mathematica

There are actually quite a number of places where Mathematica gives a wrong answer and unum math does not!

Wolfram just renamed it, because Mathematica is only his famous and well-selling product, while Wolfram is himself.

This is funny, but even Mathematica gives bad answer for that equation from slide 25...

You could take a photo of it with a digital camera then post-process it and stick it through mathematica or something.

Browsers should do one thing well, but that one thing has no real business being duplication of mathematica, quake, or visual studio.

Whenever I want to make a pie chart or similar I always end up using Mathematica or Illustrator.

One drawback of Mathematica is that it has a very poor idea of the formulae that human readers will regard as simple.

For example, if you ask Mathematica to find all real values of x for which 1 == 1, it returns the empty set.

Is it then the question that when I refer to the principa mathematica that I'm actually referring to principa quus?

So apparently Mathematica understands more about this sequence than I do, and I know its definition.

So it's safe to say Mathematica knows a lot more about math than I do.

That may be true, but only if you assume I'm not referring to the plus derived from the axioms of principa mathematica.

Right now, the state of the art for on-demand cloud remote development desktops to help facilitate intensive development environments, like IntelliJ / Visual Studio / Mathematica, on underpowered clients, (i.e.12" MacBook), is to rely on proprietary protocols that barely work if the targeted remote machine is a Linux desktop.

Also the Raspbian developers (from the Raspberry Pi foundation) include proprietary software into Raspbian, say, Mathematica.

By the way, Mathematica's formula looks a lot like the closed form for the Fibonacci sequence.

I've still never seen anything like this in a modern language (is it supported by R or Mathematica?