# SAGE for Mac

Open-source advanced mathematics software.

When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission

**SAGE** is open source mathematics software which creates a viable free open source alternative to Magma, Maple, Mathematica, and Matlab.

**General and Advanced Pure and Applied Mathematics.**- Use SAGE for studying a huge range of mathematics, including algebra, calculus, elementary to very advanced number theory, cryptography, numerical computation, commutative algebra, group theory, combinatorics, graph theory, and exact linear algebra.**Use an Open Source Alternative.**- By using SAGE you help to support a viable open source alternative to Magma, Maple, Mathematica, and MATLAB. SAGE includes many high-quality open source math packages.**Use Most Mathematics Software from Within SAGE.**- SAGE makes it easy for you to use most mathematics software together. SAGE includes interfaces to Magma, Maple, Mathematica, MATLAB, and MuPAD, and the free programs Axiom, GAP, GP/PARI, Macaulay2, Maxima, Octave, and Singular.**Use a Standard Programming Language.**- You work with SAGE using the highly regarded scripting language Python instead of an obscure language designed for a particular mathematics program. You can write programs that combine serious mathematics with anything else.

- Translate "A Tour of Sage" into Greek by @gmou3 in #37198
- ntl 11.5.1 by @mkoeppe in #37251
- sage.groups.generic: Fix incorrect identity testing by @grhkm21 in #37257
- PDF docbuild: Reduce verbosity by @mkoeppe in #37264
- Directly convert PermutationGroup element into sized Permutation by @RuchitJagodara in #37288
- README.md: Move all mentions of release tarballs to the installation guide by @mkoeppe in #37309
- Reference manual: Show package list by category (math/front-end/other) by @mkoeppe in #37315
- sage --package create: Attempt to bring SPKG.rst title to a common style by @mkoeppe in #37322
- Fixed the doc sets/recursively_enumerated_set.py by @janmenjayap in #37331
- some details in modules (ruff and pep) by @fchapoton in #37335
- Add simple methods to convert to and from bytes for ZZ and finite fields by @GiacomoPope in #37343
- implemented function for acyclic orientations by @saatvikraoIITGN in #37345
- sage.schemes.generic: fix docs by @grhkm21 in #37346
- sage/stats/distributions: Implement non-spherical Gaussian sampling over lattices by @grhkm21 in #36581
- Doctest hide option: Better detection of hidden packages by @soehms in #36741
- Implement Specht modules in the tabloid basis by @tscrim in #36748
- spkg-configure.m4 for most external Python pkgs by @dimpase in #36777
- Implementation of the quantum oscillator algebra by @tscrim in #36907

Full list of changes available here

Free

In English

Version 10.4

Write a detailed review about SAGE

Comments

User Ratings

May 27 2011

Version: 4.7

Please use a reasonable name for the app, just Sage.app. Version and platform information does not belong in the app's name. This belongs in the info plist and web site, and perhaps the disk image name. Moreover, that information is even a lie, as there only is a 32-bit binary, it's not 64-bit.

Oct 23 2010

Version: 4.5.3

I looked at Sage, hoping it would be a useful alternative to the commercial products, but in my opinion it is simply not useful due to a very lax attitude towards bugs and code quality.
Most mathematicians I know tend to pay attention to detail, but that seems to go out the window with the Sage developers. As I write, there are 2228 open-tickets on their trac server, of which I would estimate at least 2000 are bugs.
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/4942
is one trivial example of where the wrong roots are found. This bug was originally marked as the highest priority (blocker) 22 months ago, then downgraded to "critical" 16 months ago by the lead Sage developer (William Stein). If the lead developer considered it critical 16 months ago, why has nobody made a single comment about it in 16 months?
Just compiling the code I get over 3000 compiler warnings. Some look harmless, some look serious. In one bit of code I looked at in some detail, I was astounded how poor it was.
One of the Sage developers has commented on the "release it now, we will make it work later mentality". That sums it up for me. There are a few developers that seem to be frustrated by a lack of quality control, but they are very much in a minority.
The source code is large (about 280 MB last time I looked, and I expect it's even bigger now). But a lot of it is unnecessary duplication.
On the positive side, the web interface is a nice idea. But again that is poorly implemented, as someone else remarks. In particular I think the security model is ill thought out. Each user has their own user name and password, so you would not expect that user1 could kill the processes user2 is running. But since each user actually runs under one single user name on the system, they can kill each others processes just by using the 'kill' command, which is easy as you can get a shell very easily.
Sage has a lot of functionality, but personally I don't feel enough attention is paid to detail.
Of course, in theory, being open-source, I can fix the bugs I find and can check the code for correctness. In practice, that is just not practical for me. I want to use the software - not spend my life checking it.
If you are a number theorist, then Sage might be useful to you, since that is what is of interest to most of the developers, and is one of the strengths of Sage. In that area is surpasses even Mathematica. But for general usage, it is just not worth the effort, unless you don't care whether the results you get are right or not.
Of course, I don't totally trust any software. But I find more bugs in using Sage in an afternoon than I find in MATLAB or Mathematica in using them for a week. Sage is just too buggy.
Karen.

Sep 11 2010

Version: 4.5.3

The main (Intel 64bit) download link does not yield version 4.5.3 - please have this fixed!

Nov 21 2009

Version: 4.2.1

The best thing about SAGE is that there now a $300 version of Mathematica for personal use. ($249 before Christmas, 2009.) I'm really rooting for this software and I tried it in the past but it is plagued by the common open source problem: poor documentation. Also, the interface is clumsy (but what math program doesn't have a clumsy interface--Mathematica's interface was cool in 1987 but it's still pretty much the same). I tried to learn how to do basic stuff using some of the tutorials and manuals but was quickly knee-deep in research mathematics examples. Not good. How many ways are there to make plots? And _every_ math program is deficient unless it uses a mouse-based interface like LiveMath Maker (formerly Theorist) which is still available works after all these years.

Jul 26 2008

Version: 3.0.5

Well if you like linux...
Very typical open source software. Don't even try if you are not comfortable with python. Very powerful but highly user unfriendly, resource hog, does not play well with other software, slow except on a newer machine (lots processors & memory)etc..
Uses a web browser as the GUI, nice idea, mediocre implementation.
But for the price (free) you can't complain to much.
Well at least it was python instead of perl.