Quantcast
  • Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.

News

New features!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback

Attributions

(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

123 submissions , 104 unreviewed
3,547 questions , 1,198 unanswered
4,552 answers , 19,366 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
411 active unimported users
More ...

Comparison between Cadabra and other Symbolic Computer Algebra software

+ 4 like - 0 dislike
1764 views

Does anyone has some experience about working with Cadabra and it's (dis)advantage in comparison to other Symbolic Computer Algebra software such as Maple and Mathematica (physics package) in the field theory/gravity problems?


This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-25 03:51 (UCT), posted by SE-user Vahid

asked Mar 23, 2014 in Computational Physics by Vahid (20 points) [ revision history ]
recategorized Apr 11, 2014 by dimension10
Since "Cadabra is a computer algebra system (CAS) designed specifically for the solution of problems encountered in field theory", it seems this is a perfectly legitimate question and is on-topic for the site according to the recent discussion. +1.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-25 03:51 (UCT), posted by SE-user Emilio Pisanty
I would look to Should we allow software questions? (take 3) and earlier incarnation for deciding the topicality of this as this is a question about a third-party tool not a question about a numeric implementation. That said, it seems to be a compare and contrast which is to say opinion-based.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-25 03:51 (UCT), posted by SE-user dmckee
In fact I am not looking for the personal opinions. I would like to know more about internal functions and flexibility of them for defining and solving the real problems. For example, something like this paper: n3w4lit.jinr.ru/publish/Pepan_letters/panl_7_2009/05_sev.pdf‎

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-25 03:51 (UCT), posted by SE-user Vahid
@dmckee no, the OP is not looking for personal opinion but expert knowledge, and as Emilio said such questions about software used exclusively by physicists are allowed per meta decision.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-25 03:51 (UCT), posted by SE-user Dilaton
Hi @Vahid, this question fits poorly on Phys.SE for various reasons e.g. it is primarily opinion-based, and it is about software rather than an actual physics question. In particular, Phys.SE rarely provides software (and book) reviews.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-25 03:51 (UCT), posted by SE-user Qmechanic
@Qmechanic, thanks for your consideration. I accept you decision. But I would like to ask you where can I find an expert-based analysis about my question? In my first comment I mentioned a paper that compare these software. But unfortunately his paper has been published on 2009 and after that time these software have been changed a lot. In fact, I am looking for something like this paper but more update.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-25 03:51 (UCT), posted by SE-user Vahid
I just have found the below article that answer partly to my question. In fact, I am looking for this type of analysis that I think that fit on Phys.SE. :) inspirehep.net/record/1282594

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-25 03:51 (UCT), posted by SE-user Vahid

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
p$\hbar$ysicsOv$\varnothing$rflow
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.




user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights
...