Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site randvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!randvax!Jeffrey P. Golden From: Jeffrey P. Golden Newsgroups: net.math.symbolic Subject: Re: Comparing symbolic mathematics systems Message-ID: <2451@randvax.UUCP> Date: Thu, 25-Apr-85 19:43:22 EDT Article-I.D.: randvax.2451 Posted: Thu Apr 25 19:43:22 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 1-May-85 02:59:49 EDT References: <792@unmvax.UUCP> <24719@lanl.ARPA> Sender: lseward@randvax.UUCP Distribution: net Organization: Rand Corp., Santa Monica Lines: 27 Forwarded for: Jeffrey P. Golden > From: jp@lanl.ARPA > Newsgroups: net.math.symbolic > Subject: Re: Comparing symbolic mathematics systems > Date: 19 Apr 85 03:23:47 GMT > Apparently-To: symalg > I have used muMath on an MSDOS machine. It was about as powerful as > Macsyma and somewhat faster (Macsyma was running on a VAX-750). > The only problem was that muMath doesn't have as many functions as > Macsyma. But, it is easy to write your own in the accompanying language > muSimp... What do you mean by "It was about as powerful as Macsyma"? Perhaps all you mean is that for the problems you were considering it did as well as Macsyma would have. You grant that Macsyma is more extensive (more functions). I believe if you look into it you'll find that Macsyma's knowledge is also more intensive, i.e. its simplification, factoring, integration routines, etc. are capable of more than MuMath's. I think MuMath is a great system, but in my book the above means that Macsyma is more powerful. Wrt the relative speed of systems, the following should not be accepted in specific cases without support, but sometimes a system is slower primarily because it is more powerful. *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***