GAP and MAGMA are computer algebra systems. What are the objective differences between the two? Which capabilities are not shared?

How do they compare on facilities for working with character tables?

How do they compare on facilities for working with group generators?

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I agree. This is really not the right forum to discuss a topic that is affected by people's varying views on the morality of proprietary software, etc. It would be more legitimate to ask a more specific question like how do they compare on facilities for working with character tables. $\endgroup$ – Derek Holt Apr 1 '20 at 11:28
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ GAP is better because it has QPA :) $\endgroup$ – Mare Apr 1 '20 at 11:37
  • $\begingroup$ I edited the title and question in response to the comment by @YCor . Is that why the upvotes were reset to zero? $\endgroup$ – Philip Apr 1 '20 at 11:57
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Of course the systems have some differences. I could try and summarise them, but if I did that then there would almost certainly be widespread discussion and disagreement, so if you substitute "to a large extent" for "merely" in your final question, then the answer is yes. That is why this question is not suitable for this forum. I use both systems extensively and they constitute an essential part of my research. I have used them in a wide variety of applications and I have often found that one performed better than the other for various types of calculations. $\endgroup$ – Derek Holt Apr 2 '20 at 7:44
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I addressed this question briefly in the introduction to the book "Handbook of Computational Group Theory" by Bettina Eick, myself, and Eamonn O'Brien, so I can refer you there, but that book was published in 2005, and both systems have undergone widespread development since then. $\endgroup$ – Derek Holt Apr 2 '20 at 7:48