Talk:List of computer algebra systems

Too many links

It looks like a link farm! Most other software lists don't have URLs for programs which have articles. I'll remove all these & will start to clean the external links. --Karnesky 23:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

oops--had accidentally rmed DoCon. Samsara added it back with the comment "slash and burn stinks." Please elaborate. -- Karnesky 01:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

My point is that red links are there for a reason, and that weblinks given with red links are there for a reason, too, because that's what an editor would require as a minimum to be able to make a stub; I do agree with removing external links for blue links. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 01:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes--I agree. DoCon's removal was a mistake & thanks for fixing it. The only other redlink I rmed was Algebra Solved!, which had no external link. I rmed URLs for bluelinked articles & the dead/foreign/off-topic URLs from External links. (I think External links still needs to be cleaned up with descriptions & possibly a few more can be removed--they are somewhat redundant.) -- Karnesky 02:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Title: list vs. comparison

Is there any reason this was merged to list of computer algebra systems rather than to comparison of computer algebra systems? I'd propose moving the article, as the "comparion" is a more accurate description. --Karnesky 19:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Feature comparison?

This list just compares price and license... a real comparison would include features. To put it in another way, I can use this list to quickly find out which CAS's are free, but not which of them is the best (for my purposes). Also the cyan background of the "free" cells is much too bright compared to the pastel green and red in the adjacent column. Shinobu 19:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

We could put another yes/no column titled "Full featured". This would be set to yes for full featured CASs like Maxima and Mathematica and set to no for specialized or incomplete CASs like Mathomatic and Fermat. - Gesslein 03:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps. Although that would raise the question what the differences between various "full featured" CAS'es are. Are these programs identical? Surely not? Still, an extra column is a good idea. Maybe even more than one, if there is a desire to go into more detail. 82.139.85.207 23:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I just checked this list to compare Maxima, Mathomatic and Maple, and it doesn't help much. Useful comparisons might include: maximum digits precision, (or "highest integer"); some kind of benchmark, say for a big factorial or maybe factoring a given big number; number of functions; families of functions. (trig, calc, primes, etc.); postfix or infix notation; maximum variables per expression; highest number base; graphing (y/n); extensible; callable from other languages or programs; etc. --AC 06:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with Gerbrant's comment about it not being a real feature comparison. It would be nice if it contained a table with boxes for things like integration, transforms (perhaps by name), limits, special functions, etc. and opportunities for there to be a summary of the level of coverage provided. Absent such, this entry should be renamed Comparison of Platform Accessibility of Computer Algebra Systems or something less misleading like that. --Netsettler (talk) 17:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Even if I don't know who is Gerbrant, I also agree on this point. The only thing which currently might allow to guess the features is the last column, which is filled in in a very biased way. E.g., Mmca boasts with

Ubiquitous system also includes extensive numeric capabilities, statistics, image processing, number theory, boolean computation and is a development environment.

while Maple just mentions "Library code is viewable". Needless to say that image processing is not at all relevent when comparing computer algebra systems, while of course Maple provides the same functionalities and more via its toolboxes. Valid criterias might include: arbitrary precision integers / floats; manipulation of arbitrary symbolic expressions (e.g. PARI can't deal with x^y), animated and/or "interactive" 2D/3D plots, estimated number of known library functions (built-in / shipped with standard distribution as library / available via download), document-like editable worksheets, import / export features, integration into word processing systems, ... — MFH:Talk 16:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Color coding is POV

IMO having the green background color for open source and the red background color for non open source cells, subconsciously suggests that open source is better. Green typically suggests good when compared to red suggesting bad. Regardless of whether or not it is, wikipedia shouldn't come out on one side or the other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.193.5.99 (talk) 17:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree (in fact came to the talk page to say the same thing) guiltyspark 21:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The same complaint is current at Talk:Comparison_of_statistical_packages. JonMcLoone (talk) 16:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

We had this discussion at Template talk:Yes. The consensus was that green means yes & red means no & that we aren't prescribing a value judgment. The 'but yes' and 'but no' templates were deleted for this very reason. --Karnesky (talk) 17:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Please add MATLAB Symbolic Toolbox

It is one of the most popular CAS systems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.58.190 (talk) 05:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Isn't MATLAB symbolic toolbox equal to Maple? However, it could be mentioned and referenced to Maple

It is a very old version of Maple, so it is not accurate to say that it is equal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.229.28.197 (talk) 13:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Past versions of MATLAB used Maple in the symbolic toolbox. Some years ago they moved to MuPAD instead.--93.232.252.137 (talk) 13:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Encalc a CAS?

I don't think Encalc should be listed here, it is not a system that can be run locally and it doesn't appear to do any algebra. It is only a units conversion web service as far as I can tell. --George Gesslein II (talk) 10:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Online is OK, but a units converter is not a CAS. I will remove T68492 (talk) 11:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Good job, thanks! -- George Gesslein II (talk) 00:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Supported platforms

I think that the supported platforms table should indicate whether compiled executables are available or whether you have to compile it yourself. For people who do not know how to compile code, systems that do not provide pre-compiled versions, remain inaccessible.

Either a (*) leading to a note, or perhaps such systems should be marked as "No" with a note "Source code should compile for this system " —Preceding unsigned comment added by T68492 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you have an example of a tool and platform that you'd like this to be the case for? I think there is too much grey area for that to be really valuable. Which distributions of Linux, BSD, and Unix would you choose to represent the answers for the rest of the column? What if something is only compiled for a particular version of windows or OS X? For some cases, using the "depends" template with a note might be appropriate (e.g. relies on cygwin on windows or wine on *nix). I wouldn't necessarily count out non-binaries as "unsupported;" sometimes binaries aren't distributed, but there remains active user assistance (commercial support or otherwise). --Karnesky (talk) 01:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Probably quite a few of them. But lets look at Maxima as an example. If you look at the download pages... [1] and [2] you see that there is a Windows installer (.exe) and the same for Linux (I assume thats what a .rpm file is) but for other platforms you get only the source code that you must compile. So as a Windows user I can download and run Maxima with no special software or skill, but as a Mac user I must get a compiler and know how to use it. I think that makes Windows a "Yes" and Mac a "Yes*" (or "No*" depending on whether we think the majority of WP readers can compile software or not). I think the question of what flavor of an OS is supported is a different question. I think we have to interpret the column in terms of the most important flavors. eg If it fails to work on XP either as a pre-compiled .exe or when you compile it yourself then Windows should be a "No" but if works on XP but not on 95 then it might be a "Yes". If it works on XP when you compile it yourself but the .exe only works on 95 then that would be a "Yes*" (or "No*") Vista should probably not yet be required, but soon should be. Likewise for the main Linux platforms and Mac OSX Intel vs OS9 or OSX classic.

Personally I would take the tougher interpretation. Most people know nothing about compiling software, so those without installers should be "No*" where "*" is labelled as "The source code supplied will compile for this platform if you have an appropriate compiler" T68492 (talk) 09:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Probably quite a few of them. But lets look at Maxima as an example. If you look at the download pages... [3] and [4] you see that there is a Windows installer (.exe) and the same for Linux (I assume thats what a .rpm file is) but for other platforms you get only the source code that you must compile. So as a Windows user I can download and run Maxima with no special software or skill, but as a Mac user I must get a compiler and know how to use it. I think that makes Windows a "Yes" and Mac a "Yes*" (or "No*" depending on whether we think the majority of WP readers can compile software or not). I think the question of what flavor of an OS is supported is a different question. I think we have to interpret the column in terms of the most important flavors. eg If it fails to work on XP either as a pre-compiled .exe or when you compile it yourself then Windows should be a "No" but if works on XP but not on 95 then it might be a "Yes". If it works on XP when you compile it yourself but the .exe only works on 95 then that would be a "Yes*" (or "No*") Vista should probably not yet be required, but soon should be. Likewise for the main Linux platforms and Mac OSX Intel vs OS9 or OSX classic.

Personally I would take the tougher interpretation. Most people know nothing about compiling software, so those without installers should be "No*" where "*" is labelled as "The source code supplied will compile for this platform if you have an appropriate compiler" T68492 (talk) 09:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Not all Linux distributions support RPM packages out-of-the-box, though. So, as a Linux user, you MIGHT be able to use the binary RPMs, but you might not. Further: on OS X, you can get maxima binaries using fink. It is also part of SAGE, which there are binary OS X downloads of. The mailing list for maxima has plenty of posts from OS X users--I fail to see how it isn't a "supported" platform. Other products will have similar potential exceptions & you haven't proposed to do with any program that is distributed only as source. I think the current tables are consistent with other software comparison pages. Before any change, we should make sure that we address some of the "gray area" that will be common for anything marked "yes*" or "no*" under your proposal. --Karnesky (talk) 13:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If you can get a MacOSX .dmg file then that is a "yes", even if it is odd that you have to get it from someone other than the project. Perhaps a better example is YACAS. Looking at the download page [5] there is ONLY source code. It gets ticks in every platform when you can't actually get it ready to use on any platform.

You are right that there are lots of gray areas (different flavors of an OS, different hardware, extra software that some systems, amount of configuration, compiling, code hacking you need to do etc) and in the end, the page for that system is the place to put all the detailed requirements and caveats. But I think the basic test should be "Can a TYPICAL (insert OS) user go and get/buy (insert system) that will usually WORK without alteration" and I think on that test having to have a compiler and knowledge of using compilers before they can get it to "work", is at least significant enough to highlight.T68492 (talk) 15:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

yacas is a great example. It'd border on the ridiculous to say it was "unsupported" on all platforms. There are third-party binaries available & yacas makes efforts to ensure their C++ version is cross-platform & explicitly claim support on the platforms listed in that table. To say otherwise would seem to be projecting an bias against source distributions.

There is no NPOV definition of a "typical" linux/bsd/unix that I am aware of. I wouldn't consider compilation "alteration."

The table is accurately labeled "operating system support" and has an informative note that the only criteria used is whether it runs without emulation on a platform. I see no advantage of changing the heading and description to say that binaries are available & I don't know whether or not this would warrant yet another table. --Karnesky (talk) 16:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I have nothing against source distribution. That seems good. But ONLY source distribution is worthy of mentioning. I expect that the large majority of people that might be able to make use of YACAS are not equipped to be able to use in in source-only form. There is no download from the project of a Windows version of the current release of YACAS. I think this page is misleading those people but not telling them. At the very least the definition above the table should warn them that that this table does not imply binaries are available and that they may need to compile it themselves from whatever language the system is written is. T68492 (talk) 10:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

To me it would be impossible to add this binary/source idea properly, since for many pieces of software, there are binaries and source, but the binaries often lag behind the source. So what would you do if version 1 has binaries, but is 10 years older than the source code? In some cases, binaries are not created by the developers, but by others. As such, it's always going to be a difficult one to do objectively. Binaries for more popular platforms are likely to be created quicker than those for less popular platforms. Perhaps just a link to the download page would be better. Drkirkby (talk) 12:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Not a comparison

This article is more a list of computer algebra systems than a comparison. In fact, the only properties being compared are the licence and the operating system. Feature comparison is lacking.

I suggest the article to be renamed in "List of computer algebra systems". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.10.165.27 (talk) 13:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

See above for request of & discussion about "feature comparison".— MFH:Talk 16:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Please add comparison for the language of the CAS systems.

--79.111.104.100 (talk) 21:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

A Column should be added for the Programming Language in which the Software was written.

The same base language for the software is often the language used to interface the software with other programs and to extend the software. Therefore, this is useful information for any comparison of the different CAS's.

Furthermore, this information is included on the Wikipedia pages of all of the CAS's. Including it in the List page would make it easier to do a side by side comparison, instead of having to go to each Wikipedia entry for that information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew138s (talk • contribs) 00:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Needs a column to indicate whether there is a GUI or not

Mikejens (talk) 20:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments section

The following comment by drkirkby moved from the TALK page of Mathematica:

Cloudruns adds to the section on notes under Mathematica that Ubiquitous system also includes extensive numeric capabilities, statistics, image processing, number theory, boolean computation and is a development environment. I find it hard to believe that Ubiquitous is not a stretch of the imagination. (Try a search on jobsite, monstir or other job sites and see how many jobs require Mathematica skills, and one would soon see Mathematica is not ubiquitous. There were zero jobs when I looked, but lots on MATLAB) One could argue that the features of Mathematica are described on the Mathematica page, so why add them to the page on Comparison of Computer Algebra systems?

In response- the purpose of the Comments column would appear to be the place to put what is DIFFERENT about each tool. I tried to list some features that seemed unusual for a CAS. Also one more thing that distinguishes Mathematica from many of these systems is that it is very widely used. Some on this page are quite obscure. The use of "ubiquitous" is somewhat CONTEXTUAL. CAS are mainly used in universities, and I am yet to see a university that does not have some Mathematica. Cloudruns (talk) 17:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not dispute the fact that many universities will make some use of Mathematica, but it is not "ubiquitous". You have provided no evidence to support the claim that Mathematica it is very widely used. (Based on the number of job adds requiring Mathematica skills, I suggest it is not as widely used as you claim. MATLAB skills are far more sought after in the job market). So why did you not say the same about MATLAB?

MATLAB is NOT a CAS. MATLAB is NOT on this page.Cloudruns (talk) 12:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

You add links to numerous Wolfram Research web sites.

NO I used wolfram ONLINE DOCUMENTATION as CITATIONS to TWO edits. No other links.Cloudruns (talk) 12:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Others have commented in your talk page about you adding Mathematica to categories which are not very relevant.

NO they haven't User_talk:Cloudruns Cloudruns (talk) 12:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I've asked you several times if you have any connections with Wolfram Research and you fail to answer that question. Virtually every time you edit a page about some bit of maths software that is not Mathematica, it plays down the importance, removes the slightest bit of hype (sometimes I accept you are right here).

NO. I have edited TWO other math software pages - SAGE where I removed the words "worlds most widely used", "large amounts", "massive" and "easily" (I PREVIUOSLY removed "easy" from Mathematica page also), and AXIOM where I removed the claim that made no sense "Axiom is currently the only CAS with an (almost) complete implementation of..". I have edited NO OTHER maths software pages. You agree with SOME of these edits- so what is left?Cloudruns (talk) 12:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

But where Mathematica is concerned, you go around adding as many links, as many catagories as you can think you can get away with. And of course, when I added a sentence about a free alternative, you quickly remove that.

NO I DIDNT. I changed the wording, but I left the link to YOUR SAGE software.Cloudruns (talk) 12:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not know who you are, but if my life depended on guessing correctly whether or not you work for Wolfram Research, I would have to take my chances and say you do. Only you know whether I would be dead or alive now! Drkirkby (talk) 01:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You would be UNWISE to bet your life on it.

Dubious

Sage (mathematics software)#Features

Technical word processing including formula editing... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwide (talk • contribs) 11:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Maxima Formula editor

I belive Maxima has formula editor capabilities via TeX export (see tex() function) 149.244.249.60 (talk) 16:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Kash/KANT and Magnus not listed

If the list inlcudes Pari/GP then it should also inlcude Kash/Kant available here: http://page.math.tu-berlin.de/~kant/kash.html Moreover the system Magnus for infinite group theory is also missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkoprowski (talk • contribs) 10:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I have added KANT/KASH to the list of CASes just now, due to the existence of an article on it. However, I know nothing about Magnus. You can edit Wikipedia too, if you want to. Everyone is welcome. :-) --George Gesslein II (talk) 13:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Is the "Open source" column necessary?

It seems like the open source column is not needed, given that there is also a license column. asmeurer (talk | contribs) 15:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I wen't ahead and removed it. If you disagree, please discuss here. asmeurer (talk | contribs) 15:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

That probably was a wise decision, but a lot of work, there are too many columns already. Thank you Asmeurer for a job well done! --George Gesslein II (talk) 21:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Mathics

Please add Mathics <http://www.mathics.net/>. Thanks 69.140.204.143 (talk) 03:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Multiple issues

This article has multiple issues:

• It is pure WP:OR: Although there are published papers that compare some computer algebra systems, none is cited and the content of the article is not based of existing sources.
• Several of the cited softwares have nothing to do with computer algebra. "Computer algebra" implies the ability of doing some algebra on a computer. This excludes formula editors and software making only numerical floating point computation.
• Several of the cited software are experimental software, that have not been published nor cited in scientific publications, and therefore do not satisfy the General notability guideline.
• The article does makes any hierarchy between the systems that are compared, presenting at the same level systems that are widely used in many scientific domains and confidential software that have be used only by their authors and their close friends (WP:FRINGE|fringe software]]). Therefore the article does not satisfy the policy WP:NPOV.

When I started to write this post, I had not a clear idea if the article should be improved or deleted. Reading again my post, I am now convinced that this article should be deleted and replaced by sections in computer algebra systems, presenting the main computer algebra systems (with {{main}} template), explaining why there are important and summarizing their main abilities. --D.Lazard (talk) 17:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

First, mention in a scientific journal can contribute to WP:NOTABILITY but isn't a requirement. To claim that the article is "pure WP:OR" is hyperbole. Second, your complaint that the article compares apples and oranges is moot given your tacit approval of the proposal that this be a list and not a comparison at all. Third, "fringe software" is a neologism, your own invention. I believe you want WP:SPIP. Adding a non-notable program of your own design to the list is WP:SPIP; believing that intuition can tell you who wrote the program and who uses it in the absence of other evidence is WP:FRINGE. Yappy2bhere (talk) 20:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

1- I have not invented the page WP:FRINGE. I have used it to say briefly that if a software is not mentioned in any reliable reliable source and has never been presented to any conference on the subject, then it is not only original research but it is necessary a confidential program (otherwise how people could know of it?) and it should be considered like fringe theories and receive its due weight.

2- I never added any program to this article. On the other hand the entry Mathomatic has been inserted by the author of the WP article, which has the same name as the author of the software. Is it not WP:SPIP?

3- Sure that notability does not requires publication in a scientific journal. But for scientific questions, the reliable sources are usually the scientific publications, even if some are not reliable.

I confirm that the article has multiple issues even after the cleanup that I have started. D.Lazard (talk) 23:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Requested Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa (talk) 14:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

---

Comparison of computer algebra systems → List of computer algebra systems – Following the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of computer algebra systems. There were three people in support of moving to List of computer algebra systems do we have a general consensus for the move.Salix (talk): 17:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support the name comparison leeds to OR problems ideally we should have up to date sources comparing the different systems. The article works for me just as list and seems to avoid the OR problems.--Salix (talk): 17:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support unless and until a reliable source can be found addressing the "comparison" part of the title. Deltahedron (talk) 17:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
• Not oppose: This article has multiple issues. I have began to correct some of them: removing entries that are unambiguously not notable and adding, for each entry, a short comment to inform the reader of its specificities. It appears that other entries should be removed, mainly those that are qualified "Numerical software with some computer algebra capabilities". IMO, such a software is not a computer algebra system and should not appear here. When the cleaning up will be done, I'll will edit computer algebra system to make it an encyclopedic article: explaining what is a CAS system, what are the specificities of CAS's and their differences with other software, describing the unavoidable capabilities, ... Also I'll add a short section for each main system, emphasizing on its specificities. When this program will be completed, it may appear that the present article is useless and that a merge may be the best solution. But it is too early for a decision. For the moment, the move is not bad solution. Not also that, there is a navbox that is somehow a "list of computer algebra systems". D.Lazard (talk) 18:13, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support per WP:LISTNAME. Although the guideline permits the current name, well-defined features in the Functionality table give way to a list of branches of mathematics, so most entries can't be properly compared with one another on the basis of what is listed there. Yappy2bhere (talk) 03:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support as noted above WP:LISTNAME prefers "List of" to "Comparison of". Renaming seems like a good approach to deal with OR concerns. Seems like Template:Computer algebra systems should be keep in sync as well. Note that the template has the word "Comparison" which links to this list, that link will probably need to be tweaked as well if the article is renamed. PaleAqua (talk) 06:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

What is a CAS?

To continue of cleaning up this page, I am faced to the problem of what is a CAS and what is the level of notability required to be cited in this page. It appears that the previous editors of this page did consider that a CAS is a software that either allows some formula manipulation or has the words "computer algebra" or "symbolic manipulation" in its documentation. That is a silly definition. Computer algebra is a well established scientific field with several annual conferences (the main one being ISSAC) and several journals (the main one being J. Symbolic Computation). Thus the only valid definition of what is a Computer algebra system is what the specialists think of as a CAS. Moreover the rising importance of computer algebra makes that in becomes unavoidable in scientific computation and that every large numerical library must have some tools imported from computer algebra. This does not make them computer algebra systems.

From this analysis, I conclude that the software that are not recognized as CAS by the computer algebra community have not their place here either by lack of notability of by being not really a CAS. I intend to remove from the list the following software:

• Not really CAS: Euler Math Toolbox, Mathomatic (teaching software), Symbolic MATLAB Toolbox, TI-Nspire CAS (Computer Software)
• Non notable software that have not been reviewed by computer algebra experts (their WP page do not give any secondary source): Mathomatic, SymbolicC++, SymPy, Xcas, Yacas

Do I have made some mistake in this list? D.Lazard (talk) 11:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I did a mistake: Sympy is notable, being a subpackage of GAGE [6]. This is a valid secondary source. D.Lazard (talk) 16:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that a sentence be added to the article to the effect that primarily numerical software can have some computer algebra rather than not mentioning Symbolic MATLAB Toolbox at all. Mistory (talk) 17:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Seems to me that symbolic manipulation is the sine qua non of a computer algebra system. Why exactly is "a software that either allows some formula manipulation" a sillier definition than the diffuse "what the specialists think of as a CAS"? Who are these specialists, and what is their criteria (with references, please)? Yappy2bhere (talk) 19:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Among the specialists of computer algebra one may cite the members of SIGSAM [7], the participants of ISSAC conferences [8] and the editorial board and authors of Journal of Symbolic computation. More seriously, this is common that it is very difficult to define a scientific field, and that the only valid definition of a scientific field is to be what the community of people working in that field think that it is. For example, if you assert that 2+2=4 is number theory, this would be wrong only because number theorists consider that it is wrong. About the criteria, in the publications of computer algebra, the author frequently cite the CAS's that they have used and the CAS's that they have tested. The lack of source shows that the software that I have qualified as non notable have never been reviewed by an independent expert. However, I may have missed some source. This was the purpose of my last question. D.Lazard (talk) 00:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

And by "criteria", I meant criteria. Does SIGSAM say what is a CAS and what is not, or are they silent on this point? You appear to be identifying "serious" applications according to your own personal criteria, and removing the rest. Yappy2bhere (talk) 02:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The root problem here is that no sources are provided for the list as a whole. This is required for a list to satisfy the notability criteria for lists. Ironically, no one mentioned this in the recent deletion discussion. I'm tempted to add a notability tag to the article, but I think sources do exist. You two should table your argument until you find the sources. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, clear selection criteria for items in this list should be included in the lead (this link provides examples). RockMagnetist (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's quite right to say that a source is required for the list as a whole, at least not if that means for the exact contents of the list. I read the AFD discussion as agreeing that the concept of a list of CAS was a notable concept, in that there are existing sources that discuss the set of CAS as a whole. It is not required that the exact list in this article be identical to a list in one of those sources. I think it is also too much to ask that each entry in the list be independently notable. Deltahedron (talk) 12:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

No, a given reference does not have to contain all the items in the list. I never said that, and the policy doesn't say that. Have another look at WP:NOTESAL, if you haven't already. However, the manual of style for stand-alone lists also says that clear inclusion criteria must be established in the lead. A common criterion is that all of the items be notable, but other criteria are possible. The key is to make sure that the list is not indiscriminate. Since there is disagreement about what should go in the list, the criteria should probably be discussed here first. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

My impression is that, at the moment, everyone is arguing over entries that have their own articles, so an implied minimum requirement is that the entries be notable. Is that correct? RockMagnetist (talk) 16:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I for one would prefer to see a more inclusive list. CAS for which there is some verifiable information but not necessarily independent notability seems appropriate to me. For example, I think that Algebrator is of questionable notability, but there is certainly enough independently verifiable information to list it. Deltahedron (talk) 16:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I see that the latest revert by D.Lazard has the rationale, "WP:CSC says that if the list is not complete, all entries should be notable or all entries sould be non notable." That is not what it says. Those are simply two commonly used criteria. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I hope one of D.Lazard and Yappy2bhere will take the high road and stop this edit war until clear criteria for the list have been established. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I too prefer a more inclusive list. The CERN physicist and the middle school student who wants to cheat on correct his algebra exercise should both find what they need here. They do have different requirements, though, and I think refactoring the one comprehensive table into several, perhaps according to specific feature sets, would be an improvement. Yappy2bhere (talk) 18:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm looking for definitions, RockMagnetist, but Computer Algebra System is defined like pornography in almost every pub I've looked at. I did find this: "Computer algebra is a more recent area of computer science, where mathematical tools and computer software are developed for the exact solution of equations." [9] Yappy2bhere (talk) 18:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Keith Geddes says this: "[W]e are concerned here with the use of computers for specific mathematical computations which are to be performed symbolically. This subject area is referred to by various names including algebraic manipulation, symbolic computation, algebraic algorithms, and computer algebra, to name a few." [10] Yappy2bhere (talk) 19:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

"CAS [computer algebra systems] is an interdisciplinary area between Mathematics and Computer Science. Its research focuses on the development of algorithms for performing symbolic manipulations with algebraic objects on computers, and design of programming languages and environments for implementing these algorithms." [11] Yappy2bhere (talk) 22:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all the definitions. The first two seem to apply more generally to computer algebra, while the third one seems most specific to computer algebra systems. Would it be correct to say that a computer algebra system includes both a collection of algorithms and an environment or language to implement them? RockMagnetist (talk) 22:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

... and some other things, see the lead of computer algebra system that has been reverted ([12]) --D.Lazard (talk) 22:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

That lead seems to be a list of desirable features that can be classified as either algorithms, environment or language. Are any of them required for a system to be considered CAS? RockMagnetist (talk) 23:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. The first two are computer algebra textbooks; both define computer algebra but use computer algebra system without explicitly defining it. The third is a collection of Maple routines; it defines computer algebra system but uses computer algebra without defining it. I read computer algebra to be the research area, and computer algebra system to be a specific implementation with specific elements selected from among the results of the research area in order to realize a particular set of goals or features. For example,

Gathen & Gerhard (def.1) say "This book presents foundations for the mathematical engine underlying any computer algebra system... Finally, a successful computer algebra system involves much more than just a mathematical engine: efficient data structures, a fast kernel and a large compiled or interpreted library, user interface..." [p.4].

Geddes et al. (def.2), similarly: "The second reason for undertaking the writing of this book revolves around our interest in computer algebra system implementation. The authors are involved in the design and implementation of the MAPLE computer algebra system..." [p.xvi]

This merger discussion seems relevant. Yappy2bhere (talk) 23:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Although relevant, the discussion seems to be little more than a lot of personal opinions. In Gathen & Gerhard I also see the statement "... mathematical engine underlying any computer algebra system", which supports the definition of a CAS as something more than the mathematical software. Geddes et. al. seem to define computer algebra system mainly by example. RockMagnetist (talk) 00:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I have inserted an attempt at a definition of a CAS, based on the above sources, into the lead. This would constitute the criteria for inclusion in the tables. A comment on environment: My impression from the history section in Geddes et al. is that there is always at least an interpreter or translator for the CAS language. RockMagnetist (talk) 02:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I may confirm your impression, at least for the software that allow the user to write programs. In fact, none implementation language used in CAS is compatible with the usual mathematical language (The only exception seems to be Axiom). For the same reason, except for Axiom, there are very rarely a compiler for user programs. And the user may not program in the implementation language, because he does not know how the data are represented and, even if he knows he does no have access to the core of the CAS. D.Lazard (talk) 09:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposition of restructuring the 3 main articles on computer algebra

About the subject of section "What is a CAS" my opinion is that there may not be any commonly accepted definition. There may be a consensus about the two first lists in SIGSAM software, but not on a broader list. This seems the main reason why nobody gave a clear definition of what is a CAS. Moreover, if we take into account the interest of the users, I think we have to answer to several questions:

• What is computer algebra? This should be answered in computer algebra which therefore should be expanded in the same style as most articles about a mathematical area. I have started this. Rockmagnetist, the empty sections that you have removed were not intended to help my writing but to give to the reader some idea of the future content of the article (It may be useful to know that something exists, even if one do not know what it is exactly)
• What I can do with computer algebra? Computer algebra system should answers to this question, but does not, giving only a poor list of some capabilities of the CASs. Answering this question should be done using the content of the above cited books and some others. This article should also contain a short description of the main general CAS.
• I am working in a specific field and I want to know what computer algebra may do for me and which CAS may be convenient for me. This deserve one section by relevant field in computer algebra system. For example a section "Computer algebra in education" should contain the list (or a link to) of the hand held calculators with CA capabilities (not CAS, as IMO they are not CAS) and the mention of more elaborated programs like Algebrator.

This project would imply to rewrite many things, probably to merge this article and computer algebra system (but would this be really a merge, as almost anything would need to be rewritten?). But it may avoid disputes on impossible definitions.

Comments on such a project? — Preceding unsigned comment added by D.Lazard (talk • contribs) 10:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Turning this into an article sounds like a good idea. I have been wondering whether information like the cost of a CAS belonged in an encyclopedia; but more in-depth information certainly does. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Correction - Matlab symbolic toolbox

I think that MuPad (which is now a Matlab symbolic toolbox) has the equation editor. Would you mind to double-check? Dimacq (talk) 15:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Octave

! GNU Octave | GNU Octave | 1997 | 1997 | 2013 (3.8) | $0 | style="background: #DFF; color:black; vertical-align: middle; text-align: center; " class="free table-free"|Free | collegiate, semi compat Matlab: alg, cntrl theory, audio, imaging, linux, more. |-

Application areas

I am dubious that the information about application areas can be made to work, as it seems somewhat subjective about how much each tool is used in each area. But it does seem clear to me that it is different from specific types of symbolic computation. So I have moved those recent additions into their own table.

The English also needs some clean-up. 09:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonMcLoone (talk • contribs)

The functionality comparison table has some errors, for example Wolfram "Mathematica" does have probability and tensorial calculus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.202.0.95 (talk) 22:31, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Removed ScaViz - internal vs external capabilities

I removed ScaViz, because when I looked into its documentation, I found that it provides no computer algebra capabilities of its own. You can import Java or Python computer algebra via Sympy, Jacsyma, JScl or SymJa. But on this basis any program with a Java or Python API is a computer algebra system. I believe that this page should list only systems that provide some computer algebra capabilities of their own.

I don't know if this stretched definition is an issue for any other systems on this page.JonMcLoone (talk) 10:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Discrepancy between Maxima and Macsyma

The Macsyma entry states: "development started: 1968", while Maxima entry says: "development started: 1967". These two dates cannot be both correct since Maxima is the continuation of Macsyma. I don't know which is right and which is wrong, so I'm not correcting it myself. But definitely there is a discrepancy here. Pkoprowski (talk) 10:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of computer algebra systems. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20051105092120/http://directory.google.com:80/Top/Science/Math/Algebra/Software/ to http://directory.google.com/Top/Science/Math/Algebra/Software/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Better sorting

It would be very nice to have a better license and fee sorting. Could anyone do this task? Thanks, --217.237.164.210 (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Updates for the Symbolic Math Toolbox

I am a MathWorks employee so I’m disclosing my Conflict of Interest and not making any edits myself. As such, please consider the following factual updates for the Symbolic Math Toolbox.

 Spalfrey (talk)

Updates for the General table

Version R2017a

Release March 8th, 2017

Cost $3,150 (Commercial), $99 (Student Suite), $700 (Academic), $194 (Home) Including required MATLAB (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MATLAB)

You can verify pricing at https://www.mathworks.com/store

Updates for Functionality table

Formula editor - Yes

Inequalities - Yes

Diophantine equations - Yes

Graph Theory - Yes

Number Theory - Yes

Boolean Algebra - Yes

Probability - Yes

Control Theory - Yes

Updates for Operating System SaaS - Yes; available on MATLAB Mobile and MATLAB Online

Update for Description. CAS system providing tools for solving and manipulating symbolic math expressions and performing variable-precision arithmetic.

Spalfrey (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2017 (UTC)spalfrey

Hi @Spalfrey. I actually went to the MATLAB website today and noticed a new revision (R2017a) since this request was made. I will mark this request as declined for now, but in the meantime, please update your request with the new version. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Jd22292. I made the updates, only the release version and date have changed. Please make the edits now. Spalfrey (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 11:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jd22292. Hi, can these edits please be made? Spalfrey (talk) 20:09, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I believe WP:NOTCATALOGUE applies here, especially with the listing of prices. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 23:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Risa/Asir not listed

Risa/Asir is an open source general computer algebra system. Kobe distribution is being developed by OpenXM committers. The original Risa/Asir is developed at Fujitsu Labs LTD. http://www.math.kobe-u.ac.jp/Asir/ Jan Burse (talk) 16:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

JAS not listed

The Java Algebra System (JAS) is an object oriented, type safe and multi-threaded approach to computer algebra. http://krum.rz.uni-mannheim.de/jas/ Jan Burse (talk) 15:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Geogebra CAS not listed

Is there a good reason why Geogebra (now supporting CAS) is not listed? It's very easy to use and runs very stable now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.82.120.81 (talk) 07:53, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

It is listed now. Anyway, Geogebra is NOT free (and that is the reason why it is not included in Debian) -- so the table is incorrect. 189.120.197.171 (talk) 17:03, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of computer algebra systems. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120415021413/http://www.symbolicnet.org/systems/Systems.html to http://www.symbolicnet.org/systems/Systems.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Remove Scilab from list

Scilab remove the symbolic functions it had NonLynSys (talk) 14:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

MathHandbook

computer algebra system MathHandbook for free was added, but someone removed it without evidence many times. so a case open. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drhuang8 (talk • contribs)

I'm concerned that you appear to be adding links to the drhuang.com website, which you appear to be closely affiliated with. I'm also unconvinced that the CAS that you are trying to add belongs on the list. Other editors shared my concerns the last time you tried to add similar content, back in 2014. (visible in the page history) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:57, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to promote or advertise one's personal projects. We base our content on what independent, reliable references have to say. XOR'easter (talk) 16:40, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern. MathHandbook is not person project, is a company project by DrHuang Pty Ltd. DrHuang is the company name. how to add the item? The item can be

MathHandbbok DrHuang Pty Ltd Free CAS for fractional calculus

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Drhuang8 (talk • contribs)

Are you unpaid (as you've said elsewhere), or working on behalf of a company? XOR'easter's statement about independent, reliable sources stands, regardless of the ownership of the software. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:31, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Another criteria

PDE could be a comparison criteria ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moueza (talk • contribs) 02:31, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Out of date "Latest stable release date" for several systems

I'm a MathWorks employee so I'm not going to edit the page, but I wanted to flag that I believe several of the entries in the table in the General section of the page have out-of-date "Latest stable release dates". The obvious one to my eyes is the Symbolic Math Toolbox (MATLAB) entry. While it lists the latest stable version as being part of release R2018a there have been several stable releases since 2018. See as a source the Release Notes for this product, which list new features in several releases since then. As I type this the latest release is 24.1 (as part of MathWorks release R2024a) from March 2024 as shown in the revision history of the user's guide for this product.

But just looking at the data in the table itself, the row for Maple lists the "Latest stable version" as 2024 (6 March 2024) which is not consistent with its "Latest stable release date" being 15 March 2022. Similarly the row for Mathematica lists the latest stable version as 14.0.0 (January 9, 2024) while its latest stable release date is a year and a half earlier, 29 June 2022.

I have not gone through the whole list to determine if there are any other systems that have similar inconsistencies between the latest stable version and latest stable release date. 144.212.5.9 (talk) 17:54, 30 July 2024 (UTC)