Comments on: Solving algrebra with MSN Search

By: Jimmy

Jimmy — Mon, 29 Nov 2004 06:33:29 +0000

Google can do imaginary numbers… They even use one in the example. Try sqrt(-4).

By: Ed

Ed — Sun, 21 Nov 2004 19:55:02 +0000

The MSN calculator is also limited to real answers too.

By: Dmitry

Dmitry — Sun, 21 Nov 2004 09:13:24 +0000

Oddly enough, no result is returned if the answer is complex (“imaginary”). What’s with that? I can’t be difficult to impliment for a company that’s trying to build a search engine to compete with Google (and, by the way, has more capital than the GDP of many counties).

By: TedFox

TedFox — Sat, 20 Nov 2004 02:47:24 +0000

heh.. for awhile there… i thought they were pulling results from the phrases they find on the web… rather then doing their own calculations. teehee.

By: Cheah Chu Yeow

Cheah Chu Yeow — Fri, 19 Nov 2004 01:00:40 +0000

You’d be surprised how few people know about the existence of the Google Calculator. Many times I’ve overheard people trying to bring out the calculator or looking for unit conversion charts/forumulae when their browsers are open right in front of them, and I’ve been tempted to tell them to type it into Google.

By: Vinnie Garcia

Vinnie Garcia — Thu, 18 Nov 2004 23:48:58 +0000

Google’s had a calculator forever. Try this query out for instance.

By: David

David — Thu, 18 Nov 2004 11:52:30 +0000

That’s terrible abuse of the equals sign in the output too:

“Answer: x^3-27=0 = x=3″

“0=x=3″? It makes no sense!

Much better to use the “implies” symbol ⇒ [⇒]:

“Answer: x^3-27=0 ⇒ x=3″

By: David

David — Thu, 18 Nov 2004 11:46:24 +0000

“…it seems it can only solve up to cubic equations”:

I’d imagine that’s because, if I recall correctly, there are no formulae for finding the roots of polynomials with large powers like there is for quadratics and cubics.

I think there is a general formula for quartics but perhaps Microsoft didn’t implement it [it's quite horrendous], but Galois showed that it’s impossible to find a general formula for quintic polynomials [and thus higher order polynomials].

By: Arvind

Arvind — Thu, 18 Nov 2004 11:16:46 +0000

I did say “quartic”, not quadratic ;). I passed ‘A’-level Math and Further Math you know. Heh.

Doh heh!

By: Roshambo

Roshambo — Wed, 17 Nov 2004 19:59:39 +0000

Of couse, no luck with quintic equations either: 1024x^5 – 2816x^4 + 2816x^3 – 1232x^2 + 220x – 11 = 0.

The cubic eqations seems to lag a bit…do you think if we all entered some at the same time we’d bring the server to it’s knees? Nonetheless, very cool.

By: Cheah Chu Yeow

Cheah Chu Yeow — Wed, 17 Nov 2004 12:52:21 +0000

I did say “quartic”, not quadratic ;). I passed ‘A’-level Math and Further Math you know. Heh.

By: Arvind

Arvind — Wed, 17 Nov 2004 12:36:15 +0000

Just FYI, a quadratic equation is x^2 ! I hope google implements this, I’d rather just search a dictionary, use a calculator and work out advanced alagebra in one search engine :P

By: brucetct

brucetct — Wed, 17 Nov 2004 12:05:58 +0000

this is so cool! wonder how far can its calculation go?