Magnus (computer algebra system)

Magnus was a computer algebra system designed to solve problems in group theory. It was designed to runs on Unix-like operating systems, as well as Windows. The development process was started in 1994 and the first public release appeared in 1997. The project was abandoned in August 2005. The unique feature of Magnus was that it provided facilities for doing calculations in and about infinite groups. Almost all symbolic algebra systems are oriented toward finite computations that are guaranteed to produce answers, given enough time and resources. By contrast, Magnus was concerned with experiments and computations on infinite groups which in some cases are known to terminate, while in others are known to be generally recursively unsolvable.

Magnus
Developer(s)The New York Group Theory Cooperative, City University of New York
Operating systemCross-platform
TypeComputer algebra system
LicenseGPL
Websitesourceforge.net/projects/magnus/

Features of Magnus

  • A graphical object and method based user interface which is easy and intuitive to use and naturally reflects the underlying C++ classes;
  • A kernel consisting of a ``session manager", to communicate between the user interface or front-end and the back-end where computations are carried out, and ``computation managers" which direct the computations which may involve several algorithms and "information centers" where information is stored;
  • Facilities for performing several procedures in parallel and allocating resources to each of several simultaneous algorithms working on the same problem;
  • Enumerators which generate sizable finite approximations to both finite and infinite algebraic objects and make it possible to carry out searches for answers even when general algorithms may not exist;
  • Innovative genetic algorithms;
  • A package manager to ``plug in" more special purpose algorithms written by others;
gollark: In any case, I am not a linguist, but I think it's technically possible to produce an AST from English, or something like that, but really impractical. There is no regular grammar, words can't be cleanly mapped to concepts because they carry connotations pulled in from common discourse and the context surrounding them, many of them mean multiple things, you have to be able to resolve pronouns and references to past text, etc.
gollark: I am not aware of there being 22 base units of words or whatever.
gollark: What?
gollark: Try parsing, say, English grammar with a set of unambiguous rules.
gollark: To wildly speculate about why, it's probably that real-world problems are generally too complicated and nuanced for a practical amount of handcoded rules to work.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.