On 5/16/07, Stavros Macrakis <macrakis at alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> The point of my examples was not to say that particular results couldn't be
> explained, but to rebut the notion (which I think you expressed) that ev has
> been unjustly maligned. I hope you agree by now that it is justly
> maligned....
Not really, but it's beside the point, so I won't pursue it.
> I don't think it would be very hard to specify a clean, well-defined EV.
> But I don't think it would have that DWIM quality for anyone, probably not
> even its author.
I'm certainly willing to dump the DWIM-ness of ev, since the M is
quite mysterious anyway. Some comprehensible policy is going
to make most people happier, I believe.
We might start by stating some Maxima code and then saying ev
has to be equivalent to that. Actually even before that, we should
probably throw out some stuff. The evfun stuff comes to mind.
FWIW
Robert