🚀 go-pugleaf

Forwarded for: Jeffrey P. Golden <JPG@MIT-MC>

>  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 ***