Comparison between Cadabra and other Symbolic Computer Algebra software

+ 4 like - 0 dislike
1928 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
recategorized Apr 11, 2014
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

 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): Email me at this address if my answer is selected or commented on: 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$\hbar$ys$\varnothing$csOverflowThen 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.