[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Axiom-developer] Re: Axiom + High Energy Physics

From: C Y
Subject: [Axiom-developer] Re: Axiom + High Energy Physics
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 09:27:46 -0800 (PST)

--- Bob McElrath <address@hidden> wrote:

> Cernlib certainly contains mathematical routines.
> However it contains a very large number of things which are not
> mathematical routines, and it is written in fortran.

I thought it was being ported to C?  Did that not happen?
> A much more appropriate library for interfacing is the GNU Scientific
> Library, BLAS, and LAPACK.  Taken together these cover almost all of
> the cernlib routines.  Anything it does not cover should be added to
> them, rather than imported from cernlib.  ;)

Of course, ideally we'd document and implement all the algorithms in
Axiom as literate code ;-).  Although I understand BLAS and LAPACK in
particular do a lot of low level optimization work I for one would not
care to repeat...

> Besides, the data analysis package root ( has superceded
> cernlib.

Ah, good to know.
> They would.  People tend to (rightfully) distrust such packages, and
> the learning curve is high, so people tend to continue using what 
> they know.

Since the idea would be to re-implement Feyncalc hopefully the learning
curve wouldn't be too terribly high, but I suppose the realistic view
would suggest differently.

Bob, being a member of a physics department and a user of cernlib and
friends, what would you recommend as a way to ensure and demonstrate
the reliability of such packages?  (I suppose me getting a Phd in High
Energy Physics would be the best first step, but that's probably not
really practical...)  The only way I can think of is to make some kind
of feyncalc_examples.pamphlet which reproduces every published result
of Feyncalc on Mathematica, which might be good for a paper but may or
may not convince people.  Would sure make for great bug testing though,
regardless (/me scribbles note to look for published Feyncalc results
on todo list...)

> But of course I think such an effort is still worthwhile.

Heh - perhaps the chance to avoid spending large fractions of the
department budget on CAS software will help convince folks to to debug
and test the new arrival.

> > I'm sort of hoping Axiom might someday become the tool of
> > choice for theoretical physics - 
> Me too!  ;)

In your estimation, are the mathematical abilities of Axiom as it
currently exists enough to support Feyncalc, or are we lacking
something essential?  (Disregard if you don't use Feyncalc, of course


Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]