What the fuck is this?

What the fuck is this?

What exactly is the issue?

same expression treated differently and given different solutions depending on a meaningless space

>same expression treated differently and given different solutions depending on a meaningless space
but they're not the same expression, one has a space

1. the space doesn't change the function retard
2. Wolfram identifies them as the same, see top of the picture retard

>1. the space doesn't change the function retard
Who said it did, retard?

>2. Wolfram identifies them as the same, see top of the picture retard
identifying them as equal doesn't mean it has to treat them the same, retard. the pages for 1+1 and 2 are different as well, are you going to cry about that too?

look at the axis scale

it's the same output but the scale of the y axis squishes the graph vertically/the scale of x stretches it horizontally, making it look like a constant function

...

same function, different axes

It still gives a different solution for the same function retard.

Not the issue, here's an even more obvious example

forgot pic

>It still gives a different solution for the same function retard.
there's no "solution" anywhere on that picture, retard

[math]\pi(x)[/math] is the prime-counting function.

only non retard ITT

>Wolfram says 0=4.7
>retard stars talking about semantics like that's the important part

If wolfram interprets it as the prime-counting function then pi(3/2) = pi3/2 would not be "true"

>>Wolfram says 0=4.7
Where does it say that?

...

there's no "0=4.7" anywhere on that picture, retard

is a=b?
"true"

What is a?
"0"

What is b?
"4.7"

>not knowing how computers work
one day you'll be old enough, retard

...

see

My guess would be because the first line also has spaces around the equals sign, the parser took that to mean all spaces were cosmetic, so the two sides were collapsed to the same function.
While with the individual inputs the spaces were interpreted differently.

Maybe in the OP example, but there are no spaces to collapse in the second example with "pi(3/2)" or "pi3/2"

>If wolfram interprets it as the prime-counting function then pi(3/2) = pi3/2 would not be "true"

That's the whole point of the "input" field in , it's telling you how wolfram interpreted your input so you can reformulate it if it's not what you meant

Well yes, but the problem is that it changes interpretation of the exact same expression seemingly arbitrarily

Why is that a problem ?

because it's seemingly arbitrarily

>because it's seemingly arbitrarily
How do you propose to non-arbitrarily interpret an input that has multiple interpretations?

well a start would be sticking to one interpretation for the same expression

>well a start would be sticking to one interpretation for the same expression
'has multiple interpretations'

So? That doesn't mean you can't stick to one of them. If you type sqrt64 you always get 8, not (-8) 8+0i, just 8 unless you specify otherwise

The meaning of an expression is entirely dependent on the context. Different fields of maths reuse the same notations to mean different stuff.

There are brackets though, dummy.

both the expression with and without brackets is identified the same when checked against eachother dummy

Since pi(3/2) is ambiguous, it probably tested both interpretations in the first expression and decided "True" was the more likely correct answer based on some internal metric.

thissssssss
The Spaces don't matter in op's context.
Each expression by itself (input 48 and 47) in user's examples were different and then compared to be different things outside of eachother. THen when user directly compared each expression, input 49, wolfram rewrote each and shows that they were the exact same showing that 4.7 = 4.7
Thread/