Wolfram Language and Mathematica version 15

Many years back while in grad school I could not reproduce a result from a paper. Thankfully they had provided the data as public but not the code. I emailed the authors and got some matlab code back. My university didn't have a matlab subscription. Octave saved me there since the syntax is similar.

But with something like mathematica and the price of it you will never be able to have a wide verification of the result if the software is not free.

Also, a lot of things in industry gain traction first in academia (especially math tools). So unless academic traction is dealt with mathematica's headway in industry will remain limited. They are still a profitable company. So I'm guessing there are deep pocketed clients who purchase the tooling.

Reimplementation in Rust: https://github.com/ad-si/Woxi

WLJS Notebook: https://wljs.io

VS Code extension: https://github.com/vanbaalon/wolfbook

[1] a personal perpetual license is only $400.

For example, when digging into GNU Octave you will find many of its libraries were built on peer reviewed legacy code provably reproducible with prior aerospace published works.

The problem with closed source academic programs isn't features or even quality, but rather one of traceable Metrology and scientific rigor. =3

But a walled garden that costs $400 for personal use (we're ignoring yearly licensing, because f that noise) is utter nonsense, and the clearest sign you have no idea how to sell and then upsell products to users over the course of several years.

There are irregular verbs, sometimes with complete suppletive replacement of principal parts by what used to be other verbs (e.g. sum, esse, fui, futurus; fero, ferre, tuli, latum). There are verbs that use passive forms with active meaning (deponents) or perfect forms with present meaning (defectives).

There are arguably completely missing forms in the verbal inflection system (the Romans knew that some forms plausibly "should" exist, especially based on a Greek grammatical model, but simply didn't have them!).

There is sometimes unpredictability in which noun case should be used with a particular verb.

The noun declensions are apparently based on two different sets of Indo-European noun inflection paradigms, so nouns with similar nominative forms can end up being declined very differently.

There are ambiguities where different noun forms coincide, which can even create parsing ambiguities in literature (like confusion between ablatives and datives, many of which look identical).

The extent to which the perfect stem of a verb can be predicted from the present is limited, as sometimes stem reduplication is used, but sometimes just suffixation of something like -vi.

There are loanwords, even classically, from Etruscan, Greek, and to a lesser extent other Mediterranean languages (just thinking of that "hodgepodge" issue).

The meanings of purpose clauses with the verbs of fearing are arguably backwards from the English point of view (although I think the Latin version does make plenty of sense).

Native and nonnative speakers couldn't easily agree in antiquity about whether vowel length should be contrastive and (I think) whether consonant aspiration was phonemic. I guess the native speakers' opinion should matter more, except there promptly became such huge numbers of non-native speakers that they started to have a really humongous influence on the language.

There are spelling changes even within the classical period, so there isn't quite one single classical Latin orthography.

I guess there are many fewer irregular verbs overall compared to Germanic languages (which historically have had up to hundreds of at least partly irregular verbs). But if we want to count unpredictability of Latin perfect stems (which is somewhat akin to the main source of irregularity in the Germanic verbs: stem changes) as a kind of irregularity, Latin will also have quite a lot of these.

1)the locative vs the ablative, and the locative only existing for a few words

2)the irregular verbs such as sum, eo etc, irregular nouns such as deus, aqua etc, and there’s a bunch of irregular like adjectives and stuff that I don’t remember

3)indeclinable nouns that just don’t decline at all and are the same in all cases. I think the word for “morning” is like this but it’s been a very long time. There are a few words that work this way anyway.

4) Words like “castrum” which just mean something totally different in the plural to the singular. “Castrum” means a fort, but the plural “castra” doesn’t mean many forts, it means a (singular) military camp.

5) Words like “Saturnalia” (festivals of Saturn) which only exist in the plural. As far as I know you can’t say one festival of Saturn in latin.

I've programmed quite a bit with both Python and Mathematica, and I've read through your comment a few times, but I still can't figure out which is which. Both languages are hodgepodges of other languages with lots of special cases (which I would consider to be a good thing since it gives you so much flexibility).

That's surprising considering how good their documentation is. A tool using LLM should have no problem with that. WolframLanguage is almost ideal for an LLM actually.

But that's fine. Mathematica client supports openrouter as LLM provider anyway so we can use whatever we want.

Unfortunately they are extremely surface level in this release. It looks like there isn't even any ability to load/export MusicXML, kind of weird low level primitives and zero interesting higher level functions. Hopefully they keep iterating on it but I don't think it'll be useful for my workflow right now.

Reimplementation in Rust: https://github.com/ad-si/Woxi

WLJS Notebook: https://wljs.io

VS Code extension: https://github.com/vanbaalon/wolfbook

I would not call him a crank, he's just an "independent physicist". He is a very successful and wealthy businessman thanks to Mathematica, with $100Ms of wealth presumably, and he choses to do physics in his own way, pursuing subjects that he finds interesting, in ways he finds interesting. And he writes about his work and himself in grandiose ways, usually comparing himself to Newton and Einstein.

Nothing major has come out of his research, other then one of his co-workers proving that one of the simple CAs is Turing complete.

Most academic physicists ignore him, but that's fine. Personally, I think we need more people like Wolfram who are doing totally independent research, with their own funds. Statistically, something unexpectedly good could come out of it!

His latest research subject is Ruliology:

https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2026/01/what-is-ruliolog...