It qualifies me to talk about the python ecosystem, which I know quite well. I said something I thought was true, but wasn't. That's an honest mistake. I was unaware of a library, maybe even one that is well known. I was quite surprised I had missed something, and I said 'thanks for pointing that out'. I imagine it was a blind spot for me, as I always reach for Mathematica for symbolic work, so it just wasn't something I noticed.
I would never say things about ruby libraries, for example, as I don't know anything about it. I might say the same thing about R or matlab, which I do.
In the immortal words of pg:
When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names.
E.g. "That is an idiotic thing to say; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3"
can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
As in, 'python actually can do symbolic computation, see http://sympy.org'
I'm not blaming you for being wrong. I just don't think that having a good idea about the python ecosystem qualifies denying that you can do symbolic calculus, more than knowing how to sail qualifies you to say that the earth is flat.
I would never say things about ruby libraries, for example, as I don't know anything about it. I might say the same thing about R or matlab, which I do.
In the immortal words of pg:
As in, 'python actually can do symbolic computation, see http://sympy.org''Oh, thanks. You're right'