Even with pure math questions I find Wolfram Alpha still finicky.
Is there a syntax that would always lead to a correct interpretation?
For example in the field of logic.
1. not(A and B and C) and not(D and E and F) and (A or D) -> ok
2. table not(A and B and C) and not(D and E and F) -> ok
3. not(A and B and C) and not(D and E and F) and (A or D) -> not ok
I can play around with && instead of and, switch lower and upper case.
I can copy the 'plain text interpretation' of the (simpler) expressions WA seems to get.
For example "Truth table A and B" > click on 'plain text' in the interpretation panel and I get
- truth table | A ∧ B
- ResourceFunction["TruthTable"][A && B, {A, B}]
And work with those syntaxes to get a result for more complex expressions.
But then again if I try:
- truth table | (I ⊻ M) ∧ (J ⊻ N) ∧ (K ⊻ O) ∧ (L ⊻ P)
WA doesn't get it. While
- truth table | (i ⊻ M) ∧ (J ⊻ N) ∧ (K ⊻ O) ∧ (L ⊻ P)
gets some interpretation "Assuming i is the imaginary unit | Use i as a variable instead". If I then click on 'variable' I get the desired truth table.
Why is there no math syntax that leaves WA no room for misinterpretation?
Thanks.