Open Source Symbolic Math Program? 237
RickMuller asks: "I'm a quantum chemist, and every so often I'm forced to sit down and derive equations. On occasion I've used Mathematica or Maple to simplify the process, but only rarely because (i) they're not much better than plain paper and pen, and (ii) they're proprietary software, and if I'm going to learn someone's arcane command syntax, I want to make sure it's open source so I can compile and run it everywhere I need it.
I want to know if there is a reliable symbolic math package that is open source. I'm familiar with the CALC package in Emacs, which is quite good except that one needs to be running Emacs to use it. I would like to know if there is a viable alternative. Anyone? "
ideas (Score:1)
Wierdness (Score:1)
Scilab? (Score:3)
Too late they have one already :) (Score:2)
Have you looked at MuPAD? (Score:3)
MuPAD [mupad.de]
I've had good luck with it.
Jim
LISP? :) (Score:1)
Anyone try a freshmeat.net search? Some of the results for a search on "symbolic math" looked promising (some nice libraries too), but I haven't tried any of them.
Re:Wierdness (Score:2)
Octave (Score:2)
ginac (Score:2)
An open framework for symbolic computation within the C++ programming language.
License: GPL
While i haven't checked it out, from the webpage it is what you need.
daniel
There are several such free Open programs (Score:2)
Take your pick... (Score:5)
Nick
YACAS (Score:2)
Re:Have you looked at MuPAD? (Score:1)
open-source matlab? Octave. (Score:2)
Octave [wisc.edu] is a GPL numerical computation tool that is like MATLAB, but better. :-) Most scripts that don't rely on commercial matlab toolkits run fine right out of the box.
Of course, the symbolic toolkit that comes with matlab is probably what you're looking for. Perhaps we should work on creating a symbolic toolkit for Octave? Perhaps someone already has? Stay tuned!
Some Gnome math tools come close (Score:1)
Octave? (Score:1)
See FAQ [wisc.edu]
Octave is a high-level interactive language, primarily intended for numerical computations that is mostly compatible with MATLAB.
-p
Maxima (Macsyma) (Score:3)
Try MuPAD, PariGP, or Macaulay (Score:4)
PariGP: Has a decent user interface but not especially user-friendly compared to MuPAD's programming language. Has excellent support for formal power series, rings, etc.
Macaulay: User interface is bare bones; just flushes input to the interpreter. Strong in manipulation of polynomials via Grobner basis. It seems specialized for computational algebraic geometry.
The URL (Score:1)
freshmeat has some good info (Score:1)
Scilab is very close to Matlab in basic functionality, I have yet to try out any other package yet, however Matlab and Scilab are rather interoperable for my studies at the moment: Neural Network Design and Fuzzy Logic.
Mathematica - ugh (Score:5)
So, I bought the student version of Mathematica. I've come to regret that, because their licensing is a pain in the ass. I reinstall OSes on a regular basis, and every time I do, Mathematica requires a new password, so I need to email the company and get a new password from them. This takes days.
Also, I dual boot windows. The CD also had a windows version, so I decided to install it. What's wrong with me using a program I paid $130 for on both operating systems right? It's still on my computer, and they can't run at the same time anyway. Well, I sent another request from them, along with a number generated from my system, and here's the response I got:
It looks as if you have changed from the Linux to the Windows platform. In
order for us to generate a new password for you, I will need for you to
complete a system transfer application. I have attached a copy of this form
in JPG format to this e-mail. Please print the form, complete it, and
return it to Wolfram Research either by fax or mail. Once received a
customer service representative will process your request. Please be sure
to write you new MathID number on the form so the person who receives it can
process your password, I do not believe the form it asks for it.
Our fax number is listed at the top of the form, and our mailing address is:
Wolfram Research Inc
Customer Service
100 Trade Center Dr
Champaign IL 61820
If you are unable to open or read the file please contact me and I will
request a copy of the form either faxed or mailed to you.
Gee, thanks. I haven't gotten around to doing this yet, but perhaps I'll find the time.
Meanwhile, AN OPEN SOURCE MATH PACKAGE WOULD BE A GODSEND!!!!!!!
--
grappler
your alternatives (Score:1)
if Matlab-like functionality is appropriate, then try Octave (look for it on the GNU site)
you said you don't like Emacs. well, if your dislike is strong then I guess Jacal [mit.edu] and Mockmma [berkeley.edu] are not your cup of tea. they are written in Scheme and Common Lisp respectively, so presumably they are most convenient to run with the prompt in Emacs.
hth
Links to Octave (Score:3)
Here's a few (Score:2)
Also check out Magnus. [cuny.edu]
JACAL-- never tried it, but it might work... (Score:2)
I don't know a whole bloody lot about Scheme-- would it be terribly difficult to create a C/C++ implementation of JACAL, or would it be best to start from scratch?
Remember, I've never used JACAL, so I don't know about how appropriate it will be to your needs. But it can supposedly "manipulate and simplify equations, scalars, vectors, and matrices of single and multiple valued algebraic expressions containing numbers, variables, radicals, and algebraic differential, and holonomic functions", according to the web page-- it might be a good starting point.
----
I have come to a conclusion about life... I am more
mentally stable than any of these activists or
One possibility (Score:1)
OK, first off: I have not tested this myself, so I can't say if it really is good or not. I'm just presenting a possibility.
YACAS (http://www.xs4all.nl/~apinkus/yacas.html) [xs4all.nl] came up a while back when I did a search. That page also lists a few other computer algebra systems you might want to look at, like JACAL. Check the related-links section.
Just a thought, but if you do try several of these you might want to write a brief article about your findings. I'm certain that other people would be interested...
Re:Octave (Score:2)
Octave is *big* and can take a while to compile from source. for most *nices, it should build out of the box though.
Re:Octave (Score:1)
Re:Maxima (Macsyma) (Score:2)
Maple is fantastic - but OSS could beat it. (Score:2)
The thing is, if you've ever looked at maple it's clear that many of teh modules haven't actually been planned - through the versions it's evolved in the same way that an OSS project would.
So with a good enough core and foundation then a Maple killer shouldn't be too hard. Till then Maple on Linux will have to do.
Re:Wierdness (Score:3)
Unfortunately, like Matlab, it depends on Maple for its symbolic capability. So, what's needed is either a standalone symbolic kit for SciLab, or an open implementation of Maple...
CJW
Try Octave! (Score:1)
You should have a look at GNU Octave [wisc.edu], which is mostly compatible with Matlab.
I tried it under Solaris and Linux and it works quite well. If you have the opportunity to compare Matlab and Octave running on the same platform, you will find that Octave is a bit slower and consumes more resources, but not up to the point that it becomes a problem. Several of the Matlab examples can be ported to Octave and they run fine.
You can find Octave in the latest Debian and SuSE Linux distributions. If you want to compile it yourself, you will need a recent version of gcc (with support for C++ and FORTRAN), the C++ library and optionally gnuplot for the graphics. You will also need some disk space and some patience while the stuff compiles, but the package is reasonably easy to configure, compile and install. Good luck!
Re:Wierdness (Score:3)
Re:Mathematica - ugh (Score:3)
All in all I consider Mathematica to be one of those rare pieces of software that actually have enough merit to be worth every penny paid for them. All of the few bugs I found in version 3.0 have been fixed in 4.0 (for example, I can now find the 1 trillionth prime number without a problem). And the fact that Mathematica does run under Linux is nice too.
In the past I have thought it might be useful to someday start a project to develop a free version of Mathematica. IMHO Mathematica is the best technical computing package available, bar none, and a version with source available would be even sweeter. However, consider this -- a good deal of the functionality in Mathematica is actually written in the Mathematica language. There is a lot of Mathematica source available that comes with the package. Most of the low-level underlying stuff you don't really need the source code for anyway.
As for the comment about arcane language, Mathematica's language is about the cleanest that i've seen. It uses a simple underlying list form (Head, Element,... where Head is a function, data type, etc.) and builds on that to support virtually every known mathematical function, notation, programming style, etc. Lest I seem to exuberant keep in mind it's really optimized towards symbolic and numerical computations, so it really doesn't work as well with things that traditional command line tools such as perl can do much better.
Re:Wierdness (Score:1)
chris
Surfing the net and other cliches...
similar vein (Score:1)
I found it at: http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/R
Use Mathematica (Score:2)
some quantum chemistry for a couple
of years. Mathematica is excellent
for symbolic computations.
>On occasion I've used Mathematica or Maple to
>simplify the process, but
>only rarely because (i)
>they're not much better than plain paper and pen
I completely disagree about that. Give me a pen
example and I'll do it for you with Mathematica.
I have solved symbolic systems of diff. eqns
which otherwise freak you out just by thinking about.
Best,
Octave is not a symbolic package (Score:4)
As for symbolic stuff... you should look at SAL.KachinaTech.com which is a site for scientific applications under Linux
Emacs OS? (Score:1)
Re:Maple is fantastic - but OSS could beat it. (Score:2)
I've been using MathCad since v2 for dos, including the Win3.1 versions, and maybe once used a UNIX (HPUX) version. MathCad is better or worse depending on the person and the job.
What I really love about Maple is that it keeps UNIX support so I can use display it from the server to my machine. Thus, when I run an infinite loop, I can screw everyone on an 8-way SGI rather then slow down my desktop. What fun.
Re:LISP? :) (Score:1)
"Can't you just write in Scheme or Prolog?"
But yes, the response looks good. I was going to mention muPad, but someone already did.
I'd want more of a MathCad clone though, because its interface is far superior to maple's crappy interface...
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [152.7.41.11].
Re:Try Octave! (maybe not) (Score:1)
Ah well, I should have been a bit more careful before posting: Octave is not really a symbolic math program. So I wouldn't mind if my previous comment as well as all others that suggest using Octave were moderated down as "Offtopic"...
For symbolic math, maybe SciLab [inria.fr] (Open Source, not much symbolic stuff but a bit of it anyway) or MuPAD [mupad.de] (free but not Open Source) could help, although I haven't personally tested them.
Re:Octave (Score:1)
Octave/Matlab are mostly for numerical analysis and matrix operations, not for symbolic math.
For example (AFAIK) both Mathmatica and maple can solve simple derivatives and integrals symbolicly, and MATLAB/Octave cannot. (Major AFAKI disclaimer here).
But what's the big deal, Maple isn't that expensive.
Maple V and Mathematica and PC magazine (Score:1)
I remeber when PC Magazine reviewed Math packages.
They choose Mathematica and Maple V as the best; However they gave "Derive" ( a semi-obscure dos-fits-on-a-single-floppy-text-mode an honarable mention as it was the only one to get test gravitational potential problem correct and simplify nested radicals automatically but felt that that it interface and graphics were inferior to Mathematica and Maple V.
I guess they considered getting the correct answer to be a fairly unimportant requirement. I've got the review on my "Hall of Shame" .
I've never taken PC magazine seriously ever since
Gnatlab (Score:1)
Online Manual (Score:1)
Re:Emacs OS? (Score:1)
(This post is only half joking.)
Mycroft-X
Re:Use Mathematica (Score:1)
Omar El-Domeiri
Re:Octave (Score:1)
Math packages (Score:1)
RLab - a Matlab-like GPL'd program (Score:3)
Depending on your needs, try GAP (Score:1)
-----
Maxima? (Score:2)
They call it Maxima but really it is a forked up name for...
macsyma, a symbolic math package BTW developed under "project mac". See? That's clever: project mac, math, symbols... clever. Can "Maxima" be improved? Well, here at least is a recursive acronym: MAXima Is MAcsyma. Nah, no good.
How about, "Maxima: where this derivative's name has a value equal to zero"
Heresy (Score:5)
I use Mathematica regularly. Its syntax is arcane only to the extent that it is itself a programming language with a complex instruction set; and the source is closed. But it has two features which I believe counter this. First, there are simply no programs of comparable power for complex symbolic manipulation; and yes, I am familiar with the open source packages. But algorithms for solving symbolic differential equations and large integrals are simply too much for small groups of people to do; their design requires substantial teams of very skilled people. And while the open source community has mustered many (most?) of the best programmers in the world, the skills of applied mathematicians simply aren't as prevalent in this world.
And second, Wolfram Research (the company which makes Mathematica) has systematically made itself as open as possible; they routinely solicit user suggestions and input, and sometimes incorporate user-submitted packages and code into their own releases. While the core code itself is compiled, a large fraction of the program comes in the form of modular packages which come in the form of Mathematica source code.
In short, I'll say that Not All Closed Source is Bad. The modularity of Mathematica, the publication of the API's and the source to all of the interpreter-level packages, and the responsiveness of the company to its users have given it most of the same advantages that true Open Source posesses.
(All of this applies as well to Maple; that system is oriented more towards large data set manipulation rather than pure symbolics, however, so the situation is slightly - but not very - different.)
So call me a heretic; but I believe that, when the cost of a large number of specialists needed to develop a package is high, the creation of a closed-source, sold-for-money package is reasonable so long as the company does not behave in a manner detrimental to its users. Therefore I would suggest that the continued use and active support of systems such as Mathematica and Maple is beneficial to the community as a whole and should be continued, even in the presence of open-source alternatives.
Mockmma (Score:1)
Richard Fateman has a program called "mockmma" that is a simple knock-off of Mathematica. I don't know how complete it is, but I doubt it is anywhere close to being a complete clone of Mathematica. It's written in Common Lisp and there's a pointer to it [berkeley.edu] on the ALU [alu.org]'s Lisp Tools [alu.org] page.
There are other resources:
I'm sure if you spend a little time with a search engine (Deja [deja.com], Google [google.com]), you will turn up more information. I found the above in less than five minutes, so I'm sure there's much more information out there if you look a little bit.
Rev. Dr. Xenophon Fenderson, the Carbon(d)ated, KSC, DEATH, SubGenius, mhm21x16
Re:ideas (Score:1)
But why? (Score:3)
--
Pattern matching is the key to Mathematica (Score:1)
uh... i'm confused... (Score:2)
Mathematica or Maple to simplify the process, but only rarely
because (i) they're not much better than plain paper and pen, and (ii)
they're proprietary software, and if I'm going to learn someone's arcane command
syntax, I want to make sure it's open source so I can compile and run it
everywhere I need it."
It's the "run it everywhere I need it" part that is confusing me. Don't the major packages have ports for all major platforms? I have seen/used UNIX, Mac, and PC versions of Mathematica, matlab, and maple. I have not had any trouble with transfering session data (mathematica notebooks, matlab log/diary files, etc...) between platforms either.
I remember taking a mathematica course 6 years ago at CMU and using the UI on a PowerPC mac, and running the bigtime number crunching on a Sparc20 server.
I am in no way trying to negate or discourage the need for, or advantages of, an open source solution to the problem, but shouldn't a quantum chemist have enough university or corporate support to provide him with whatever packages he needs to do his job?
"You want to kiss the sky? Better learn how to kneel." - U2
Re:Mathematica - ugh (Score:2)
For the record, I would give half my salary, my first born child, my left testicle, and all the beer in germany for an open source symbolic math package that has similar functionality to Maple or Mathematica.
Mathematica's absurd licensing means (among other things) that on my Linux/Alpha system, I must buy the Tru64 version for $3000.00, and cannot get this under a student license.
Boycott Wolfram Research. Their Draconian licensing policies and you-can-only-afford-this-with-a-government-researc h-grant pricing schemes have put them on my boycott list along with Microsoft, Intel, Ameritech, Blockbuster, and a few others.
Also for the record, I would contribute heavily to any open source project that shows promise of approaching Maple/Mathematica. Here's some thoughts:
<IDEA>
</IDEA>
--Bob
Octave! (Score:1)
Re:But why? (Score:1)
Hopefully, so will everybody else.
Octave is excellent! (Score:1)
I reccomend it.
John
Re:Pencil & paper (Score:1)
(Oh come on somebody had to say it).
Re:Mathematica - ugh (Score:2)
I can't believe how good the after sale service that Wolfram gives is ! There is even one of the developper of Mathematica on comp.soft-sys.math.mathematica that answers questions regarding Mathematica and Linux.
I had to request a new password about 3 or 4 times and everytime I got it in less than 12 hours.
I originally bought the software for Windows and then decided it would be better to transfer it to Linux. I completed the System Transfer Form and had the needed password in less than 24h.
When you will be over with school you will have the possibility to buy the Professionnal version for something like 300$ instead of 1250$ because you bought the student version.
If there is one thing I have to complain about is the fact that Wolfram doesn't advertise very strongly the fact that Mathematica, and mostly the add-ons, are compatible with Linux. I originally bought the Windows version because I thought they could only work under Windows. But everything works under Linux.
Mathematica is great !
---
p.s.: please forgive my bad spelling. English isn't my primary language.
UI? (Score:1)
BTW, octave uses gnuplot for all its plotting, so it doesn't include any X code at all, AFAIK. This keeps things small. (well, smaller, I guess. I don't know why there is an Octave function for all kinds of system calls and libc functions.)
One really great thing about Octave is that it is almost completely compatible with matlab, so I can hand in my linalg homework done with octave, and apply stuff our prof tells us about matlab. one function it doesn't have is rref, but I got around that by snagging rref.m from the school's commercial matlab copy
#define X(x,y) x##y
Buthead Math Software Companies (Score:1)
Many years ago I bought a "Standard" (no FP support) version of Mathematica 2 for the Mac (around $700 then I think). Every year or so it occurs to me that it would be nice occasionally to have a current version of Mathematica. But each time I am repulsed by Wolfram's incredible ego, draconian licensing, and exorbitant pricing.
They won't give me any discount on a new version for having owned an old version, and if I want to install the software on more than one of my own personal systems, then I basically have to buy multiple copies of it, plus deal with their annoying password based hardware copy protection.
What Mathematica needs is for someone like Bill Gates to buy out Wolfram and turn the thing into a $200 program with an ordinary license and no idiotic copy protection!
I recently tried to investigate Maple as an alternative, but they won't even return my email messages asking how much the !@#$% product costs!
Grumble, grumble.
Actually, for puttering around with Math at all but the most advanced levels, nothing beats MathCad (preferably MathCad Pro 2K, but that's like $800 now
G.
Re:Mathematica - ugh (Score:1)
BTW: At our university (Vienna University of Technology) Mathematica 4.0.1 is sold for less than $10 (ATS 80,- to be exact) and includes a Version for Win, Mac and Linux - the use is limited to one year, then you have to verify your studentstatus again.
(The same applies to Maple, but only cost ATS 75,-)
My advice if you are a student: Ask for this student-licence!
Re:Too late they have one already: WRONG! (Score:3)
Moderators, what were you thinking? It may be informative, but it's wrong. If you don't know, don't touch.
Re:Mathematica - ugh (Score:1)
Re:Octave (Score:1)
I have used octave too, and actually prefer it to matlab in certain areas. We have an expiring licence for matlab on some old AIX boxes at my school, so I tried compiling octave on that legacy hardware. I learned there are some caveats about building -- you need gmake and g++ 2.7.2 and not-too-badly-screwed-up headers. There are precompiled binaries on ftp.gnu.org if you don't have c++ or gmake installed and you don't want to rebuild the whole toolchain.
All in all, I love making executable octave scripts with a shebang start, like this:
#!/usr/local/bin/octave -q
Re:similar vein (Score:1)
For 3D mathematical graphics have a look at Geomview geom.umn.edu which is freeware. I've got a suite of programs, the LSMP, which work with geomview. It can creating algebraic surfaces and such like. I use to sell the package to the singularity theory community but I'm well up for open-sourcing/public domaining the package. The web-sites is currently out of action. But email me and I'll get things going again.
Re:How's about a calculator? (Score:1)
Re:Wierdness (Score:2)
Maxima (Score:1)
The maxima package contains extensive documentation, but it is short on introductory material. The user interface is pretty grim, but all the guts (i.e., the hard parts) are there.
closed program, Free OS. (Score:1)
If maple dies, and stops being developed, there won't be any more bug fixes or ports to new architectures or OSes. Fortunately, it runs on at least one Free OS, x86 linux, so it is possible to get it to run on anything. Granted, this would not be efficient. However, by the time the x86 is uncommon (the sooner the better, as far as I'm concerned!), computers will be fast enough to emulate x86 linux. Since the OS is Free, we can make an efficient emulator and catch all the syscalls instead of catching hardware IO. If x86 is still around, but Linux dies (not likely, but _possible_), then we could wrap maple in a compatibility library to translate the linux syscalls.
Anyway, my point is that even if we use a closed package like maple, we will always be able to use it in the form it's at right now. For something like maple, that's good enough for most people. Math is math is math. 1+1=2, and that doesn't change. If new theories are developed, stuff to work with them can be released by independent authors, like what's in the maple share library. I don't imagine it would need (or even need for good performance, since I'm almost sure maple is turing complete.
#define X(x,y) x##y
Re:Too late they have one already :) (Score:3)
I can confirm that Octave [wisc.edu] is a very useful piece of free software. It provides an essentially complete Matlab 4 environment, and some current development effort is going into Matlab 5 compatibility.
Octave's author, John W. Eaton, has put an amazing amount of effort into the project, and is willing to do more as funding for the project [wisc.edu] allows. Coders and documenters are also welcome, I believe. A curious point about Octave has been that, despite being a godsend for those who need it worst (starving students), it hasn't "caught on" in the Free Software community as thoroughly as you might suppose.
Meanwhile, if you couldn't use Octave due to an unreported library incompatibility, it would probably be nice to mention this to somebody who could fix it...
Re:Have you looked at MuPAD? (Score:4)
Trying to compute numbers Very Large Numbers (Score:1)
OSS C Library w/API (Score:1)
Reduce? (Score:1)
Re:Heresy? I think not. (Score:2)
IMO, it's hardly heretical to wish to use the best tool for the job. Like you, in many facets of my professional life (I'm a physicist) I've found no tool, Open Source or closed, that has the flexibility and functionality of Mathematica, particularly in the area of symbolic algebra. I'm skeptical of whether any Open Source product will be able to legitimately compete in this arena for some time.
In my experience, Wolfram Research has excellent customer service, and they do indeed listen to their users re: adding features to their software. If you'll permit an anecdote, when I was writing my dissertation I wanted, for some technical reasons, to be able to generate graphics in Mathematica but use LaTeX drawing commands to place the numbers and labels on my figures. I wrote a filter in C to process the Mathematica-generated encapsulated postscript to strip out the text drawing commands, and then build a corresponding LaTeX file with the drawing instructions. I had some difficulty getting the text positioning to work right, and I asked in an email to Wolfram Res. some specific questions about how MMa generates its EPS, and to my surprise I received a detailed reply within 24 hours. The reply also noted that the next version of MMa would possess the functionality I was trying to work around. (True to their word, it did). I have had other similar experiences with them in the past, but this one sticks in my mind.
My advice to the original poster who is afraid to learn a language that may not be supported on his machine would be to go ahead and learn a symbolic algebra system such as Mathematica or Maple now, since at the moment the commercial systems seem to be the "state of the art." Though the software is not free as in "free beer," the price isn't terribly high on most machines and OSs (Alphas being a notable exception. Furthermore, while you can't tinker with the internals of the interpreter itself, many of the packages are implemented in the language itself, and so you can indeed modify the software to suit your purposes; this gives it some of the same flexibility as Open Source code.
Incidentally, Mathematica and Maple were both available on the Linux platform quite early on in the Linux movement. I remember purchasing the student version of MMa for Linux for $75 back when my P5/133 was considered a "high-end" platform.
Re:Too late they have one already :) (Score:1)
What we are really hurting for is a symbolic math package, as that first fellow said. There seem to be several small efforts out there, none of which amount ot anything yet. Mupad seems to be very much NOT GPL. They have now a corporate sponsor,and may get less open in the future.
Erable for the HP48GX: Woohoo! (Score:3)
And the fact that it only runs on saturn processors is easily outweighed by the small footprint: only 100k! You couldn't find anything sexier than this if you had Tux in a g-string.
Re:Wierdness (Score:2)
Yes, but (Score:2)
The student VERSION of Matlab does have Linux and windows binaries, but the integrated editor and debugger IS NOT available for Linux. Sure, you can write your programs in emacs or whatever text editor you want, but you don't get the context hilighting, and if you write anything of even moderate complexity you will want a debugger. A search of Mathworks' web site reveals that they are "considering" porting the editor and debugger to other OS'es, including Linux. I use Matlab in my classes, and I'm TA'ing an introductory course in Matlab. I was just a little dissapointed when I found out about the debugger (after about an hour of trying to get it to run - NOWEHRE in any manual or help file does it mention the fact that there is no debugger in the Linux version)
Notice also I said the student VERSION - if anyone is contemplating buying (or uhh.. otherwise obtaining) Matlab, make sure you get the student VERSION. The student EDITION is handicapped. The student VERSION is fully featured and includes Simulink for modeling control systems.
Re:Where are they now?: Derive (Score:2)
I don't know where they are.
I was pretty impressed too. I remember my brother showing it to me. I pulled out the CRC book and entered the most complicated looking integral I saw, and I was amazed that it computed the integeral symbolically . (i.e. not some lame numerical integration by trapezoidal or simpsons rule)
Seemed like magic at the time. This was probably on an 8088. I'll bet it was less than 400K. probably 1/100 the size of some of the others.
Re:Have you looked at MuPAD? (Score:2)
Calc actually has some good graphing capabilities; it interfaces with Gnuplot if it can find it on the system. I've produced some nice-looking 2D, 3D, and parametric graphs on my Linux system. My Win98 system has some problems, though.
Info for setting up Gnuplot for use with Calc can be found in the Calc info file or here [cam.ac.uk].
Damn Time there was an Open Source SymbMath packag (Score:2)
I have looked for one of these, having messed about with Maple V years ago at university. I also looked at some of the Mathematica GUI (I xhosted my workstation once to allow someone in Sweden to output some stuff on my display in the UK) These are great apps, but their commercial cost is high - deservedly or not.
I tried looking at MuPad, but the damn thing wanted me to write off to the authors to ask to use the software, also I'm not sure that it was truely Open Source.
I don't want to pay for Mathematica/Maple especially at the prices they are licensed at.
If someone starts a project on this type of software which has the power that Mathematica/Maple has - then I would be very interested. I might even be prepared to pay $40 for such software, but it would be a dream if it were made Open Source (ie Licensed under the GPL)
Re:JACAL-- never tried it, but it might work... (Score:2)
This might be relevant if you intend to be customizing it.
Re:Where are they now?: Derive (Score:2)
They're on to better and smaller things.
SoftWarehouse Inc was purchased by Texas Intrusments, and put to work. The TI-89, the best calculator ever made, uses "Derive" derived software to do it's symbolic functions (Derivation, Integration, Factorying, etc.)
The derive software itself is at http://www.derive.com/dfdset.htm [derive.com]
Calc and emacs (Score:2)
Porting calc from elisp to common lisp should be relatively easy, and once it's in lisp, you can run it with CLISP or any number of good high-quality free lisp implementations that come with source.
Porting calc has extra benefits too (if it's written in elisp and is portable) - first you would have done the community a favor by contributing work, and second, you wouldn't have to learn a new program.
Closed source == locked in (Score:2)
If Mathematica loses its dominant position and stops being developed, then your next computer may be a platform on which mathematica doesn't run. Anyone who's ever owned a microcomputer which isn't PC/Mac compatible probably has a shelf full of software that once was popular but now won't run on their current computer. If it were open-source, this would be less likely since anyone could do the porting.
Since many are scientific academics I imagine lots of them know. However, it would be possible to have a basic OS-dependent engine, and most functions talking to this engine rather than the OS; that way, you could port freematica without understanding Hermite polynomials.
Does Mathematica create net benefit? (Score:2)
Of course, if they hadn't charged a license fee, Wolfram might never have created mathematica, and their might only be the "lower power, lower cost" alternative. This would also be a huge net waste to the economy.
My point is that neither system, as it stands, is economically efficient in this case. Just because Mathematica benefits some people, it doesn't mean they create net benefit for the community as a whole. On the other hand, they don't neccessarily create net loss for the community as a whole, in the way that a proprietory application does if its existence is all that stops an equivalent-powered free version from being developed.
This is from a purely economic point of view, disregarding the moral question of whether non-free software is evil, or whether not giving people control over their IP is evil.
Try NetMath (Score:2)
Check out NetMath [utexas.edu] which I believe does exactly what you want.
--
Weird. (Score:2)
-- Abigail
Creating a package? (Score:2)
It seems to me that I remember seeing references to papers on computer algebra in some of Maple's help files. They'd say stuff like "This function uses the method for ____ described by ___ in ______."
If people are working on such a beast, that would be a good reference. Not to mention that a lot of schools offer a grad course in Computer Algebra.
Greg
Macsyma is quirky but good (Score:2)
On using packages like Macsyma, many commercial ones seem to promise that they can solve your problems automatically. But for most non-trivial problems, what those packages shine at is bookkeeping during complex manipulations; the guidance and inspiration still needs to come from the user (and this is true of all of the packages I have used).
It's great that Macsyma is now officially free as Maxima (I had been using older versions that you could download but whose copyright status was complex). I hope Maxima will become a standard part of Linux distributions and that more people will start developing packages for it again.
Re:Mathematica - ugh (Score:2)
And I'm not whining. I like Mathematica - it rules. I just got really frustrated when I got that request for a "system transfer application" to be sent by snail mail, no less. It reminded me of that UCITA legislation. And the next day I see this on Slashdot, so I just had to rant. Thanks for listening.
--
grappler
And they charge for it! (Score:2)
--