I believe that the 'official answer' is that SageMath is the best of the free software CASs. I personally use Maxima, because it's good enough for my use cases (which involve a lot of finite sets and not many inequalities) and I've found it simpler to understand.
Obviously, Mathematica is the leader in academia generally, as far as I can tell, but I personally haven't had good experiences with it myself, but I also have a strong preference for free software, so I haven't tried to hard to get used to it.
We are three people (potentially five). A mix of professionals and programming enthusiasts. Java since that is what Sedgewick uses on his latest version of the book. I guess no one would object to you using a different language but then you wouldn't be able to complete all the exercises because the library used (for some of the exercises around plotting stuff mainly) is written in Java.
I will personally be doing some of the exercises in both Java and C because I want to play with implementing some of the data structures with pointers, etc.
To expand a bit more on background question, I made a similar post on Reddit yesterday and received an incredible amount of messages, but unfortunately had to filter out all but one because people didn't quite meet the requirements I am looking for, e.g. be interested in CS rather than the latest JS framework.
If it helps, the book uses a "subset" of Java that is introduced in the first section of the book. You don't really need to be familiar with the language, though, you do need a programming background.
Yes and no. Maybe I should have quoted the following part of the parent's comment:
> whenever civil protection and economic freedom gives them any semblance of a choice, the number of children they get goes way down.
Which is clearly falsified by the link I posted.
I certainly agree with you that the economics of raising children is not right in western countries, but this still doesn't deter women from wanting more children than they're having, so I don't think it's at all fair to say that fewer are willingly choosing to have them.
I've personally read An Introduction to Mathematical Reasoning: Numbers, Sets and Functions Paperback by Peter Eccles and Chapter Zero by Carol Schumacher and would recommend them both.
Sadly, this is not an easy thing to learn and requires a lot of work and most importantly discipline. You mustn't let yourself be at all complacent. It's very easy when doing exercises by yourself to believe that you've "got the idea" and you can "see how it works", but the key is to actually write _everything_ down, so that there is no room for handwaving at all. This is not easy to force yourself to do, but it is necessary.
I'm not quite in the situation you're looking for, because I have got an undergraduate maths degree, but due to my personal situation at the time, I wasn't a good student and I have done a lot of self-teaching in the years since then. Mainly in mathematics, but also theoretical computer science and some programming.
One thing I'd say is don't overlook books. Textbooks may seem less appealing than slides or videos, but seriously sitting and reading a maths book from cover to cover is a very powerful experience. It may take months, but you will learn something significant from doing it. And if you do that for say Thomas's Calculus and Anton's Elementary Linear Algebra, that's about half of a maths degree already.
Anyway, I'm happy to discuss these topics further with you (or anyone else reading this). I'd personally love to find a serious online community for studying mathematics, but it seems very hard to coordinate such a thing.
I've actually recently read "FUNCTIONAL PROGRAMMING: Application and Implementation", by Peter Henderson from 1980, which contains a description of the SECD machine and a compiler for a simple purely-functional Lisp dialect called Lispkit.
This <https://github.com/carld/lispkit> looks like a good repo if you want to know more, although I'm not related to it in any way.
I can't say how it compares the book by Kogge mentioned in this post since I haven't read that, but I can say I think it's an excellent book and worth reading if you're interested in this kind of thing.
William Shawcross's Independent Review of Prevent [0] has on page 24
> 3.46 While the products related to Islamist terrorism focus on the most serious material relating to violent Islamist ideology, mostly Islamic State and al-Qa’ida, much of the material covering Extreme Right-Wing falls well below the threshold for even non-violent extremism.
> 3.47 This material tends to deal with broader themes and often covers content that relates to narratives on social media. These products not only covered non-violent far right extremism, but also examples of centre-right debate, populism, and controversial or distasteful forms of right-leaning commentary and intolerance. Some of this material falls well short of the extremism threshold altogether.
> 3.48 I saw one RICU analysis product from 2020 on Right-Wing terrorist and extremist activity online which referenced books by mainstream British conservative commentators as “key cultural nationalist ideological texts”. The same document listed “key texts” for white nationalists as including historic works of the Western philosophic and literary canon.
Emphasis mine.
So it is certain that some mainstream books were considered signifiers of right-wing extremism by Prevent's Research Information and Communications Unit (RICU), but I haven't seen any official publication of exactly what the list contained.
So, in other words, "No". I had already ctrl+f'd the Shawcross review document for specific titles referenced by Murray and others, and nothing was listed.
The more I read about this, the more it feels like far-right circles are seizing on your highlighted point and adding their own "details" (eg, Murray naming specific books), or spin, to push a narrative that supports them.
1. Give me an example of this set "historic works of the Western philosophic and literary canon," or do you think the set is a null set?
2. This is a common pattern in left wing propaganda I have seen play out. Example:
Propagandist: “Plain bellied sneetches are bad"
Mary, the plain bellied sneetch: Am I bad?
Propagandist: Lol, show me where I mentioned "Mary" is bad. Plain bellied sneetches are always eager to jump to conclusions! lol.
