Talk:List of computer algebra systems

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Too many links 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Title: list vs. comparison 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Feature comparison? 

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree (in fact came to the talk page to say the same thing) guiltyspark 21:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The same complaint is current at Talk:Comparison_of_statistical_packages. JonMcLoone (talk) 16:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Color coding is POV 

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree. Online is OK, but a units converter is not a CAS. I will remove T68492 (talk) 11:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job, thanks! -- George Gesslein II (talk) 00:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Encalc a CAS? 

message: 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)
replies: text: See above for request of & discussion about "feature comparison".— MFH:Talk 16:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a comparison 

message: --79.111.104.100 (talk) 21:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please add comparison for the language of the CAS systems. 

message: Mikejens (talk) 20:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs a column to indicate whether there is a GUI or not 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Comments section 

message: Sage (mathematics software)#Features
Technical word processing including formula editing...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwide (talk • contribs) 11:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Dubious

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Kash/KANT and Magnus not listed 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Is the "Open source" column necessary? 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Proposition of restructuring the 3 main articles on computer algebra 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Correction - Matlab symbolic toolbox 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Application areas 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removed ScaViz - internal vs external capabilities 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Discrepancy between Maxima and Macsyma 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on List of computer algebra systems. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  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 ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Better sorting 

message: 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)
replies: text: Hi  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)

text: Hi  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)
replies: text: I believe WP:NOTCATALOGUE applies here, especially with the listing of prices. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 23:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updates for the Symbolic Math Toolbox  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Risa/Asir not listed 

message: 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)
thread_title:  JAS not listed 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Geogebra CAS not listed 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Scilab remove the symbolic functions it had NonLynSys (talk) 14:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove Scilab from list 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  MathHandbook 

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