I generally agree with the petition, but one quick note--the "cited by" feature is still actually available in the Basic Edition. But, there is a really bad HCI issue. The pillbox on the right includes "cited by" and it has a note saying that the pillbox is a Premium feature, which makes people think they can't get "cited by" in Basic. But if you are in Basic and scroll down, the Cited By section is still available, and you can click on View All and get all citations even in Basic.
I am a member of the ACM Publications Board, and I have brought the petition to the attention of the Publications and Digital Libraries boards at the ACM. I hope they will make changes.
Hi, thanks for trying Noteful! I'm sorry you are having trouble with the Ear Training questions in the app.
In the ear training questions, the app is listening for particular pitches--the same pitches it plays to you. It can be a bit sensitive sometimes. Slowing down and singing the note for longer can help with matching the pitch.
Just in case the question was unclear - even for the lesson on descending/ascending notes, the app expects you to sing the notes it plays for you--arbitrary descending / ascending notes won't work.
Try the above, and see if this works for you! If it doesn't work, you can post back here or write to us at [email protected]
We could make things deterministic by fixing the algorithms and a random seed, and/or by fully constraining every object in the diagram so randomness is not used. But that isn't using the real strengths of Penrose, so we expect it to be a secondary use case at best.
One way to think about the goal of Penrose is that you will get a result that is predictably good, and you can constrain it to get a diagram of a particular shape if you want to, or alternatively leave it open and have the solver show you 3 good diagrams...then you can pick one and tweak it further (aided by constraint solving as you tweak) to make it great. The problem with drawing-tool style systems is that you have to adjust the location of every label (for example); that's the kind of thing that should be solved for you. TikZ doesn't have a rich constraint language and solver, so in many circumstances you're left with a choice between doing lots of things manually or getting a poor-quality diagram.
Penrose will have a canonical textual format, but as it is under active development, it wouldn't make sense to say it has a stable textual format now.
Yes, automatic positioning is the goal, and one of the key differences vs. TikZ (the other being a separation of substance--the math--from style--the graphical representation). It's difficult, which is why there is real graphics research in the project.
Penrose enables the user to tweak the diagram manually after it is produced. Constraint solving continues to apply during the tweaking so that if you grab a shape, then things attached to it will move as well. Our goal is to get end results as good as, or better than, TikZ, while staying at a higher level of abstraction.
With Asymptote you specify diagrams directly in terms of low-level graphics primitives and constraints. With Penrose you specify the underlying math, then one or more separate style files are used to automatically generate diagrams based on the math. The typical user of Penrose doesn't have to know anything about graphics, and never specifies any graphical objects; instead, that knowledge is in reusable style files written by domain experts.
Our goal is that you can define domain-specific Style files--analogous to a .sty in LaTeX--that apply to whatever field of mathematics you want. We have prototyped this but there are still too many rough edges to recommend to outside users at this point.
Flowcharts are not on our initial list of domains, but we hope that the infrastructure will let any user add a Style extension to support them.
I am a member of the ACM Publications Board, and I have brought the petition to the attention of the Publications and Digital Libraries boards at the ACM. I hope they will make changes.