I've been doing my PhD research in this area for the past few years. While Wolfram is close to state of the art, the cutting edge isn't at the stage where it works with high enough accuracy.
Wolfram Alpha, apparently the future of everything, sucks.
- Thread starter Twilight
- Start date
Wait a minute, you type something in, it searches for the answer and then gives you the information. Isn't that somewhat how a search engine works?
I am flabbergasted by your statement.
The key difference is that search engines only return DOCUMENTS. Wolfram can be considered a Question Answering system. That is, searching for relevant documents is only its first step. It next needs to parse those relevant documents to verify if it contains the information you are asking for.
All Seeing Eye
Admiral
Wait a minute, you type something in, it searches for the answer and then gives you the information. Isn't that somewhat how a search engine works?
I am flabbergasted by your statement.
The key difference is that search engines only return DOCUMENTS. Wolfram can be considered a Question Answering system. That is, searching for relevant documents is only its first step. It next needs to parse those relevant documents to verify if it contains the information you are asking for.
So it's a search engine, just a search engine of a different kind. It searches for answers to what you input, therefore it is a search engine. Even if they themselves say it isn't a search engine they are being ignorant to the fact that it is one.
Wait a minute, you type something in, it searches for the answer and then gives you the information. Isn't that somewhat how a search engine works?
I am flabbergasted by your statement.
The key difference is that search engines only return DOCUMENTS. Wolfram can be considered a Question Answering system. That is, searching for relevant documents is only its first step. It next needs to parse those relevant documents to verify if it contains the information you are asking for.
So it's a search engine, just a search engine of a different kind. It searches for answers to what you input, therefore it is a search engine. Even if they themselves say it isn't a search engine they are being ignorant to the fact that it is one.
It computes answers it doesn't search for them, it finds answers to questions no one has asked before, more like a calculator calculates the answer to 5+5.
All Seeing Eye
Admiral
It doesn't "compute" what the population of Germany is. The information is stored in it's database and it searches for the answer.
Look i'm really not going down this road of debating whether it's a search engine or not. As far as i'm concerned it's a search engine whether they try to advertise it as not being one or not.
Everything I have to say on this matter has been said and that's me done.
For all it's shortcomings, it can do some pretty neat stuff. It won't replace Google, seeing as they both do entirely different things (delivering information vs delivering lists of pages containing/relating to keywords), but with some refinement/more data it could be useful.
Wait a minute, you type something in, it searches for the answer and then gives you the information. Isn't that somewhat how a search engine works?
I am flabbergasted by your statement.
The key difference is that search engines only return DOCUMENTS. Wolfram can be considered a Question Answering system. That is, searching for relevant documents is only its first step. It next needs to parse those relevant documents to verify if it contains the information you are asking for.
So it's a search engine, just a search engine of a different kind. It searches for answers to what you input, therefore it is a search engine. Even if they themselves say it isn't a search engine they are being ignorant to the fact that it is one.
If search engines were motorcycles, then Wolfram Alpha can be considered a car. Sure, you can label both motorcycles and cars as the same thing, but to researchers there are significant differences that require them to distinguish between Search Engines and Question Answering systems. One of the key difference is that search engines only require simple word matching algorithms. Question answering systems on the other hand, typically require a host of sophisticated natural language processing and machine learning (AI) techniques including part-of-speech labeling, chunking, semantic role labeling and even sentence parsing.
Wolfram Alpha did provide me with a very useful synonym tree for the word "slut".
At least it would have been useful if all the points on the tree were labeled, or if it were interactive in any way. Right now, I'm terribly confused about how Sut is related to Jade Green, Pall, and Hack.
At least it would have been useful if all the points on the tree were labeled, or if it were interactive in any way. Right now, I'm terribly confused about how Sut is related to Jade Green, Pall, and Hack.
A
Amaris
Guest
Really?
It let me go to a thousand places then gave me this:
Column[{Null,{}}[[2,1]],ItemSize->infinity]
Aside from that, Twilight's article link was correct. It's just about useless to everyone but a very, very niche sector, and even then it's a sector that has no money. It also seems to fail in mediocrity there, as well, so what we're seeing is a real waste of resources all the way around. I don't need something that filters Wikipedia as it's source. That's just really pathetic. Plus, unlike Wikipedia, WolframAlpha doesn't follow up with pertinent information. It gives you the skeleton information, and even that's incomplete. I typed in a mathematical equation. What did it do? Gave me the input, then the mathematical equation as it would look in 5 different ways. After that? No result. I went to Google, typed in the same mathematical equation and it gave me the result right off the bat in a split second. Oh, which reminds me, Wolfram Alpha is slow, terribly slow. It just adds to the overall mediocre performance of the search engine, and I use that term loosely.
Rating: F. Thumbs down. I'm sticking with Google.
J.
Seems about right to me.
It gave the population of the United Kingdom, not the population of England. England is a country that is part of the United Kingdom, and which is located on the island of Great Britain. Wales, also on the island of Great Britain, and also part of the United Kingdom, is a different country. Scotand is also a different country, located on Great Britain, and a part of the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland, also a different country, also a different island, also part of the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom also includes the Channel Islands, the Isle of Mann, the Bailiwick of Jersey, and the Bailiwick Guernsey, which are Crown Dependencies.Seems about right to me.
The population of England is approximately 51,092,000 according to the 2007 estimate. The population of Wales is 3,004,600 according to the 2008 estimate. The population of Scotland is Scotland 5,168,500. The population of Great Britain is 58,000,000 according to the 2006 estimate. The Channel Islands have a population of about 158,000. The Isle of Mann has a population of about 76,512. The Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey have, respectively, populations of 91,626 and 65,573. And Northern Ireland has 1,759,000.
Wolfram Alpha gave the population of the United Kingdom, at 60.8 million, which is about correct, such estimates being the imprecise things that they are. It's also completely wrong. It's the equivalent of asking the population of California and getting the population of the entire United States.
Last edited:
Corrected.