discuss future development (like the definite/indefinite rules information). There, you can feel free to add any content you think is important and we link from the website to the wiki.
    Albert D. Rich
    @AlbertRich
    @halirutan Yes, here I am suggesting changes to the RuleBasedIntegration organization, not to the website.
    Albert D. Rich
    @AlbertRich
    Basically, make IntegrationRules/DefiniteIntegrationRules an empty place-holder for now.
    Patrick Scheibe
    @halirutan
    @AlbertRich OK, we keep that for later. I want this initial version of everything out :)
    @AlbertRich Have you seen my comment about your Rubi challange in the private chat?
    Albert D. Rich
    @AlbertRich
    @halirutan No, how do I check the "private chat"?
    Patrick Scheibe
    @halirutan
    @AlbertRich On the left, you see a "talk bubble". Press it and you should see an entry that says my name.
    Patrick Scheibe
    @halirutan

    @AlbertRich In addition to the Mathematica package update, I added the following things to the web-page:

    1. I created a "page" for the Mathematica Package which includes now all information about installation and usage and links to the correct places
    2. I edited the "Home" page and included a plot that I believe fits into the overall style of the web-page.

    The "Home" page needs a bit more content, but I would like to announce everything this week, as I'm on vacation a week later.

    @AlbertRich How is your plan for this week? Do you think we can manage to make these final edits?
    (We should not forget to edit the Competition page and make clear that for the competition, the old-style Rubi package should be use or at least, the statistics should be compared. I don't think I manage to debug the reason for the difference this week)
    Albert D. Rich
    @AlbertRich
    @halirutan Hi Patrick. Your edits to the Home and Mathematica Package menu options on the GitHub website for Rubi look great.
    I would not be to concerned about the Competition. I think there is already a clear winner who has no competition. I will revise the page to refer to version 4.15 of Rubi.
    @halirutan However, I am greatly concerned about confusion that will arise as you modify the Rubi interface and I modify the Rubi engine. You have been assigning new version numbers for Rubi (4.16 and now 4.17) as the interface changes. I want to keep control of the Rubi engine version numbers continuing with my current numbering scheme. The current engine version number is 4.15.2 and I am working on 4.15.3.
    Since the Rubi interface and engine are now being developed asynchronously, I think it essential that the interface have its own version numbers starting with 1.0. Do you have any ideas how to make a composite version number for GitHub Rubi that indicates the interface is say version 1.0 and the engine is version 4.15.2?
    Albert D. Rich
    @AlbertRich
    Maybe use a colon: Rubi 4.15.2:1.0
    Patrick Scheibe
    @halirutan
    @AlbertRich I was under the impression that your new Rubi engine will have the version number 5.0?
    That's why I assumed 4.xx is reserved for the current "pattern-based" rubi.
    Albert D. Rich
    @AlbertRich
    @halirutan Rubi 4.n has to be perfected before "compiling" it into Rubi 5.
    Patrick Scheibe
    @halirutan
    @AlbertRich OK. There are different version schemes and basically they have the layout major.minor[.maintenance[.build]]. I didn't want to complicate things as deeply nested version numbers might be confusion, so I increased the minor version with each new package that contained changes.
    Additional features and changes in the interface usually require a change in the minor version number.
    Albert D. Rich
    @AlbertRich
    @halirutan So what version number are we going to assign to the first version of GitHub Rubi?
    Patrick Scheibe
    @halirutan
    @AlbertRich My suggestion is 4.xx and xx is whatever we have then. When we fix a critical bug and make a new release, the version number is incremented.
    Albert D. Rich
    @AlbertRich
    @halirutan No, that is not acceptable to me for the reasons given above.
    Patrick Scheibe
    @halirutan
    @AlbertRich Hmm.. The package includes the complete engine but I can only give one version number and I need to increase the version for each new release. 4.15.2:1.0 will blow the users mind and they won't understand it. Would 4.15.2.xx be acceptable so that I can increase xx to my liking and 4.15.2 points to the engine version?