[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 63 KB, 300x300, unnamed.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7047529 No.7047529 [Reply] [Original]

Is wolfram alpha worth buying?

>> No.7047530

>>7047529
Is any piece of software worth buying? Are you not in an institution which offers it for free?

>> No.7047538

>>7047530
>being a member of an institution

look at this guy, he's not even a free thinker.

>> No.7047540

>>7047529
Hell no.

>http://kickass.to/maplesoft-maple-v18-0-32-64-bit-incl-crack-mumbai-tpb-t8915215.html
>http://kickass.to/matlab-r2013a-8-1-0-604-t7283516.html
>http://winpython.sourceforge.net/

>> No.7047542

>>7047538
Then you don't need wolfram because you're smart enough to do the shit on your own.

>> No.7047543

>>7047538
You go philosophize about unicorns elsewhere

>> No.7047573

>>7047529
45 bucks isn't that much and you get to support wolfram, which is by no means a bad thing. If pirating is more your thing, then >>7047540.

Basically the best use for wolfram is the step by step problem solver. It's super helpful for college level calculus classes when you run into problems where you have to integrate weird trig functions, or use some obscure identity, but naturally WA has it's limits.

>> No.7047578

>>7047573
The most use I've had out of Wolfram is solving differential systems involving multiple changes of reference frame which leads to hilariously long answers that are too tedious to solve by hand.

>> No.7047580
File: 13 KB, 429x410, 1422225114914.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7047580

>>7047529
>Is wolfram alpha worth buying?
FUCK NO!

Mathematica, the engine that underlies W|A is a gigantic PIECE OF SHIT. I'm not saying that, AMS is.

http://www.ams.org/notices/201410/rnoti-p1249.pdf

>Conclusions
>We have been using Mathematica as a tool in our mathematical research. All our computations with Mathematica have been symbolic, involving only integers (large integers, about 10 thousand digits long) and polynomials (with degree 60 at most), so no numerical rounding or instability can arise in them, and we completely trusted the results generated by Mathematica. However, we have obtained completely erroneous results.

It's a steaming pile of shit.

Also, don't give money to that megalomanic nutjob Stephen Wolfram.

>> No.7047586

>>7047580
1000x this

>> No.7047587

>>7047580
I've had similar problems with Matlab's CAS.
Personally I use sympy for problems that large now.

Mathematica is still fine for day to day quick calculations

>> No.7047595

>>7047580
Well it depends on what your doing. For an undergraduate taking math classes, which may not even be for a math major, it's perfectly acceptable. These are researchers, not students.

>> No.7047608

>>7047587
>Mathematica is still fine for day to day quick calculations
No it is not. Maple is still miles ahead.

Just stick to Sage and Maple. Use these two to check each others' results when you suspect something might be wrong.

Mathematica's for plebs.

>> No.7047612

>buying an alpha
what are you, a dumbass?

>> No.7047617

>>7047580
>Any mathematical study that reports computational results should dedicate some effort to explain why the authors have faith in the results. For instance, verifying that the computation was performed in two different ways (with two different systems, both numerically and symbolically,...) and the results agreed.
at least TRY to read the things you quote

>> No.7047618

No, mathematica doesn't respect your freedom.

Also, do it properly and learn Haskell instead of being the STEM equivalent of a tech retarded granny.

>> No.7047621
File: 15 KB, 429x410, 1401040983609.jpg-fs8.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7047621

>>7047595
>Well it depends on what your doing. For an undergraduate taking math classes, which may not even be for a math major, it's perfectly acceptable. These are researchers, not students.
Implying you know what the errors are.

You're a fucking idiot for trusting anything Wolfram puts out. Wolfram, the corporation, is on record for saying that YOU SHOULD NOT KNOW how things work internally. Yes, they're really swing that and have a page devoted to that "philosophy":

http://reference.wolfram.com/language/tutorial/WhyYouDoNotUsuallyNeedToKnowAboutInternals.html

Given how all CASes contain errors, how the fuck can you trust someone who tells you should should be ignorant of them?!

Knowing how CAS works, so you know where you might encounter problems, is CRUCIAL to producing error-free solutions.

What these asswipes are saying is that IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.

>> No.7047626

>>7047617
>at least TRY to read the things you quote
I have you fucking dips hit. See >>7047608

>Just stick to Sage and Maple. Use these two to check each others' results when you suspect something might be wrong.

See? Have YOU read it? Obviously not.

>> No.7047638

Thanks fellas

>> No.7047643

>>7047608
Had to buy Maple 12 when I started undergrad.
I will never use that piece of shit again.