MathGroup Archive 2009

[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]

Search the Archive

Re: comments on Wolfram Alpha

  • To: mathgroup at
  • Subject: [mg100418] Re: comments on Wolfram Alpha
  • From: dbreiss at
  • Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 01:10:05 -0400 (EDT)
  • References: <> <>

Because W|A is, in effect, a Mathematica application deployed through
web technologies, there is a blurry line that separates questions that
are clearly W|A related from those that have a significant Mathematica

But I think that the right policy is to let questions that involve
clarifying Mathematica insights into this group. And I am sure that
someone will ultimately create a google group (moderated?) that covers
technical aspects that are strictly W|A.

The forum, though certainly useful,
is probably too close to the WRI corporate marketing realm to properly
and fully serve the community.  There is clearly room for other
complementary resources.

So, my recommendation for his group is that there should clearly be a
Mathematic component for questions related to W|A.

Ok, but I am going to violate this rule right now anyway  :-).

The question has come up in the media repeatedly as to what the proper
verb for Wolfram|Alpha is similat to "to google something".
**Obviously* the verb is "to Alpha."


On Jun 2, 6:39 am, Brett Champion <bre... at> wrote:
> On Jun 1, 2009, at 6:10 AM, Ingolf Dahl wrote:
> > Good, use Google then. Why should WolframAlpha try to be better on  
> > things
> > where Google is good enough?
> > But with this kind of letters the number of messages to MathGroup  
> > will soon
> > reach 200,000. I am also very interested in the abilities and  
> > inabilities of
> > WolframAlpha, but this is not the right place for that discussion. I 
> > suggest
> > a policy where letters about Wolfram Alpha from now on are let  
> > through only
> > in the cases where Mathematica as such also really is involved. Other
> > letters fit better as direct feedback to Wolfram or as letters to the
> > WolframAlpha Community. What is the opinion of the Moderator here?
> > [I am open to comments on this issue - what rules should
> > apply? -- Moderator]
> My *personal* opinion is that general Wolfram|Alpha comments should be 
> directed to seems to be the  
> MathGroup equivalent.
> Of course comments like:
> * how do I get something in Mathematica to look like it does in  
> Wolfram|Alpha?
> * I get different results for <foo> in Mathematica and Wolfram|Alpha.  
> Why?
> * Wolfram|Alpha knows how to calculate <foo>; how do I do it in  
> Mathematica?
> * How do I create a docked cell in Mathematica with a search field for 
> Wolfram|Alpha?
> * etc...
> that also pertain to Mathematica should be allowed on MathGroup.
> Brett

  • Prev by Date: Re: RandomReal gets stuck
  • Next by Date: Re: Re: difference between HeavisidePi and UnitBox
  • Previous by thread: Re: Re: comments on Wolfram Alpha
  • Next by thread: Re: comments on Wolfram Alpha