Anyway, I'm hopeful that someday CAS for the masses will consist of
not a whole new simplified system but of defining in Axiom or something
like it a set of assumptions and constraints that creates the
simplified environment. To me that makes the most sense for both
correctness and expandibility
As a simple example - if it is not able to simplify simple powers or
to do a simple limit (see my older emails on that), then it's not for
me.
Ondrej
On 3/27/07, Ondrej Certik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyway, I'm hopeful that someday CAS for the masses will consist of
not a whole new
--- Ondrej Certik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As a simple example - if it is not able to simplify simple powers or
to do a simple limit (see my older emails on that), then it's not for
me.
Ondrej
Sure. Some of that is probably bugs, and some might be more subtle.
But in theory, if it is
C Y [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
|It's like using a wagon to cross the US vs. building a
| railway across it. Yes, if you only want to cross once and start
| farming you can use the wagon, but in the long run the railway will
| open up a lot more possibilities and it's worth the extra
I agree with you. So SymPy is rather competing with Maxima than with Axiom.
Maybe you would like The Zen of Python (by Tim Peters), it's something
like an anthem of Python and it's actually built in the Python
interpreter :). I share this philosophy in SymPy completely:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$
I'm very iteresting by the question.
Is there a CAS for masses ?
Let me tell my point of view...
I must use Maple with my beginning graduate students.
About 1 hour per week for them.
Maple isnot a great idea because the language isn't typed.
There is only one type of matrix, 0 in Integer =
