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.

Why is there no math syntax that leaves WA no room for misinterpretation? The short answer is: this is why we have Mathematica either on your desktop or the online version.

Just use other software. Ah yes, of course that is the answer I am looking for. Thanks!

OMG even in writing this post, input is finicky. I had some nice indentation and lists to make the post more readable, using the buttons above the input panel. But these were just ignored and I can't make it to work. So even here suggested syntax doesn't work. Crazy.

Finicky Wolfram Alpha even for math input