GFX@PSUVM.BITNET (01/14/89)
The general impression I got is that the net-users think the MacSyma
is mathematically more sophisticated than Mathematica, that Mathematica
has superior graphics capability (and better interface). But the bottom
line seems to be the machine. Both softwares are memory hogs. I also
received some comments on a soon-to-be-released symbolic processor "Maple"
developed by U. of Waterloo. Thanks to those who send infos. I would
appreciate any additional commens and will update the summary if needed.
Just in case that might be of interest to anyone: my question was prompted
by the remark made by a prof of optimal control that MacSyma was unable to
solve even relatively simple differential equations. The specifics:
x'(t) = (N - x(t)) * (a + bx(t))
From what I read, I am inclined to think that symbolic processors have
a rather limited expertise... Stephane
------ Some opinions...
From: Ralph Martin <ralph@COMPUTING-MATHS.CARDIFF.AC.UK>
I'm sure you will find macsyma more powerful than mathematica, even if it
is somewhat lacking in sex appeal. Ive regularly solved pretty complex
problems with it which took 128Mb (yes thats right) of memory. You cant
do that on a Mac with anything. Despite this, Im just about to get a copy
of Mathematica for review.
From: gae@sphere.mast.ohio-state.edu (Gerald Edgar)
One competitor would be Maple, available real soon now from the publisher
Brooks/Cole for Mac. It is more capable then Mathematica in symbolic algebra,
but Mathematica wins on graphics and numerical math. A Maple advantage:
it runs well in only 1 megabyte RAM, whereas to do something useful with
Mathematica may require at least 4 megabytes.
A review of Mathematica, by mathematicians, is in the November, 1988, issue
of the Notices of the American Mathematical Society.
From: gl8f@Virginia
(Greg Lindahl, University of Virginia Astronomy Department)
You might also want to check out Maple, a package done by U Waterloo.
They have a Mac version available now, as well as vaxen and suns and
whatnot. If you like I can get you paper and/or email addresses for
them.rimey@ucbarpa.Berkeley.EDU (Ken Rimey) (01/14/89)
In article <67374GFX@PSUVM> GFX@PSUVM.BITNET writes: >... I also received some comments on a soon-to-be-released symbolic >processor "Maple" developed by U. of Waterloo. Maple has been available under Unix for years. >.... >Just in case that might be of interest to anyone: my question was prompted >by the remark made by a prof of optimal control that MacSyma was unable to >solve even relatively simple differential equations. The specifics: > > x'(t) = (N - x(t)) * (a + bx(t)) The remark is wrong. [arpa]-> vaxima Vaxima 2.11 in Franz Lisp opus 43.1 Fri Aug 28 15:05:23 1987 (c_1) load("ode2"); /g/2.0/mac/share/ode2.l being loaded. ;; Loading file "/g/2.0/mac/share/ode2.l" (d_1) /g/2.0/mac/share/ode2.l (c_2) eq: 'diff(x,t) = (N - x) * (a + b * x); dx (d_2) -- = (n - x) (a + b x) dt (c_3) ode2(eq, x, t); - log(- n + x) + log(a + b x) (d_3) ----------------------------- = %c + t a + b n >From what I read, I am inclined to think that symbolic processors have >a rather limited expertise... Stephane Maybe, but not as limited as you suggested. Ken Rimey rimey@arpa.berkeley.edu ucbvax!rimey
paolucci@snll-arpagw.UUCP (Sam Paolucci) (01/14/89)
In article <67374GFX@PSUVM> GFX@PSUVM.BITNET writes:
->
->The general impression I got is that the net-users think the MacSyma
->is mathematically more sophisticated than Mathematica, that Mathematica
->has superior graphics capability (and better interface). But the bottom
->line seems to be the machine. Both softwares are memory hogs. I also
->received some comments on a soon-to-be-released symbolic processor "Maple"
->developed by U. of Waterloo. Thanks to those who send infos. I would
->appreciate any additional commens and will update the summary if needed.
->
->Just in case that might be of interest to anyone: my question was prompted
->by the remark made by a prof of optimal control that MacSyma was unable to
->solve even relatively simple differential equations. The specifics:
->
-> x'(t) = (N - x(t)) * (a + bx(t))
->
->From what I read, I am inclined to think that symbolic processors have
->a rather limited expertise... Stephane
..(stuff deleted)..
I don't know about Macsyma, but Maple on my Amiga 2000 gave the answer
to the above ODE:
ln ( N - x(t) ) - ln ( a + b x(t) )
----------------------------------- + t = C
N b + a
in about 3 seconds. I believe that a version of Maple is soon to be
available on a MAC II. It is certainly worth checking it out.
Note: I have no connection with the University of Waterloo, I'm just
a satisfied customer.
--
-+= SAM =+-
"the best things in life are free"
ARPA: paolucci@snll-arpagw.llnl.gov