5 ms·

As lead developer on Axiom, an open source computer algebra system, I can fully appreciate his funding problem. One problem is that open source software can't

by daly 8y ago

As lead developer on Axiom, an open source computer algebra system, I can fully appreciate his funding problem. One problem is that open source software can't really handle grants. Government grants require accounting to handle receipts, and follow all of the rules. We need a couple "open source accounting" people who can handle managing grants (just like a school's bursar's office). I have tried to find a funding stream for nearly 20 years, without success. I am currently doing computer algebra research as a visiting scholar. That is an unpaid position. Perhaps you can remain connected to the department as a visiting scholar. If there is some way I can help, please let me know.

onedognight 8y ago
I’m not sure if SPI has supported member projects with receiving government grants specifically, but they are setup to provide shared resources like accounting for open source projects. https://www.spi-inc.org/ https://www.spi-inc.org/
xvilka 8y ago
Organizations like Open Collective[1] can help to handle this. P.S. What do you think about moving the site to GitHub Pages instead[2] (and overall modernization of it). [1] https://opencollective.com/ https://opencollective.com/ [2] https://github.com/daly/axiom/issues/13 https://github.com/daly/axiom/issues/13
williamstein 8y ago
> Perhaps you can remain connected to the department as a visiting scholar. I will, though as an "adjunct". It's of course unpaid, but makes it technically possible to do some things with the university (e.g., be on a Ph.D. thesis committee).
cf 8y ago
I know this isn't the most appropriate place to ask, but what are the main feature gaps between commercial computer algebra systems like Mathematica/Maple and systems like Axiom/Sympy?
- daly 8y ago
  Several comments. First, Axiom is a research platform (currently working on proving the algorithms correct). It is no longer a commercial competitor to Mathematica and Maple (as it was in the 90s). Second, Axiom is based on Group Theory, giving it a reasonably sound mathematical superstructure. Mathematica is based on rewrite semantics. You can rewrite anything to anything. Maple is based on tree semantics. You can re-arrange a tree in any way. Obviously, their computational mathematicians are well-versed and clever enough to avoid most obvious failures. It is just easier in Axiom. Third, Axiom is open source. Consider what happens to computational mathematics when the companies supporting closed source disappear. (Companies die, on average, after 15 years). Macsyma (Symbolics) is gone. Derive (Soft Warehouse) is gone. I am deeply concerned about the impact on computational mathematics when this happens. Axiom, as open source, won't disappear as there is no company behind it. It will, of course, probably stall once the key developers stop maintaining it. Mathematica and Maple are amazing systems. If you need what they provide I strongly recommend buying a license. I know some of the developers from these systems and they are extremely clever people. If you're looking for competitive software, I'd look at Sage and CoCalc. This is an open source alternative to Mathematica, Maple, Magma, etc. It is open source and (mostly) free. I can strongly recommend it. As for "feature gaps", there are many. If what you want are "features", Axiom isn't for you. But if you want answers that are proven correct, stay tuned. Computational mathematics IS mathematics. You can rightly demand that the results are proven correct. That seems to me to be a required "feature".
  - cf 8y ago
    Thanks for taking the time to reply. I am 100% in support of software like this being open-source. Not just because companies go out of business and disappear, but for scientific-computing software, it's important to be able to extend these systems. When I talk about features, I often mean can I rewrite this integral into something more computationally tractable? Or is there some reparameterization of this function into something differentiable? I know this are very much how someone might pose a problem coming from Mathematica or Maple, but really I hope it's clear the end goal is still the same. Discover an equivalent mathematical representation of my problem that's more amendable for further work.
hopler 8y ago
You should copy Magma's model but be open source and use support or web hosting (like cocalc does) to justify the price tag. Then you get users to give you their grant money. Or convert to closed source main branch and release 1 yes old versions or at $ bounty milestones as open source, to motivate users to buy a license.

by daly 8y ago

onedognight 8y ago

I’m not sure if SPI has supported member projects with receiving government grants specifically, but they are setup to provide shared resources like accounting for open source projects. https://www.spi-inc.org/ https://www.spi-inc.org/

xvilka 8y ago

Organizations like Open Collective[1] can help to handle this. P.S. What do you think about moving the site to GitHub Pages instead[2] (and overall modernization of it). [1] https://opencollective.com/ https://opencollective.com/ [2] https://github.com/daly/axiom/issues/13 https://github.com/daly/axiom/issues/13

williamstein 8y ago

> Perhaps you can remain connected to the department as a visiting scholar. I will, though as an "adjunct". It's of course unpaid, but makes it technically possible to do some things with the university (e.g., be on a Ph.D. thesis committee).

cf 8y ago

I know this isn't the most appropriate place to ask, but what are the main feature gaps between commercial computer algebra systems like Mathematica/Maple and systems like Axiom/Sympy?

daly 8y ago
Several comments. First, Axiom is a research platform (currently working on proving the algorithms correct). It is no longer a commercial competitor to Mathematica and Maple (as it was in the 90s). Second, Axiom is based on Group Theory, giving it a reasonably sound mathematical superstructure. Mathematica is based on rewrite semantics. You can rewrite anything to anything. Maple is based on tree semantics. You can re-arrange a tree in any way. Obviously, their computational mathematicians are well-versed and clever enough to avoid most obvious failures. It is just easier in Axiom. Third, Axiom is open source. Consider what happens to computational mathematics when the companies supporting closed source disappear. (Companies die, on average, after 15 years). Macsyma (Symbolics) is gone. Derive (Soft Warehouse) is gone. I am deeply concerned about the impact on computational mathematics when this happens. Axiom, as open source, won't disappear as there is no company behind it. It will, of course, probably stall once the key developers stop maintaining it. Mathematica and Maple are amazing systems. If you need what they provide I strongly recommend buying a license. I know some of the developers from these systems and they are extremely clever people. If you're looking for competitive software, I'd look at Sage and CoCalc. This is an open source alternative to Mathematica, Maple, Magma, etc. It is open source and (mostly) free. I can strongly recommend it. As for "feature gaps", there are many. If what you want are "features", Axiom isn't for you. But if you want answers that are proven correct, stay tuned. Computational mathematics IS mathematics. You can rightly demand that the results are proven correct. That seems to me to be a required "feature".
- cf 8y ago
  Thanks for taking the time to reply. I am 100% in support of software like this being open-source. Not just because companies go out of business and disappear, but for scientific-computing software, it's important to be able to extend these systems. When I talk about features, I often mean can I rewrite this integral into something more computationally tractable? Or is there some reparameterization of this function into something differentiable? I know this are very much how someone might pose a problem coming from Mathematica or Maple, but really I hope it's clear the end goal is still the same. Discover an equivalent mathematical representation of my problem that's more amendable for further work.

hopler 8y ago

You should copy Magma's model but be open source and use support or web hosting (like cocalc does) to justify the price tag. Then you get users to give you their grant money. Or convert to closed source main branch and release 1 yes old versions or at $ bounty milestones as open source, to motivate users to buy a license.