STOP THIS MEME

>>8233912
You know you can graph it any way you want, right?

>>8233916
Yeah but this changes the method that it is using to get the value and doesn't even mention it.

To any moron it just looks like (and I've seen this been said before)
>It goes to infinity so far that it then comes back to negative infinity and then goes to -1/12

File: plot.png (6KB, 575x274px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 575x274px

>>8233912
This is probably because Wolfram Alpha uses Mathematica internally which doesn't automatically generate conditions for sums.

>>8233936
>This is probably because Wolfram Alpha uses Mathematica internally

This is also a problem why is this?

Are you telling me that the Wolfram language is actually just mathematica?

So to compile mathematica code the interpreter has to parse it to call the (I suppose) C libraries that actually do the work

But to compile wolfram the wolfram interpreter has to call the mathematica libraries that are then interpreted by the mathematica interpreter to call the C libraries that do the actual work?

If this is true then that shit is really stupid. I am seriously doubting this, my man.

>>8233946
It's implemented in Mathematica.
http://www.wolframalpha.com/faqs9.html
Presumably it converts human input into symbolic Mathematica code then evaluates that. Other than that I'm just guessing.

>>8233955
Then quite literally the wolfram language is just a slower (in terms of compile time) version of mathematica.

That is just sad if you ask me.

>>8233958
Yes, and C is just a much-slower-to-compile form of assembly. Hell, we live in a world where people write languages that compile into JavaScript.

People like languages that are flexible and easy to use. Speed is not actually the only figure of merit.

Who is this a big deal to?

Do you teach from this?

>>8233958
I thought they were the same thing. Calling it Wolfram language is a recent thing, I guess to separate the language from the program. I have no idea how to run it outside of Mathematica though.

>>8233976
>People like languages that are flexible and easy to use. Speed is not actually the only figure of merit.

Yeah but it is not like mathematica is awful. I feel like there is no reason to use Wolfram.

Knowing this answers my long ago question of why all universities tend to teach Mathematica but not the Wolfram Language.

There is just an objectively better option.

>>8233981
>I thought they were the same thing.

And I thought they were completely different things competing for the same market of computational science/mathematics.

I forgot how to figure out if something converges give me a crash course so I can understand this thread.

>>8234001
There are like, a couple of different convergence tests depending on what type of sequence you're working with and you can simply look them up. There's a ratio test, a conditional convergence test, absolute convergence, etc. And I'm too drunk to remember what all of them are. They're also relatively worthless to memorize because A) you can look them up and B) computationally you'll know whether they do or not becase Wolfram or Mathematica or Maple will tell you.

>>8234001
In casual terms, a sum converges if and only if the more terms of the sum you add up, the closer you get to a fixed real value.

For example if you pick x=0.5 for this sum
s1 = 1
s2 = 1 + 0.5 = 1.5
s3 = 1 + 0.5 + 0.25 = 1.75
s4 = 1 + 0.5 + 0.25 + 0.125 = 1.875
s5 = 1.9375
s6 = 1.96875
s...

so for 0.5 it converges to 2.

For any x>=1 and x<=-1 it is trivial to show that there is no real value that will satisfy this definition and wolfram knows this so it switches to another way of determining sums but it graphs them together with the standard sum, making it seem like if that is just the way this sum works.

>>8233912
I'm not doing your homework for you kid