h a l f b a k e r yTastes richer, less filling.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Simply put
You type in the formula into the search box
It spits out what kind of formula it is, how to use it, and what each symbol means
e.g.
type E= MC^2
it spits out info about how its a formula about the amount of energy in a atom. Also it tells you that E = energy, M=mass of atom,
C=speed of light.
Would be extreamly useful when we cannot be effed to crack open a textbook to find a single formula
--------
You can also type the formula name, and it will find you the formula. In-case you remember the formula name, but not it's equation.
Wolfram Alpha on E=MC^2
http://www.wolframa...nput/?i=E%3D+MC%5E2
[Dub, Nov 20 2009]
LaTeX
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaTeX
Just in case anyone is unfamiliar with the typographical thingy-ma-jingy, LaTeX. [Jinbish, Nov 20 2009]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
I'm not sure I get this... How often do you have a formula about a physical property that you don't know about. Sure it might be baffling - but you know what it might be *about*. |
|
| |
Wouldn't it be better to search for " *energy* related to *mass* ", where the * denote keywords? The you get given the formulae that link the properties you've searched for and get a wee explanation too. |
|
| |
If it is non-physical formulae such as some kind of abstract algebraic construct (like a calculus problem) - then I can see the need to figure out how to tackle it. You might enter the formula and be told that, to get 'x', you require to integrate by parts or some such. |
|
| |
Do you know what I mean - or is that a load of F(x)? |
|
| |
you could call it "Google". [-] |
|
| |
you could call it "Wolfram Alpha". |
|
| |
Being serious though, a big problem is that there is no
semantic standard for math equations. We have latex, but
that's purely typographic. There are people working on this
problem in the MathML community. |
|
| |
This would be potentially useful for the sciences where a
computer could sift through published papers and try to find
mathematical similarities between disparate disciplines. |
|
| |
// there is no semantic standard for math equations // |
|
| |
That's because not only are all mathematicians quite mad, but they get a vicious enjoyment from making it difficult for non-mathematicians. |
|
| |
It wasn't difficult to develop an arithmetic symbology that early, basic computers (and even some Games teachers) could understand. Algebraic symbology is more about problems with mathematicians than problems with mathematics. |
|
| |
[Suggested category - Science:Mathematics] |
|
| |
I don't think it would be easy to explain, say, the Schrodinger equation in words of one syllable. You're either learning the subject properly or it just won't make sense to you. |
|
| |
For equations that are easy to understand, I generally find that Google will bring up some relevant pages that will help you understand it. |
|
| |