Significant difference between Maple and Mathematica for physicists?

In summary, the conversation discusses the differences between using Maple and Mathematica in the field of physics. Both are commonly used, but Mathematica is seen as a better all-around package, with a steep learning curve and support for high-level functional programming. On the other hand, Maple is better for certain tasks in discrete math and may be more familiar to those with past programming experience. Ultimately, the majority recommendation for teaching computational physics is to use Mathematica and C++.
  • #1
LennoxLewis
129
1
I'm a physicist and I've used Maple during my study (where it was common), but some people use Mathematica. Can anyone who has experience with both tell me if there are any big differences between the two? It seems to me that both are rather similar, unlike for instance Matlab which is more numerical and (small) programming-aimed.


p.s. there's no forum section on computer physics/math, and since I'm not interested in "pure" mathematics, but instead things like function manipulation, (system) DE sovling, etc etc. If any admin knows a better spot for this thread then by all means, do so.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Anyone?!
 
  • #3
I find Mathematica to be a better all around package, while Maple is superior for some tasks in discrete math. Mathematica has a steep but fruitful learning curve and supports a very high level kind of functional programming, while Maple supports a more typical procedural programming paradigm. This means that Maple is often more familiar to people with past programming experience, while Mathematica's functional programming is more abstract and for some people never sinks in (I taught a course on Mathematica for Physics at a university).

The main reason to use Mathematica is that before while designing a computational physics curriculum for undergraduate physics majors the overwhelming reply from professors at schools across the country was to teach them Mathematica and C++. Like I said, Maple is superior is certain niches but in general Mathematica is better.
 

1. What are the main differences between Maple and Mathematica for physicists?

Maple and Mathematica are both powerful software programs commonly used by physicists for mathematical calculations and data analysis. While they have some similarities, there are important differences between the two. Maple is primarily a symbolic computation tool, meaning it is best suited for manipulating and solving mathematical equations. Mathematica, on the other hand, is a numerical computation tool and is better for performing calculations on numerical data.

2. Which software is preferred by physicists for complex calculations?

This largely depends on personal preference and the specific needs of the user. Generally, Maple is more popular for symbolic calculations, while Mathematica is preferred for numerical calculations. However, both programs have capabilities in both areas and can be used for complex calculations.

3. Can both Maple and Mathematica be used for graphing and visualization?

Yes, both programs have graphing and visualization capabilities. However, Maple is known for its advanced graphing tools and options, making it a popular choice for creating visual representations of mathematical equations and data. Mathematica also has strong graphing capabilities, but it may require more coding and customization for complex graphs.

4. Which software is better for data analysis and statistics?

In general, Mathematica is better suited for data analysis and statistics. It has built-in functions and packages specifically designed for these tasks, making it a more efficient tool for handling large datasets and performing statistical analyses. Maple also has some capabilities in this area, but it may require more programming and customization.

5. Are there any significant differences in terms of cost and availability?

Both Maple and Mathematica are commercial software programs and can be quite expensive. However, there are free and open-source alternatives available for both, such as SageMath for Maple and Octave for Mathematica. Additionally, many universities and research institutions have licenses for these programs, making them more widely available to scientists and researchers.

Similar threads

Maple Which program is best for me to learn?
    • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
4
Views
3K
Applied A question about mathematics textbooks for physicists
    • Science and Math Textbooks
Replies
28
Views
2K
Mathematica Comparing Maple and Mathematica: Pros, Cons and Alternatives
    • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
14
Views
36K
MATLAB Matlab vs Maple vs Mathematica
    • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
18
Views
142K
MATLAB Mathematica widely underrated in Physics? Matlab widely overrated?
    • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
11
Views
16K
Do chemists think differently than physicists?
    • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
33
Views
6K
A Main Theorem of Renormalization, but in physicist-speak
    • Quantum Physics
Replies
10
Views
982
Programs What subject is better for an aspiring experimental physicist?
    • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
15
Views
1K
Mathematica Mathematica: Having issues with simple DE system
    • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
1
Views
1K
MATLAB Is MATLAB's Implementation of Spherical Harmonics Incorrect?
    • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
3
Views
6K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top