Comments on: [Quote] The “Bible” http://hea-www.harvard.edu/AstroStat/slog/2008/quote-the-bible/ Weaving together Astronomy+Statistics+Computer Science+Engineering+Intrumentation, far beyond the growing borders Fri, 01 Jun 2012 18:47:52 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4 By: TomLoredo http://hea-www.harvard.edu/AstroStat/slog/2008/quote-the-bible/comment-page-1/#comment-149 TomLoredo Wed, 09 Jan 2008 22:38:00 +0000 http://hea-www.harvard.edu/AstroStat/slog/2008/quote-the-bible/#comment-149 Ouch! Quite a remark by Horowitz. I sympathize with it to a great extent. But I think many NR detractors mistake its purpose. I don't know if it's put so clearly in the books themselves, but Press & Teukolsky, in a paper on the history of the books (in <em>Computers in Physics</em> IIRC), say their goal was to get scientists up to 19<b>60</b>'s state-of-the art in numerical technique (i.e., not circa 1990, the time the books were orginally written). Their contention is that 90% of scientists' numerical work is adequately handled by old technology. I think this was a reasonable goal/motivation, and that they achieved it well. As to statistical practice in the new edition, apart from a nod to MCMC, it really isn't much improved over the original (which was okay in most respects, as far as it went). I was particularly disappointed to see no significant changes in the section on the bootstrap, which has misled several astronomers. At the least, the reference list should have been updated. What I would have liked to see more of (in both the old and new editions) is "diagnostic" advice regarding whether your problem is adequately addressed by 1960s technology, and then a pointer or two to modern developments. I also wonder if statistics isn't really in the same boat as numerics, when it comes to the adequacy of 1960s technology for modern problems. But I suppose every expert in some particular area will have a gripe with NR in <em>that</em> area (and probably happily use it in other areas!). The NR project is so ambitious that I don't suppose there is anything they could have done that would have really satisfied someone with significant expertise in any one of the many areas they cover. However, as a non-expert in many of those areas, I am very grateful for the books, which helped introduce me to many tools that I now take for granted. It's hard to imagine a better job being done on that breadth of topics without it becoming a many-volume encyclopedia! Ouch! Quite a remark by Horowitz. I sympathize with it to a great extent. But I think many NR detractors mistake its purpose. I don’t know if it’s put so clearly in the books themselves, but Press & Teukolsky, in a paper on the history of the books (in Computers in Physics IIRC), say their goal was to get scientists up to 1960‘s state-of-the art in numerical technique (i.e., not circa 1990, the time the books were orginally written). Their contention is that 90% of scientists’ numerical work is adequately handled by old technology. I think this was a reasonable goal/motivation, and that they achieved it well.

As to statistical practice in the new edition, apart from a nod to MCMC, it really isn’t much improved over the original (which was okay in most respects, as far as it went). I was particularly disappointed to see no significant changes in the section on the bootstrap, which has misled several astronomers. At the least, the reference list should have been updated.

What I would have liked to see more of (in both the old and new editions) is “diagnostic” advice regarding whether your problem is adequately addressed by 1960s technology, and then a pointer or two to modern developments. I also wonder if statistics isn’t really in the same boat as numerics, when it comes to the adequacy of 1960s technology for modern problems. But I suppose every expert in some particular area will have a gripe with NR in that area (and probably happily use it in other areas!).

The NR project is so ambitious that I don’t suppose there is anything they could have done that would have really satisfied someone with significant expertise in any one of the many areas they cover. However, as a non-expert in many of those areas, I am very grateful for the books, which helped introduce me to many tools that I now take for granted. It’s hard to imagine a better job being done on that breadth of topics without it becoming a many-volume encyclopedia!

]]>
By: vlk http://hea-www.harvard.edu/AstroStat/slog/2008/quote-the-bible/comment-page-1/#comment-148 vlk Wed, 09 Jan 2008 02:36:42 +0000 http://hea-www.harvard.edu/AstroStat/slog/2008/quote-the-bible/#comment-148 I think Ptolemy gets a bad rap. For someone modeling geocentric projections of planetary paths as perturbative Fourier components, he was way ahead of the times. I think Ptolemy gets a bad rap. For someone modeling geocentric projections of planetary paths as perturbative Fourier components, he was way ahead of the times.

]]>