Slashdot Log In
Wolfram Research Releases Mathematica 7
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Wed Nov 19, 2008 12:23 PM
from the just-installing-it-would-make-me-feel-dumber dept.
from the just-installing-it-would-make-me-feel-dumber dept.
mblase writes "Wolfram Research has released the seventh version of Mathematica, and it does a lot more than symbolic algebra. New features range from things as simple as cut-and-paste integration with Microsoft Word's Equation Editor to instant 3D models of mathematical objects to the most expensive clone of Photoshop ever. Full suites of genome, chemical, weather, astronomical, financial, and geodesic data (or support for same) is designed to make Mathematica as invaluable for scientific research as it is for mathematics."
Related Stories
Submission: Wolfram Research releases Mathematica 7 by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Slashvertisement (Score:5, Insightful)
Maxima (Score:5, Informative)
Maxima [sourceforge.net] is released under the GPL.
Parent
Re:Maxima (Score:5, Insightful)
Maxima also sucks. Here's a session from just this afternoon.
[omf@midgar 14:45:36 ~]$ maxima .....
Maxima 5.13.0 http://maxima.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net]
Using Lisp GNU Common Lisp (GCL) GCL 2.6.8 (aka GCL)
Distributed under the GNU Public License. See the file COPYING.
Dedicated to the memory of William Schelter.
This is a development version of Maxima. The function bug_report()
provides bug reporting information.
(%i1) Q=matrix....
(%i11) Q.T.transpose(Q);
(%o11) matrix([cos(t) (cos(t) T11 - sin(t) T12)
- sin(t) (cos(t) T21 - sin(t) T22), cos(t) (cos(t) T12 + sin(t) T11)
- sin(t) (cos(t) T22 + sin(t) T21), cos(t) T13 - sin(t) T23],
[cos(t) (cos(t) T21 - sin(t) T22) + sin(t) (cos(t) T11 - sin(t) T12),
cos(t) (cos(t) T22 + sin(t) T21) + sin(t) (cos(t) T12 + sin(t) T11),
cos(t) T23 + sin(t) T13], [cos(t) T31 - sin(t) T32, cos(t) T32 + sin(t) T31,
T33])
(%i12) trigsimp(%);
Universal error handler called recursively (:ERROR NIL
CONDITIONS::CLCS-UNIVERSAL-ERROR-HANDLER
""
"Couldn't protect")
Universal error handler called recursively (:ERROR NIL
CONDITIONS::CLCS-UNIVERSAL-ERROR-HANDLER
"" "Couldn't protect")
Maxima encountered a Lisp error:
Error in CONDITIONS::CLCS-UNIVERSAL-ERROR-HANDLER [or a callee]: Caught fatal error [memory may be damaged]
Automatically continuing.
To reenable the Lisp debugger set *debugger-hook* to nil.
(%i13) Q.trigsimp(T.transpose(Q));
(%o13) matrix([cos(t) (cos(t) T11 - sin(t) T12)
- sin(t) (cos(t) T21 - sin(t) T22), cos(t) (cos(t) T12 + sin(t) T11)
- sin(t) (cos(t) T22 + sin(t) T21), cos(t) T13 - sin(t) T23],
[cos(t) (cos(t) T21 - sin(t) T22) + sin(t) (cos(t) T11 - sin(t) T12),
cos(t) (cos(t) T22 + sin(t) T21) + sin(t) (cos(t) T12 + sin(t) T11),
cos(t) T23 + sin(t) T13], [cos(t) T31 - sin(t) T32, cos(t) T32 + sin(t) T31,
T33])
(%i14) trigsimp(Q.trigsimp(T.transpose(Q)));
Segmentation fault
[omf@midgar 14:48:25 ~]$
Computer algebra systems are not the best to begin with, but Maxima has a very, very long way to go before it can compete with Mathematica. Most of my analytical work on a daily basis is done using Maxima and I can safely say that the program could be a lot better than it currently is.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Octave and Maple a few years later.
Matlab, not Maple. Clearly it's time for a coffee.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And may I stress here that bug reporting is one of the most helpful things you can do for any open source project? If you can provide a simple way to reproduce a problem, it is likely as good as fixed.
So, don't complain, report! (after that you may optionally complain). But don't assume developers will find it themselves, or that others will report the problem for you..
Re:Slashvertisement (Score:5, Interesting)
I've used Maxima [sourceforge.net] with good results. Not quite Mathematica, though.
Parent
Re:Slashvertisement (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Slashvertisement (Score:5, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_computer_algebra_systems [wikipedia.org]
Take your pick. Some will obviously be better suited to your needs (or lack of needs) as appropriate.
Layne
Parent
Re:Slashvertisement (Score:4, Informative)
The Wikipedia list is very long. For anyone who's specifically interested in OSS that runs on Linux, here are some of my impressions:
Parent
Re:Slashvertisement (Score:5, Informative)
No advertising here, just a happy math nerd who was recently investigating alternatives like Maxima and SciLab himself recently, and was impressed that the new version of Mathematica leapfrogged them all by doing much more instead of just doing what it does faster.
(This despite the fact that Mathematica is, and nearly always has been, far more number-crunching power than I've ever needed in my academic or professional career.)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Let me know when it leapfrogs them in openness.
Sorry, but as a mathematician and a teacher it's more important to me that a CAS application be (1) instructive and (2) correct.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Let me know when it leapfrogs them in openness.
Sorry, but as a mathematician and a teacher it's more important to me that a CAS application be (1) instructive and (2) correct.
Which aren't mutually exclusive with openness.
Re:Slashvertisement (Score:5, Informative)
And you can use Mathematica, Matlab, Maple, Magma, Maxima, etc from inside Sage if you have those programs available.
Parent
Re:Slashvertisement (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Slashvertisement (Score:5, Insightful)
does it matter that it's open source or not? Open source is not inherently better than closed source.
Being able to show exactly which steps a CAS went through to arrive at a solution can be important. With Mathematica, you have to trust that the methods they use, which you can't see, are legitimate and don't introduce any unforeseen error.
I don't mean to pooh-pooh Mathematica; it's an excellent program. But being able to show 100% of your work has intrinsic value.
Parent
Re:Slashvertisement (Score:5, Insightful)
Absolutely.
I work on pretty much a daily basis with computer algebra systems. In my work, I am using CAS systems to perform integrals on what would be otherwise an unmanageable amount of equations, in order to generate some nice neat, but still quite large matrices. Despite its obvious technical inferiority [slashdot.org], I'm using Maxima to do this. A lot of this has to do with running Mathematica and the like on Linux, which is a painful process, but the peer reviewable nature of an open source system is another major factor.
I've said this before, but essentially Mathematica is the modern mathematical Oracle at Delphi; arcane, totally inscrutable, and regarded by almost everyone as infallible. You cannot use its results professional for anything other than integral tables or the like. At least, not in mathematics. Maybe physicists use it, but I'd have my doubts. (Engineers? ... well they're a heathen lot anyway...)
True, Mathematica is useful. But it's closed source nature, combined with its almost universal presence in scientific research is very troubling.
Parent
rich enough to use Mathematica? (Score:5, Informative)
does it matter that it's open source or not?
It does if you don't have $2400 to spend on a copy of Mathematica.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Octave is a great program (I switched from MATLAB too, after my bought-and-paid-for copy of MATLAB was broken by a simple OS X upgrade). But Octave is not a symbolic computer algebra system like Mathematica, Maple, Maxima, etc., so it cannot properly be called a Mathematica alternative.
Wolfman? (Score:2, Interesting)
Seriously though this has the potential to do for this form of mathmatics what Spreadsheets did for Accounting.
I think I'll pass. (Score:5, Funny)
A slashvertisment suggestion for tomorrow:
"The Pirate Bay also Releases Mathematica 7"
Re:I think I'll pass. (Score:5, Insightful)
>That would be nice,
It is.
>but doesn't solve the problem
It will.
>of Mathemitca's notorious copy protection.
The Pirate Bay verison of mathematica usually includes protection from copy protection.
>From what I hear, even legitimate owners often have trouble getting past it.
Legitimate owners of ANY copy protection system are generally having orders of magnitude more problems with those systems than users who just get clean copies at their Pirate Bay.
Parent
Re:I think I'll pass. (Score:4, Insightful)
OK, perhaps I should explain something.
1. Release team
2. Initial distribution (closed FTP, IRC etc)
3. Usenet
4. P2P (Torrents, Kademlia, etc)
The pirate bay folks don't do anything except shuffle bits.
Parent
Refund please (Score:2, Informative)
Much handwaving, little meat, astonishing arrogance.
One of the most overhyped books I've ever actually been suckered into buying.
I found particularly offputting W's treatment of important parts of his own thesis (computational completeness of some automata) as commercial secrets
Re:Refund please (Score:5, Funny)
Much handwaving, little meat, astonishing arrogance.
Sounds more like his masturbation habits.
Parent
From my point of view (Score:5, Insightful)
This just seems like its got so bloated that it will likely be priced beyond the budget of most students.
I don't see why we have to have these all encompassing suites anyway, what's wrong with small tools at low cost which work together?
Its most likely that students who want but can't afford this will hit the torrent trackers, which isn't really what we want.
Re:From my point of view (Score:5, Informative)
>This just seems like its got so bloated that it will likely be priced beyond the budget of most students.
It isnt aimed at students.
>what's wrong with small tools at low cost which work together?
Wolfram does not want you to work with any competitor's product. He wants you to raise a mortgage in order to be able to pay for his "complete solution".
>which isn't really what we want.
Except it really is what most of us want. Why shouldn't it?
Parent
Re:From my point of view (Score:5, Interesting)
The student version is cheap (free at most decent universities). The Wolfram folk are great if you need a deviation on the license for student stuff (running on a multi-processor machine before multiple kernel executions were included in the default license); just ask. As a long-time student, Mathematica is the greatest tool out there, and is the only software out there where I'm consistently excited about no versions, and /always/ find ways to incorporate at least a few of the new features in my existing notebooks. With Mathematica 6, Manipulate[] was an absolute game changer. With Mathematica 7, I'm betting ParallelTable[] and the new charting features will be just as big a deal, for me.
Parent
Re:From my point of view (Score:4, Interesting)
Manipulate[] alone beats every chalkboard/whiteboard/overhead projector hands down. I found it to be a profound aid in teaching myself concepts such as curvature on a line or a plane and other things.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Mathematica is the greatest tool out there, and is the only software out there where I'm consistently excited about no versions
I'd have to agree with you. There are no versions of Mathemetica that excite me, either.
Re:From my point of view (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're a student, you can get a copy that expires after a year for $150. Not cheap, but in the same range as your (overpriced) physics textbook.
Me, I have no professional or educational requirement for the thing, but I'd like to have a copy for self-education purposes. But $2K is a bit much. I suppose 5 or 6 would be adequate for that purpose. $150 on eBay.
It's interesting that Mathematica is still supported on MacOS, Linux (including Itanium!) and Solaris. Support for AIX only disappeared recently. Supporting all those platforms does drive up costs just a bit.
Parent
Fuck Mathematica (Score:4, Informative)
and fuck Matlab too, while we are at it. I got a free hit of Matlab in university and then found out how much they charge for licenses only after I was an addict (had a pile of useful code that I didn't want to throw away). I am not going to keep paying for the privilege of running my own code and am busily learning Python.
Mathematica code belongs to Wolfram Research, Matlab code belongs to the Mathworks, but Python code can be MINE! (and yours too, if I want to give it to you.)
I don't buy into the virtual machines they are pushing now either; they might be free as in beer, but it is only a short-term solution and is nothing more than "free hits" to generate more addicts that need licenses.
Re:Fuck Mathematica (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Fuck Mathematica (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Fuck Mathematica (Score:5, Informative)
You don't have to throw that code away or port it to an entirely different language (though Python rocks, and I wish my day-to-day job let me use more of it) Try GNU Octave [gnu.org] - that's what I used to back in college because my department didn't have licensed copies of MATLAB installed/available, so-called student versions were insanely impossible and expensive to get hold of (Indian students can't afford $100), and I didn't want to pick a pirated one like the rest of the class.
Possible the first open-spurce software I practically used (except playing with Linux).
Code was very cross-compatible between Octave and MATLAB, except say constants like "e" and "exp" (and of course the MATLAB-specific toolkits). The toughest part at that time was explaining to the professor (who had no idea what "open-source" was) that I did *not* use MATLAB, but it would run on MATLAB fine if he wanted to check that my assignments work fine.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Free Alternative? Sage maybe. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Free Alternative? Sage maybe. (Score:4, Interesting)
>the usability of Sage blows. It's pretty powerful sure, but when even Maple is easier to
>use then you've got a problem
What do you actually mean by "easier to use", regarding a computer algebra system for doing heavy math? Clicketyclicking around without having to actually learn to use it? This easy to use mem may actually have some validity in desktop environments and generall consumer leisure apps, but I'm wondering to actually see such unwillingness to learn from people doing _MATH_, which are, by definition, required to be curious into how things work and not just clicking around and rotating colorful 3D surfaces the whole day.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I thought that Sage was quite easy to learn - and I hadn't used Python before I started. I haven't used Mathematica, but I've used Maple and Magma for a few years. There didn't seem to be any difference in learning curve between Sage and the commercial options. In some cases the tutorials and reference were a lot more helpful.
In general, open source software tends to have a crap user interface compared to the commercial application being cloned. In this case the browser based notebook is up there with maple
API sucks (Score:5, Informative)
I had to write some code using the Mathematica API once, and it hurt. It provides a pipe of tokens, but if you ask for the wrong token, it hangs. You can peak at the front of the queue, but it's still the case that every time you want to read in a token you have to write code to expect any of a million different types of token for all the crazy error messages you never knew you might get.
Also, the GUI is awful. That notebook metaphor just does not work. You want to remove a buggy line of code somewhere but it might be attached to another block so it's really hard to get hold of it. The navigation keys (pg up, end and so on) don't work as you'd expect in an editor so you become very mouse reliant, which is awful for anybody used to working in a programming environment.
In my experience, Matlab is far superior although as others have pointed out, I'd still rather be working in Python. Numpy anybody?
cost, features, and random ramblings (Score:4, Insightful)
I've used Maple, Mathematica, and SAS, among other products, for mathematical and/or statistical analysis. From a programming/features perspective, each has its own strengths--and weaknesses.
I'll only briefly mention cost. These things are expensive because it's not like any random programmer can build this kind of software. Especially with Mathematica, these are heavily-researched algorithms that are nontrivial to implement. Also, the market is small for such a specialized and sophisticated application. Your average person isn't ever going to be able to use something like this. They barely know what the quadratic formula is. (They should, but that's an entirely different story.) You think they need to invert a 20x20 matrix? Or compute the Galois group of a quintic? Or even do a simple hypothesis test?
As for the image manipulation stuff, I think that comparisons to Photoshop are a bit naive. Clearly, it's not supposed to be for people who want to do red-eye reduction on their family photos. It's not even for graphic designers or photographers. It's for scientists who want an algorithmic approach to adjusting their images, either for research or for purposes of publication. Could you do these things in Photoshop? Sure. Could you then say what formula or algorithm was applied to the image to produce that specific result? No. And conversely, you wouldn't do layer composition, masking, or on-the-fly tonal adjustments with Mathematica.
FWIW I hate the copy protection on it too. It's infuriating and a burden to legitimate users while doing little to deter piracy.
Re:I love mathematica (Score:5, Informative)
Other Recently Added Features:
Visualization & Graphics
High-Impact Adaptive Visualization
Automated Computational Aesthetics
Fully Automated Graph Layout
Real-Time 3D Graphics
Automated Table Layout
Dynamic Interactivity
Mathematics & Algorithms
Integrated Geometric Computing
Combinatorial Optimization
Constrained Nonlinear Optimization
Equational Theorem Proving
High-Level String Computation
New Generation Numerical Integration
Computable Data
Financial Data
Astronomical Data
Country Data
Particle Data
Graph Data
Mathematical Data
Data Manipulation
Exploratory Data Analysis
Symbolic Sound Support
Symbolic Report Generation
3D Printing & Scanning Support
Symbolic Statistical Computing
Core Language
Unification of Graphics, Text & Controls
Language for Data Integration
Dynamic Graphical Input
Instant Multimedia Programming
Real-Time Code Annotation
Instant High-Level Debugging
Interface & User Experience
Symbolic Interface Construction
Integrated Graphics Editing & Drawing
Built-in Gamepad & HID Support
Streamlined Presentation Framework
New Documentation Framework Dynamic Interactivity
Parent
Re:I love mathematica (Score:5, Funny)
Uhh...
> High-Impact Adaptive Visualization
It's got graphics now.
> Automated Computational Aesthetics
You don't have to graph things out by hand.
> Fully Automated Graph Layout
You don't have to graph things out by hand.
> Real-Time 3D Graphics
If you change your equation, the graph changes too.
> Automated Table Layout
Shows you the points they graphed.
> Dynamic Interactivity
It's got a GUI.
> Integrated Geometric Computing
Runs on a computer following Moore's law, hence "geometric" advancement.
> Combinatorial Optimization
Solve the Travelling Salesman problem by something other than brute force.
> Equational Theorem Proving
Okay, that could be cool... if the previous versions didn't have it already.
> New Generation Numerical Integration
It can use numbers now?
> Computable Data
> Financial Data
> Astronomical Data
> Country Data
> Particle Data
> Graph Data
> Mathematical Data
Since this is a list of "New Features", previous versions of Mathematica could not be used for these purposes. All you could do was show a fellow math geek how that humanities major had a really nice set of 80085.
> Unification of Graphics, Text & Controls
In previous versions, you were lucky if what you wrote or clicked resembled anything like the output! Now, when when you type in "y=x", you actually get a straight diagonal line, instead of one of the spirally partial differential functions we like to put on the cover of the manual!
> Language for Data Integration
There's now its own scripting language. Whoa, Mathematica never had *that* before!
> Dynamic Graphical Input
Use symbols you never thought possible! Like that squiggly "integrate" symbol, or that lambda derive-like thingy. Even use that upside-down "U" for set theory!
> Instant Multimedia Programming
Uses both Video and Audio! Include a Youtube video in your equations of Stephen himself telling you how wrong your equation is!
> Real-Time Code Annotation
Add "comments" whenever and wherever you want! No other language has the ability to "comment" on your code!
> Instant High-Level Debugging
Be able to step through your code and set break points! Stephen is the first person to think of it! No other programming IDE has ever done anything so revolutionary!
> Integrated Graphics Editing & Drawing
Did your equations predict that the Mars Lander was going to crash and burn? Use the Graph Editor to change the equation output, and show your fellow engineers a perfect atmospheric re-entry! Then re-sell those high-risk equations to an over-leveraged engineer who does care! You'll be long gone by the time they realize what you've done! This feature brought to you by the Lenders Association of US Banks.
> HID Support
You may now use a mouse and keyboard in this version, instead of simply shouting at the screen, hoping it'll do something!
> Streamlined Presentation Framework
Use an overhead projector instead of a video monitor to show your results!
> New Documentation Framework Dynamic Interactivity
We'd like to call it "Google"...
Solomon Chang
Parent
Re:Fuck Mathematica (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Fuck Mathematica (Score:5, Informative)
Maple 12 life!
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, it does. The Itanium-Linux version costs an extra K, though.
Re:But does it (Score:5, Funny)
Mathematica 7 is so powerful, Linux runs on it
Parent
Re:fp (Score:4, Funny)
After being denied internet access for 3 years
Yeah, prison will do that too you.
Layne
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I completely agree that computer science is related to math. I personally actually like math and physics and whatnot, to the extent that I'm reading a textbook (I guess) on spacetime physics for fun. But I think you have to admit that many aspects of computer science *today* are very far removed from actual mathematical calculations or even mathematical ability (e.g., you don't have to take calculus to write a PHP script). You don't have to have any electrical engineering knowledge to "build" a computer,