7
$\begingroup$

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?

$\endgroup$
9
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 23, 2014 at 17:10
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 23, 2014 at 17:17
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The latest Meta discussion (that Emilio links to) states we cannot advise on libraries/languages/compilers/etc. This question appears to be asking advice on a library/language and is thus off-topic. $\endgroup$
    – Kyle Kanos
    Commented Mar 23, 2014 at 18:03
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @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. $\endgroup$
    – Vahid
    Commented Mar 24, 2014 at 23:46
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ 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 $\endgroup$
    – Vahid
    Commented Mar 25, 2014 at 0:17

0