Compose a tweet-length Wolfram Language program, and tweet it to @WolframTaP. Our Twitter bot will run your program in the Wolfram Cloud and tweet back the result.

One can do a lot with Wolfram Language programs that fit in a tweet. Like here’s a 78-character program that generates a color cube made of spheres:

It’s easy to make interesting patterns:

Here’s a 44-character program that seems to express itself like an executable poem:

Going even shorter, here’s a little “fractal hack”, in just 36 characters:

Putting in some math makes it easy to get all sorts of elaborate structures and patterns:

You don’t have to make pictures. Here, for instance, are the first 1000 digits of π, sized according to their magnitudes (notice that run of 9s!):

The Wolfram Language not only knows how to compute π, as well as a zillion other algorithms; it also has a huge amount of built-in knowledge about the real world. So right in the language, you can talk about movies or countries or chemicals or whatever. And here’s a 78-character program that makes a collage of the flags of Europe, sized according to country population:

We can make this even shorter if we use some free-form natural language in the program. In a typical Wolfram notebook interface, you do this using , but in Tweet-a-Program, you can do it just using =[...]:

The Wolfram Language knows a lot about geography. Here’s a program that makes a “powers of 10” sequence of disks, centered on the Eiffel Tower:

There are many, many kinds of real-world knowledge built into the Wolfram Language, including some pretty obscure ones. Here’s a map of all the shipwrecks it knows in the Atlantic:

The Wolfram Language deals with images too. Here’s a program that gets images of the planets, then randomly scrambles their colors to give them a more exotic look:

Here’s an image of me, repeatedly edge-detected:

Or, for something more “pop culture” (and ready for image analysis etc.), here’s an array of random movie posters:

The Wolfram Language does really well with words and text too. Like here’s a program that generates an “infographic” showing the relative frequencies of first letters for words in English and in Spanish:

And here—just fitting in a tweet—is a program that computes a smoothed estimate of the frequencies of “Alice” and “Queen” going through the text of *Alice in Wonderland*:

Networks are good fodder for Tweet-a-Program too. Like here’s a program that generates a sequence of networks:

And here—just below the tweet length limit—is a program that generates a random cloud of polyhedra:

What’s the shortest “interesting program” in the Wolfram Language?

In some languages, it might be a “quine”—a program that outputs its own code. But in the Wolfram Language, quines are completely trivial. Since everything is symbolic, all it takes to make a quine is a single character:

Using the built-in knowledge in the Wolfram Language, you can make some very short programs with interesting output. Like here’s a 15-character program that generates an image from built-in data about knots:

Some short programs are very easy to understand:

It’s fun to make short “mystery” programs. What’s this one doing?

Or this one?

Or, much more challengingly, this one:

I’ve actually spent many years of my life studying short programs and what they do—and building up a whole science of the computational universe, described in my big book *A New Kind of Science*. It all started more than three decades ago—with a computer experiment that I can now do with just a single tweet:

My all-time favorite discovery is tweetable too:

If you go out searching in the computational universe, it’s easy to find all sorts of amazing things:

An ultimate question is whether somewhere out there in the computational universe there is a program that represents our whole physical universe. And is that program short enough to be tweetable in the Wolfram Language?

But regardless of this, we already know that the Wolfram Language lets us write amazing tweetable programs about an incredible diversity of things. It’s taken more than a quarter of a century to build the huge tower of knowledge and automation that’s now in the Wolfram Language. But this richness is what makes it possible to express so much in the space of a tweet.

In the past, only ordinary human languages were rich enough to be meaningfully used for tweeting. But what’s exciting now is that it seems like the Wolfram Language has passed a kind of threshold of general expressiveness that lets it, too, be meaningfully tweetable. For like ordinary human languages, it can talk about all sorts of things, and represent all sorts of ideas. But there’s also something else about it: unlike ordinary human languages, everything in it always has a precisely defined meaning—and what you write is not just readable, but also runnable.

Tweets in an ordinary human language are (presumably) intended to have some effect on the mind of whoever reads them. But the effect may be different on different minds, and it’s usually hard to know exactly what it is. But tweets in the Wolfram Language have a well-defined effect—which you see when they’re run.

It’s interesting to compare the Wolfram Language to ordinary human languages. An ordinary language, like English, has a few tens of thousands of reasonably common “built-in” words, excluding proper names etc. The Wolfram Language has about 5000 built-in named objects, excluding constructs like entities specified by proper names.

And one thing that’s important about the Wolfram Language—that it shares with ordinary human languages—is that it’s not only writable by humans, but also readable by them. There’s vocabulary to acquire, and there are a few principles to learn—but it doesn’t take long before, as a human, one can start to understand typical Wolfram Language programs.

Sometimes it’s fairly easy to give at least a rough translation (or “explanation”) of a Wolfram Language program in ordinary human language. But it’s very common for a Wolfram Language program to express something that’s quite difficult to communicate—at least at all succinctly—in ordinary human language. And inevitably this means that there are things that are easy to think about in the Wolfram Language, but difficult to think about in ordinary human language.

Just like with an ordinary language, there are language arts for the Wolfram Language. There’s reading and comprehension. And there’s writing and composition. Always with lots of ways to express something, but now with a precise notion of correctness, as well as all sorts of measures like speed of execution.

And like with ordinary human language, there’s also the matter of elegance. One can look at both meaning and presentation. And one can think of distilling the essence of things to create a kind of “code poetry”.

When I first came up with Tweet-a-Program it seemed mostly like a neat hack. But what I’ve realized is that it’s actually a window into a new kind of expression—and a form of communication that humans and computers can share.

Of course, it’s also intended to be fun. And certainly for me there’s great satisfaction in creating a tiny, elegant gem of a program that produces something amazing.

And now I’m excited to see what everyone will do with it. What kinds of things will be created? What popular “code postcards” will there be? Who will be inspired to code? What puzzles will be posed and solved? What competitions will be defined and won? And what great code artists and code poets will emerge?

Now that we have tweetable programs, let’s go find what’s possible…

*To develop and test programs for Tweet-a-Program, you can log in free to the Wolfram Programming Cloud, or use any other Wolfram Language system, on the desktop or in the cloud. Check out some details here.*

*To comment, please visit the copy of this post at the Wolfram Blog »*

In the past, using *Mathematica* has always involved first installing software on your computer. But as of today that’s no longer true. Instead, all you have to do is point a web browser at *Mathematica* Online, then log in, and immediately you can start to use *Mathematica*—with zero configuration.

Here’s what it looks like:

It’s a notebook interface, just like on the desktop. You interactively build up a computable document, mixing text, code, graphics, and so on—with inputs you can immediately run, hierarchies of cells, and even things like Manipulate. It’s taken a lot of effort, but we’ve been able to implement almost all the major features of the standard *Mathematica* notebook interface purely in a web browser—extending CDF (Computable Document Format) to the cloud.

There are some tradeoffs of course. For example, Manipulate can’t be as zippy in the cloud as it is on the desktop, because it has to run across the network. But because its Cloud CDF interface is running directly in the web browser, it can immediately be embedded in any web page, without any plugin, like right here:

Another huge feature of *Mathematica* Online is that because your files are stored in the cloud, you can immediately access them from anywhere. You can also easily collaborate: all you have to do is set permissions on the files so your collaborators can access them. Or, for example, in a class, a professor can create notebooks in the cloud that are set so each student gets their own active copy to work with—that they can then email or share back to the professor.

And since *Mathematica* Online runs purely through a web browser, it immediately works on mobile devices too. Even better, there’s soon going to be a Wolfram Cloud app that provides a native interface to *Mathematica* Online, both on tablets like the iPad, and on phones:

There are lots of great things about *Mathematica* Online. There are also lots of great things about traditional desktop *Mathematica*. And I, for one, expect routinely to use both of them.

They fit together really well. Because from *Mathematica* Online there’s a single button that “peels off” a notebook to run on the desktop. And within desktop *Mathematica*, you can seamlessly access notebooks and other files that are stored in the cloud.

If you have desktop *Mathematica* installed on your machine, by all means use it. But get *Mathematica* Online too (which is easy to do—through Premier Service Plus for individuals, or a site license add-on). And then use the Wolfram Cloud to store your files, so you can access and compute with them from anywhere with *Mathematica* Online. And so you can also immediately share them with anyone you want.

By the way, when you run notebooks in the cloud, there are some extra web-related features you get—like being able to embed inside a notebook other web pages, or videos, or actually absolutely any HTML code.

*Mathematica* Online is initially set up to run—and store content—in our main Wolfram Cloud. But it’ll soon also be possible to get a Wolfram Private Cloud—so you operate entirely in your own infrastructure, and for example let people in your organization access *Mathematica* Online without ever using the public web.

A few weeks ago we launched the Wolfram Programming Cloud—our very first full product based on the Wolfram Language, and Wolfram Cloud technology. *Mathematica* Online is our second product based on this technology stack.

The Wolfram Programming Cloud is focused on creating deployable cloud software. *Mathematica* Online is instead focused on providing a lightweight web-based version of the traditional *Mathematica* experience. Over the next few months, we’re going to be releasing a sequence of other products based on the same technology stack, including the Wolfram Discovery Platform (providing unlimited access to the Wolfram Knowledgebase for R&D) and the Wolfram Data Science Platform (providing a complete data-source-to-reports data science workflow).

One of my goals since the beginning of *Mathematica* more than a quarter century ago has been to make the system as widely accessible as possible. And it’s exciting today to be able to take another major new step in that direction—making *Mathematica* immediately accessible to anyone with a web browser.

There’ll be many applications. From allowing remote access for existing *Mathematica* users. To supporting mobile workers. To making it easy to administer *Mathematica* for project-based users, or on public-access computers. As well as providing a smooth new workflow for group collaboration and for digital classrooms.

But for me right now it’s just so neat to be able to see all the power of *Mathematica* immediately accessible through a plain old web browser—on a computer or even a phone.

And all you need do is go to the *Mathematica* Online website…

*To comment, please visit the copy of this post at the Wolfram Blog »*

This year the ICM is in Seoul, and I’m going to it today. I went to the ICM once before—in Kyoto in 1990. *Mathematica* was only two years old then, and mathematicians were just getting used to it. Plenty already used it extensively—but at the ICM there were also quite a few who said, “I do *pure* mathematics. How can *Mathematica* possibly help me?”

Twenty-four years later, the vast majority of the world’s pure mathematicians do in fact use *Mathematica* in one way or another. But there’s nevertheless a substantial core of pure mathematics that still gets done pretty much the same way it’s been done for centuries—by hand, on paper.

Ever since the 1990 ICM I’ve been wondering how one could successfully inject technology into this. And I’m excited to say that I think I’ve recently begun to figure it out. There are plenty of details that I don’t yet know. And to make what I’m imagining real will require the support and involvement of a substantial set of the world’s pure mathematicians. But if it’s done, I think the results will be spectacular—and will surely change the face of pure mathematics at least as much as *Mathematica* (and for a younger generation, Wolfram|Alpha) have changed the face of calculational mathematics, and potentially usher in a new golden age for pure mathematics.

The whole story is quite complicated. But for me one important starting point is the difference in the typical workflows for calculational mathematics and pure mathematics. Calculational mathematics tends to involve setting up calculational questions, and then working through them to get results—just like in typical interactive *Mathematica* sessions. But pure mathematics tends to involve taking mathematical objects, results or structures, coming up with statements about them, and then giving proofs to show why those statements are true.

How can we usefully insert technology into this workflow? Here’s one simple way. Think about Wolfram|Alpha. If you enter 2+2, Wolfram|Alpha—like *Mathematica*—will compute 4. But if you enter new york—or, for that matter, 2.3363636 or cos(x) log(x)—there’s no single “answer” for it to compute. And instead what it does is to generate a report that gives you a whole sequence of “interesting facts” about what you entered.

And this kind of thing fits right into the workflow for pure mathematics. You enter some mathematical object, result or structure, and then the system tries to tell you interesting things about it—just like some extremely wise mathematical colleague might. You can guide the system if you want to, by telling it what kinds of things you want to know about, or even by giving it a candidate statement that might be true. But the workflow is always the Wolfram|Alpha-like “what can you tell me about that?” rather than the *Mathematica*-like “what’s the answer to that?”

Wolfram|Alpha already does quite a lot of this kind of thing with mathematical objects. Enter a number, or a mathematical expression, or a graph, or a probability distribution, or whatever, and Wolfram|Alpha will use often-quite-sophisticated methods to try to tell you a collection of interesting things about it.

But to really be useful in pure mathematics, there’s something else that’s needed. In addition to being able to deal with concrete mathematical objects, one also has to be able to deal with abstract mathematical structures.

Countless pure mathematical papers start with things like, “Let *F* be a field with such-and-such properties.” We need to be able to enter something like this—then have our system automatically give us interesting facts and theorems about *F*, in effect creating a whole automatically generated paper that tells the story of *F*.

So what would be involved in creating a system to do this? Is it even possible? There are several different components, all quite difficult and time consuming to build. But based on my experiences with *Mathematica*, Wolfram|Alpha, and *A New Kind of Science,* I am quite certain that with the right leadership and enough effort, all of them can in fact be built.

A key part is to have a precise symbolic description of mathematical concepts and constructs. Lots of this now already exists—after more than a quarter century of work—in *Mathematica*. Because built right into the Wolfram Language are very general ways to represent geometries, or equations, or stochastic processes or quantifiers. But what’s not built in are representations of pure mathematical concepts like bijections or abstract semigroups or pullbacks.

Over the years, plenty of mathematicians have implemented specific cases. But could we systematically extend the Wolfram Language to cover the whole range of pure mathematics—and make a kind of “*Mathematica Pura”*? The answer is unquestionably yes. It’ll be fascinating to do, but it’ll take lots of difficult language design.

I’ve been doing language design now for 35 years—and it’s the hardest intellectual activity I know. It requires a curious mixture of clear thinking, aesthetics and pragmatic judgement. And it involves always seeking the deepest possible understanding, and trying to do the broadest unification—to come up in the end with the cleanest and “most obvious” primitives to represent things.

Today the main way pure mathematics is described—say in papers—is through a mixture of mathematical notation and natural language, together with a few diagrams. And in designing a precise symbolic language for pure mathematics, this has to be the starting point.

One might think that somehow mathematical notation would already have solved the whole problem. But there’s actually only a quite small set of constructs and concepts that can be represented with any degree of standardization in mathematical notation—and indeed many of these are already in the Wolfram Language.

So how should one go further? The first step is to understand what the appropriate primitives are. The whole Wolfram Language today has about 5000 built-in functions—together with many millions of built-in standardized entities. My guess is that to broadly support pure mathematics there would need to be something less than a thousand other well-designed functions that in effect define frameworks—together with maybe a few tens of thousands of new entities or their analogs.

Take something like function spaces. Maybe there’ll be a FunctionSpace function to represent a function space. Then there’ll be various operations on function spaces, like PushForward or MetrizableQ. Then there’ll be lots of named function spaces, like “CInfinity”, with various kinds of parameterizations.

Underneath, everything’s just a symbolic expression. But in the Wolfram Language there end up being three immediate ways to input things, all of which are critical to having a convenient and readable language. The first is to use short notations—like + or —as in standard mathematical notation. The second is to use carefully chosen function names—like MatrixRank or Simplex. And the third is to use free-form natural language—like trefoil knot or aleph0.

One wants to have short notations for some of the most common structural or connective elements. But one needs the right number: not too few, like in LISP, nor too many, like in APL. Then one wants to have function names made of ordinary words, arranged so that if one’s given something written in the language one can effectively just “read the words” to know at least roughly what’s going on in it.

But in the modern Wolfram Language world there’s also free-form natural language. And the crucial point is that by using this, one can leverage all the various convenient—but sloppy—notations that actual mathematicians use and find familiar. In the right context, one can enter “L2” for Lebesgue Square Integrable—and the natural language system will take care of disambiguating it and inserting the canonical symbolic underlying form.

Ultimately every named construct or concept in pure mathematics needs to have a place in our symbolic language. Most of the 13,000+ entries in *MathWorld*. Material from the 5600 or so entries in the MSC2010 classification scheme. All the many things that mathematicians in any given field would readily recognize when told their names.

But, OK, so let’s say we manage to create a precise symbolic language that captures the concepts and constructs of pure mathematics. What can we do with it?

One thing is to use it “Wolfram|Alpha style”: you give free-form input, which is then interpreted into the language, and then computations are done, and a report is generated.

But there’s something else too. If we have a sufficiently well-designed symbolic language, it’ll be useful not only to computers but also to humans. In fact, if it’s good enough, people should prefer to write out their math in this language than in their current standard mixture of natural language and mathematical notation.

When I write programs in the Wolfram Language, I pretty much think directly in the language. I’m not coming up with a description in English of what I’m trying to do and then translating it into the Wolfram Language. I’m forming my thoughts from the beginning in the Wolfram Language—and making use of its structure to help me define those thoughts.

If we can develop a sufficiently good symbolic language for pure mathematics, then it’ll provide something for pure mathematicians to think in too. And the great thing is that if you can describe what you’re thinking in a precise symbolic language, there’s never any ambiguity about what anything means: there’s a precise definition that you can just go to the documentation for the language to find.

And once pure math is represented in a precise symbolic language, it becomes in effect something on which computation can be done. Proofs can be generated or checked. Searches for theorems can be done. Connections can automatically be made. Chains of prerequisites can automatically be found.

But, OK, so let’s say we have the raw computational substrate we need for pure mathematics. How can we use this to actually implement a Wolfram|Alpha-like workflow where we enter descriptions of things, and then in effect automatically get mathematical wisdom about them?

There are two seemingly different directions one can go. The first is to imagine abstractly enumerating possible theorems about what has been entered, and then using heuristics to decide which of them are interesting. The second is to start from computable versions of the millions of theorems that have actually been published in the literature of mathematics, and then figure out how to connect these to whatever has been entered.

Each of these directions in effect reflects a slightly different view of what doing mathematics is about. And there’s quite a bit to say about each direction.

Let’s start with theorem enumeration. In the simplest case, one can imagine starting from an axiom system and then just enumerating true theorems based on that system. There are two basic ways to do this. The first is to enumerate possible statements, and then to use (implicit or explicit) theorem-proving technology to try to determine which of them are true. And the second is to enumerate possible proofs, in effect treeing out possible ways the axioms can be applied to get theorems.

It’s easy to do either of these things for something like Boolean algebra. And the result is that one gets a sequence of true theorems. But if a human looks at them, many of them seem trivial or uninteresting. So then the question is how to know which of the possible theorems should actually be considered “interesting enough” to be included in a report that’s generated.

My first assumption was that there would be no automatic approach to this—and that “interestingness” would inevitably depend on the historical development of the relevant area of mathematics. But when I was working on *A New Kind of Science*, I did a simple experiment for the case of Boolean algebra.

There are 14 theorems of Boolean algebra that are usually considered “interesting enough” to be given names in textbooks. I took all possible theorems and listed them in order of complexity (number of variables, number of operators, etc). And the surprising thing I found is that the set of named theorems corresponds almost exactly to the set of theorems that can’t be proved just from ones that precede them in the list. In other words, the theorems which have been given names are in a sense exactly the minimal statements of new information about Boolean algebra.

Boolean algebra is of course a very simple case. And in the kind of enumeration I just described, once one’s got the theorems corresponding to all the axioms, one would conclude that there aren’t any more “interesting theorems” to find—which for many mathematical theories would be quite silly. But I think this example is a good indication of how one can start to use automated heuristics to figure out which theorems are “worth reporting on”, and which are, for example, just “uninteresting embellishments”.

Of course, the general problem of ranking “what’s interesting” comes up all over Wolfram|Alpha. In mathematical examples, one’s asking what region is interesting to plot?, “what alternate forms are interesting?” and so on. When one enters a single number, one’s also asking “what closed forms are interesting enough to show?”—and to know this, one for example has to invent rankings for all sorts of mathematical objects (how complicated should one consider relative to log(343) relative to Khinchin’s Constant, and so on?).

So in principle one can imagine having a system that takes input and generates “interesting” theorems about it. Notice that while in a standard *Mathematica*-like calculational workflow, one would be taking input and “computing an answer” from it, here one’s just “finding interesting things to say about it”.

The character of the input is different too. In the calculational case, one’s typically dealing with an operation to be performed. In the Wolfram|Alpha-like pure mathematical case, one’s typically just giving a description of something. In some cases that description will be explicit. A specific number. A particular equation. A specific graph. But more often it will be implicit. It will be a set of constraints. One will say (to use the example from above), “Let *F* be a field,” and then one will give constraints that the field must satisfy.

In a sense an axiom system is a way of giving constraints too: it doesn’t say that such-and-such an operator “is Nand”; it just says that the operator must satisfy certain constraints. And even for something like standard Peano arithmetic, we know from Gödel’s Theorem that we can never ultimately resolve the constraints–we can never nail down that the thing we denote by “+” in the axioms is the particular operation of ordinary integer addition. Of course, we can still prove plenty of theorems about “+”, and those are what we choose from for our report.

So given a particular input, we can imagine representing it as a set of constraints in our precise symbolic language. Then we would generate theorems based on these constraints, and heuristically pick the “most interesting” of them.

One day I’m sure doing this will be an important part of pure mathematical work. But as of now it will seem quite alien to most pure mathematicians—because they are not used to “disembodied theorems”; they are used to theorems that occur in papers, written by actual mathematicians.

And this brings us to the second approach to the automatic generation of “mathematical wisdom”: start from the historical corpus of actual mathematical papers, and then make connections to whatever specific input is given. So one is able to say for example, “The following theorem from paper X applies in such-and-such a way to the input you have given”, and so on.

So how big is the historical corpus of mathematics? There’ve probably been about 3 million mathematical papers published altogether—or about 100 million pages, growing at a rate of about 2 million pages per year. And in all of these papers, perhaps 5 million distinct theorems have been formally stated.

So what can be done with these? First, of course, there’s simple search and retrieval. Often the words in the papers will make for better search targets than the more notational material in the actual theorems. But with the kind of linguistic-understanding technology for math that we have in Wolfram|Alpha, it should not be too difficult to build what’s needed to do good statistical retrieval on the corpus of mathematical papers.

But can one go further? One might think about tagging the source documents to improve retrieval. But my guess is that most kinds of static tagging won’t be worth the trouble; just as one’s seen for the web in general, it’ll be much easier and better to make the search system more sophisticated and content-aware than to add tags document by document.

What would unquestionably be worthwhile, however, is to put the theorems into a genuine computable form: to actually take theorems from papers and rewrite them in a precise symbolic language.

Will it be possible to do this automatically? Eventually I suspect large parts of it will. Today we can take small fragments of theorems from papers and use the linguistic understanding system built for Wolfram|Alpha to turn them into pieces of Wolfram Language code. But it should gradually be possible to extend this to larger fragments—and eventually get to the point where it takes, at most, modest human effort to convert a typical theorem to precise symbolic form.

So let’s imagine we curate all the theorems from the literature of mathematics, and get them in computable form. What would we do then? We could certainly build a Wolfram|Alpha-like system that would be quite spectacular—and very useful in practice for doing lots of pure mathematics.

But there will inevitably be some limitations—resulting in fact from features of mathematics itself. For example, it won’t necessarily be easy to tell what theorem might apply to what, or even what theorems might be equivalent. Ultimately these are classic theoretically undecidable problems—and I suspect that they will often actually be difficult in practical cases too. And at the very least, all of them involve the same kind of basic process as automated theorem proving.

And what this suggests is a kind of combination of the two basic approaches we’ve discussed—where in effect one takes the complete corpus of published mathematics, and views it as defining a giant 5-million-axiom formal system, and then follows the kind of automated theorem-enumeration procedure we discussed to find “interesting things to say”.

So, OK, let’s say we build a wonderful system along these lines. Is it actually solving a core problem in doing pure mathematics, or is it missing the point?

I think it depends on what one sees the nature of the pure mathematical enterprise as being. Is it science, or is it art? If it’s science, then being able to make more theorems faster is surely good. But if it’s art, that’s really not the point. If doing pure mathematics is like creating a painting, automation is going to be largely counterproductive—because the core of the activity is in a sense a form of human expression.

This is not unrelated to the role of proof. To some mathematicians, what matters is just the theorem: knowing what’s true. The proof is essentially backup to ensure one isn’t making a mistake. But to other mathematicians, proof is a core part of the content of the mathematics. For them, it’s the story that brings mathematical concepts to light, and communicates them.

So what happens when we generate a proof automatically? I had an interesting example about 15 years ago, when I was working on *A New Kind of Science*, and ended up finding the simplest axiom system for Boolean algebra (just the single axiom ((pq)r)(p((pr)p))==r, as it turned out). I used equational-logic automated theorem-proving (now built into FullSimplify) to prove the correctness of the axiom system. And I printed the proof that I generated in the book:

It has 343 steps, and in ordinary-size type would be perhaps 40 pages long. And to me as a human, it’s completely incomprehensible. One might have thought it would help that the theorem prover broke the proof into 81 lemmas. But try as I might, I couldn’t really find a way to turn this automated proof into something I or other people could understand. It’s nice that the proof exists, but the actual proof itself doesn’t tell me anything.

And the problem, I think, is that there’s no “conceptual story” around the elements of the proof. Even if the lemmas are chosen “structurally” as good “waypoints” in the proof, there are no cognitive connections—and no history—around these lemmas. They’re just disembodied, and apparently disconnected, facts.

So how can we do better? If we generate lots of similar proofs, then maybe we’ll start seeing similar lemmas a lot, and through being familiar they will seem more meaningful and comprehensible. And there are probably some visualizations that could help us quickly get a good picture of the overall structure of the proof. And of course, if we manage to curate all known theorems in the mathematics literature, then we can potentially connect automatically generated lemmas to those theorems.

It’s not immediately clear how often that will possible—and indeed in existing examples of computer-assisted proofs, like for the Four Color Theorem, the Kepler Conjecture, or the simplest universal Turing machine, my impression is that the often-computer-generated lemmas that appear rarely correspond to known theorems from the literature.

But despite all this, I know at least one example showing that with enough effort, one can generate proofs that tell stories that people can understand: the step-by-step solutions system in Wolfram|Alpha Pro. Millions of times a day students and others compute things like integrals with Wolfram|Alpha—then ask to see the steps.

It’s notable that actually computing the integral is much easier than figuring out good steps to show; in fact, it takes some fairly elaborate algorithms and heuristics to generate steps that successfully communicate to a human how the integral can be done. But the example of step-by-step in Wolfram|Alpha suggests that it’s at least conceivable that with enough effort, it would be possible to generate proofs that are readable as “stories”—perhaps even selected to be as short and simple as possible (“proofs from The Book”, as Erdős would say).

Of course, while these kinds of automated methods may eventually be good at communicating the details of something like a proof, they won’t realistically be able to communicate—or even identify—overarching ideas and motivations. Needless to say, present-day pure mathematics papers are often quite deficient in communicating these too. Because in an effort to ensure rigor and precision, many papers tend to be written in a very formal way that cannot successfully represent the underlying ideas and motivations in the mind of the author—with the result that some of the most important ideas in mathematics are transmitted through an essentially oral tradition.

It would certainly help the progress of pure mathematics if there were better ways to communicate its content. And perhaps having a precise symbolic language for pure mathematics would make it easier to express concretely some of those important points that are currently left unwritten. But one thing is for sure: having such a language would make it possible to take a theorem from anywhere, and—like with a typical Wolfram Language code fragment—immediately be able to plug it in anywhere else, and use it.

But back to the question of whether automation in pure mathematics can ultimately make sense. I consider it fairly clear that a Wolfram|Alpha-like “pure math assistant” would be useful to human mathematicians. I also consider it fairly clear that having a good, precise, symbolic language—a kind of *Mathematica Pura* that’s a well-designed follow-on to standard mathematical notation—would be immensely helpful in formulating, checking and communicating math.

But what about a computer just “going off and doing math by itself”? Obviously the computer can enumerate theorems, and even use heuristics to select ones that might be considered interesting to human mathematicians. And if we curate the literature of mathematics, we can do extensive “empirical metamathematics” and start trying to recognize theorems with particular characteristics, perhaps by applying graph-theoretic criteria on the network of theorems to see what counts as “surprising” or a “powerful” theorem. There’s also nothing particularly difficult—like in Wolfram*Tones*—about having the computer apply aesthetic criteria deduced from studying human choices.

But I think the real question is whether the computer can build up new conceptual frameworks and structures—in effect new mathematical theories. Certainly some theorems found by enumeration will be surprising and indicative of something fundamentally new. And it will surely be impressive when a computer can take a large collection of theorems—whether generated or from the literature—and discover correlations among them that indicate some new unifying principle. But I would expect that in time the computer will be able not only to identify new structures, but also name them, and start building stories about them. Of course, it is for humans to decide whether they care about where the computer is going, but the basic character of what it does will, I suspect, be largely indistinguishable from many forms of human pure mathematics.

All of this is still fairly far in the future, but there’s already a great way to discover math-like things today—that’s not practiced nearly as much as it should be: experimental mathematics. The term has slightly different meanings to different people. For me it’s about going out and studying what mathematical systems do by running experiments on them. And so, for example, if we want to find out about some class of cellular automata, or nonlinear PDEs, or number sequences, or whatever, we just enumerate possible cases and then run them and see what they do.

There’s a lot to discover like this. And certainly it’s a rich way to generate observations and hypotheses that can be explored using the traditional methodologies of pure mathematics. But the real thrust of what can be done does not fit into what pure mathematicians typically think of as math. It’s about exploring the “flora and fauna”—and principles—of the universe of possible systems, not about building up math-like structures that can be studied and explained using theorems and proofs. Which is why—to quote the title of my book—I think one should best consider this a new kind of science, rather than something connected to existing mathematics.

In discussing experimental mathematics and *A New Kind of Science*, it’s worth mentioning that in some sense it’s surprising that pure mathematics is doable at all—because if one just starts asking absolutely arbitrary questions about mathematical systems, many of them will end up being undecidable.

This is particularly obvious when one’s out in the computational universe of possible programs, but it’s also true for programs that represent typical mathematical systems. So why isn’t undecidability more of a problem for typical pure mathematics? The answer is that pure mathematics implicitly tends to select what it studies so as to avoid undecidability. In a sense this seems to be a reflection of history: pure mathematics follows what it has historically been successful in doing, and in that way ends up navigating around undecidability—and producing the millions of theorems that make up the corpus of existing pure mathematics.

OK, so those are some issues and directions. But where are we at in practice in bringing computational knowledge to pure mathematics?

There’s certainly a long history of related efforts. The works of Peano and Whitehead and Russell from a century ago. Hilbert’s program. The development of set theory and category theory. And by the 1960s, the first computer systems—such as Automath—for representing proof structures. Then from the 1970s, systems like Mizar that attempted to provide practical computer frameworks for presenting proofs. And in recent times, increasingly popular “proof assistants” based on systems like Coq and HOL.

One feature of essentially all these efforts is that they were conceived as defining a kind of “low-level language” for mathematics. Like most of today’s computer languages, they include a modest number of primitives, then imagine that essentially any actual content must be built externally, by individual users or in libraries.

But the new idea in the Wolfram Language is to have a knowledge-based language, in which as much actual knowledge as possible is carefully designed into the language itself. And I think that just like in general computing, the idea of a knowledge-based language is going to be crucial for injecting computation into pure mathematics in the most effective and broadly useful way.

So what’s involved in creating our *Mathematica Pura*—an extension to the Wolfram Language that builds in the actual structure and content of pure math? At the lowest level, the Wolfram Language deals with arbitrary symbolic expressions, which can represent absolutely anything. But then the language uses these expressions for many specific purposes. For example, it can use a symbol x to represent an algebraic variable. And given this, it has many functions for handling symbolic expressions—interpreted as mathematical or algebraic expressions—and doing various forms of math with them.

The emphasis of the math in *Mathematica* and the Wolfram Language today is on practical, calculational, math. And by now it certainly covers essentially all the math that has survived from the 19th century and before. But what about more recent math? Historically, math itself went through a transition about a century ago. Just around the time modernism swept through areas like the arts, math had its own version: it started to consider systems that emerged purely from its own formalism, without regard for obvious connection to the outside world.

And this is the kind of math—through developments like Bourbaki and beyond—that came to dominate pure mathematics in the 20th century. And inevitably, a lot of this math is about defining abstract structures to study. In simple cases, it seems like one might represent these structures using some hierarchy of types. But the types need to be parametrized, and quite quickly one ends up with a whole algebra or calculus of types—and it’s just as well that in the Wolfram Language one can use general symbolic expressions, with arbitrary heads, rather than just simple type descriptions.

As I mentioned early in this blog post, it’s going to take all sorts of new built-in functions to capture the frameworks needed to represent modern pure mathematics—together with lots of entity-like objects. And it’ll certainly take years of careful design to make a broad system for pure mathematics that’s really clean and usable. But there’s nothing fundamentally difficult about having symbolic constructs that represent differentiability or moduli spaces or whatever. It’s just language design, like designing ways to represent 3D images or remote computation processes or unique external entity references.

So what about curating theorems from the literature? Through Wolfram|Alpha and the Wolfram Language, not to mention for example the Wolfram Functions Site and the Wolfram Connected Devices Project, we’ve now had plenty of experience at the process of curation, and in making potentially complex things computable.

But to get a concrete sense of what’s involved in curating mathematical theorems, we did a pilot project over the last couple of years through the Wolfram Foundation, supported by the Sloan Foundation. For this project we picked a very specific and well-defined area of mathematics: research on continued fractions. Continued fractions have been studied continually since antiquity, but were at their most popular between about 1780 and 1910. In all there are around 7000 books and papers about them, running to about 150,000 pages.

We chose about 2000 documents, then set about extracting theorems and other mathematical information from them. The result was about 600 theorems, 1500 basic formulas, and about 10,000 derived formulas. The formulas were directly in computable form—and were in effect immediately able to join the 300,000+ on the Wolfram Functions Site, that are all now included in Wolfram|Alpha. But with the theorems, our first step was just to treat them as entities themselves, with properties such as where they were first published, who discovered them, etc. And even at this level, we were able to insert some nice functionality into Wolfram|Alpha.

But we also started trying to actually encode the content of the theorems in computable form. It took introducing some new constructs like LebesgueMeasure, ConvergenceSet and LyapunovExponent. But there was no fundamental problem in creating precise symbolic representations of the theorems. And just from these representations, it became possible to do computations like this in Wolfram|Alpha:

An interesting feature of the continued fraction project (dubbed “eCF”) was how the process of curation actually led to the discovery of some new mathematics. For having done curation on 50+ papers about the Rogers–Ramanujan continued fraction, it became clear that there were missing cases that could now be computed. And the result was the filling of a gap left by Ramanujan for 100 years.

There’s always a tradeoff between curating knowledge and creating it afresh. And so, for example, in the Wolfram Functions Site, there was a core of relations between functions that came from reference books and the literature. But it was vastly more efficient to generate other relations than to scour the literature to find them.

But if the goal is curation, then what would it take to curate the complete literature of mathematics? In the eCF project, it took about 3 hours of mathematician time to encode each theorem in computable form. But all this work was done by hand, and in a larger-scale project, I am certain that an increasing fraction of it could be done automatically, not least using extensions of our Wolfram|Alpha natural language understanding system.

Of course, there are all sorts of practical issues. Newer papers are predominantly in TeX, so it’s not too difficult to pull out theorems with all their mathematical notation. But older papers need to be scanned, which requires math OCR, which has yet to be properly developed.

Then there are issues like whether theorems stated in papers are actually valid. And even whether theorems that were considered valid, say, 100 years ago are still considered valid today. For example, for continued fractions, there are lots of pre-1950 theorems that were successfully proved in their time, but which ignore branch cuts, and so wouldn’t be considered correct today.

And in the end of course it requires lots of actual, skilled mathematicians to guide the curation process, and to encode theorems. But in a sense this kind of mobilization of mathematicians is not completely unfamiliar; it’s something like what was needed when *Zentralblatt* was started in 1931, or *Mathematical Reviews* in 1941. (As a curious footnote, the founding editor of both these publications was Otto Neugebauer, who worked just down the hall from me at the Institute for Advanced Study in the early 1980s, but who I had no idea was involved in anything other than decoding Babylonian mathematics until I was doing research for this blog post.)

When it comes to actually constructing a system for encoding pure mathematics, there’s an interesting example: Theorema, started by Bruno Buchberger in 1995, and recently updated to version 2. Theorema is written in the Wolfram Language, and provides both a document-based environment for representing mathematical statements and proofs, and actual computation capabilities for automated theorem proving and so on.

No doubt it’ll be an element of what’s ultimately built. But the whole project is necessarily quite large—perhaps the world’s first example of “big math”. So can the project get done in the world today? A crucial part is that we now have the technical capability to design the language and build the infrastructure that’s needed. But beyond that, the project also needs a strong commitment from the world’s mathematics community—as well as lots of contributions from individual mathematicians from every possible field. And realistically it’s not a project that can be justified on commercial grounds—so the likely $100+ million that it will need will have to come from non-commercial sources.

But it’s a great and important project—that promises to be pivotal for pure mathematics. In almost every field there are golden ages when dramatic progress is made. And more often than not, such golden ages are initiated by new methodology and the arrival of new technology. And this is exactly what I think will happen in pure mathematics. If we can mobilize the effort to curate known mathematics and build the system to use and generate computational knowledge around it, then we will not only succeed in preserving and spreading the great heritage of pure mathematics, but we will also thrust pure mathematics into a period of dramatic growth.

Large projects like this rely on strong leadership. And I stand ready to do my part, and to contribute the core technology that is needed. Now to move this forward, what it takes is commitment from the worldwide mathematics community. We have the opportunity to make the second decade of the 21st century really count in the multi-millennium history of pure mathematics. Let’s actually make it happen!

]]>So how does one spread idea entrepreneurism—entrepreneurism centered on ideas rather than commercial enterprises? Somewhat unwittingly I think we’ve developed a rather good vehicle—that’s both a very successful educational program, and a fascinating annual adventure for me.

Twelve years ago my book *A New Kind of Science* had just come out, and we were inundated with people wanting to learn more, and get involved in research around it. We considered various alternatives, but eventually we decided to organize a summer school where we would systematically teach about our methodology, while mentoring each student to do a unique original project.

From the very beginning, the summer school was a big success. And over the years we’ve gradually improved and expanded it. It’s still the Wolfram Science Summer School—and its intellectual core is still *A New Kind of Science*. But today it has become a broader vehicle for passing on our tools and strategies for idea entrepreneurism.

This year’s summer school just ended last week. We had 63 students from 21 countries—with a fascinating array of backgrounds and interests. Most were in college or graduate school; a few were younger or older. And over the course of the three weeks of the summer school—with great energy and intellectual entrepreneurism—each student worked towards their own unique project.

The summer school is part idea incubator, part course, part hackathon and part mentoring event. And it’s become a tradition for me to open it with a concentrated burst of idea entrepreneurism: a live experiment in which over the course of an hour or so I try—live and in public—to discover or invent something new.

Realistically, what makes this—and indeed much of what’s done at the summer school—possible is what’s now the Wolfram Language, with all its built-in knowledge and automation, as well as immediate presentation capabilities.

My rule for live experiments is that apart from spending a few minutes beforehand coming up with a topic (sometimes just by opening *A New Kind of Science* at random), I don’t think at all about what I’m going to do. The experiment is always fresh and spontaneous—and quite an adventure for all concerned. It’s a strange kind of intellectual performance, and it takes quite a bit of concentration. But I think it’s pretty educational to watch—not least because most people have never seen something done from scratch in real time like this.

There are always ups and downs in the course of a live experiment—and sometimes it seems that all is lost. But so far, in dozens of live experiments I’ve done, I’ve always found a way to navigate them to some kind of success. And seeing this always seems quite empowering to people; and makes this kind of idea entrepreneurism feel like something close at hand, that they can do too.

This year I actually did two live experiments. My first one was a piece of pure science that involved numbers. The idea is pretty elementary: just take a number, write it in base 2, manipulate its digits, then add it to the original number. Then iterate this many times. Here’s the little piece of Wolfram Language code I wrote during the live experiment to do this:

In *A New Kind of Science*, I did a version of this where the digit manipulation consisted of reversing the whole sequence of digits. But now I wanted to try something simpler: just rotating the digits by some number of positions. I wasn’t sure this would do anything interesting. But in the spirit of the live experiment, I wrote a little piece of code to find out:

What happened was quintessential NKS (New Kind of Science). Even though the underlying rule was incredibly simple, the behavior was far from simple—and in many ways looked quite random.

Here’s the whole notebook from the hour or so of live experiment:

It’s got quite a few interesting results. And indeed—like many previous summer school live experiments—it’s got the core of what would make a nice research paper.

In addition to this pure science experiment I decided this year to do a second—more practical—live experiment. In a sense it was a meta experiment. Because it consisted of analyzing code of pretty much the type used to do live experiments. Specifically, I read in lots of code from the Wolfram Demonstrations Project, then started doing statistics on it.

At first I looked at the general distribution of functions used, and started analyzing correlations and so on. But then, following a suggestion from the audience, I decided to focus on one simple example, and just started looking specifically at the use of named colors. The result was this bar chart, showing that (for whatever reason) red and black are the most common named colors in this corpus of code:

It’s always important to get visualizations at every step along the way. And in this particular live experiment, we quickly decided to visualize correlations between colors, generating bar charts showing what the distribution of colors is if one already knows that a certain color (shown as the background) appears:

My original idea for the live experiment was to look for repeated patterns of code that might suggest functions we’d want to name and implement. But we never quite got there—and when we ran out of time we were instead looking at how one could use “code corpus analysis” to develop good color palettes: a quite different, but interesting, direction that emerged from the experiment.

Doing live experiments in a sense provides a way to illustrate the spirit of idea entrepreneurism—as well as letting one introduce some specific methodologies and tools. But another important element of successful idea entrepreneurism is choosing a direction to pursue. And it’s become a tradition at our summer school that after I do my live experiment, I talk about the directions we’re currently pursuing—and about what science and technology I’m currently most excited about.

After that we launch into the most important business of the summer school: defining a project for each student. Over the years we’ve developed and steadily refined a whole process for doing this. I’m always accumulating lists of interesting problems and projects. And students often come in with definite ideas for projects. But I’ve found the best results come from pure real-time creativity: from learning about each student and then creatively coming up with a project that matches their skills and interests.

And this year, over the course of three fairly long days, we did that 63 times, defining a unique original project for each of our students.

There’s quite a bit of structure to the summer school. For example, there’s always “homework” done during the first week. Usually we pick some previously unexplored area of the computational universe, and ask students to find something interesting in it. This year lots of students found lots of interesting things—that are actually now being assembled into a paper.

Every day there are a few hours of lectures. About how to do a good computational experiment. About the types of systems studied in *A New Kind of Science*. About computational techniques. About implications for philosophy, music, engineering and more. About perception. About natural language. About what’s worked in previous student projects. About principles that emerge from *A New Kind of Science*. About all sorts of other things.

Being an instructor at the Wolfram Science Summer School has become a favorite activity for some of our top R&D employees. And as it happens, this year all the instructors were also summer school alumni from previous years (yes, we’ve done a lot of recruiting from the summer school). For three weeks they worked with students, bringing to bear on each project the kind of idea entrepreneurism that we’ve taught at the summer school—and practice at our company.

This year—not least because we’d just finished launching Wolfram Programming Cloud days before—I had the pleasure of spending plenty of time at the summer school, getting to know all the students (by the end, I knew everyone by name!), and watching lots of projects take shape. I’ve been involved with my share of hackathons and incubators. But the summer school is something different. It’s really about entrepreneurism of ideas: about the process of creating ideas and turning them into reality.

And at the end of three weeks, there were 63 projects to present—and lots of interesting things discovered and invented:

Over the years at the Wolfram Science Summer School, there have been many hundreds of great projects done, as well as many careers launched.

There’s a lot to say about education. But I think for many people, doing a unique original project is the single most powerful and useful form of education there is. Doing this successfully is quintessential idea entrepreneurism. And I think that in the long run the most important achievement of the Wolfram Science Summer School may just be the framework it’s developed for spreading entrepreneurism of ideas.

The Wolfram Science Summer School is just one of a growing constellation of education initiatives that we’re involved in. (Another that runs alongside the summer school is our two-week *Mathematica* Summer Camp for high-school students—that directly uses ideas from the summer school.) And particularly with all the new technologies that we’ve been developing, there are vast new opportunities for education. For me the Wolfram Science Summer School is an important and fascinating success story about innovation in education—and an encouragement for us to do more.

We released *Mathematica* 1 just over 26 years ago—on June 23, 1988. And ever since we’ve been systematically making *Mathematica* ever bigger, stronger, broader and deeper. But *Mathematica* 10—released today—represents the single biggest jump in new functionality in the entire history of *Mathematica*.

At a personal level it is very satisfying to see after all these years how successful the principles that I defined at the very beginning of the *Mathematica* project have proven to be. And it is also satisfying to see how far we’ve gotten with all the talent and hard work that has been poured into *Mathematica* over nearly three decades.

We’ll probably never know whether our commitment to R&D over all these years makes sense at a purely commercial level. But it has always made sense to me—and the success of *Mathematica* and our company has allowed us to take a very long-term view, continually investing in building layer upon layer of long-term technology.

One of the recent outgrowths—from combining *Mathematica*, Wolfram|Alpha and more—has been the creation of the Wolfram Language. And in effect *Mathematica* is now an application of the Wolfram Language.

But *Mathematica* still very much has its own identity too—as our longtime flagship product, and the system that has continually redefined technical computing for more than a quarter of a century.

And today, with *Mathematica* 10, more is new than in any single previous version of *Mathematica*. It is satisfying to see such a long curve of accelerating development—and to realize that there are more new functions being added with *Mathematica* 10 than there were functions altogether in *Mathematica* 1.

So what is the new functionality in *Mathematica* 10? It’s a mixture of completely new areas and directions (like geometric computation, machine learning and geographic computation)—together with extensive strengthening, polishing and expanding of existing areas. It’s also a mixture of things I’ve long planned for us to do—but which had to wait for us to develop the necessary technology—together with things I’ve only fairly recently realized we’re in a position to tackle.

When you first launch *Mathematica* 10 there are some things you’ll notice right away. One is that *Mathematica* 10 is set up to connect immediately to the Wolfram Cloud. Unlike Wolfram Programming Cloud—or the upcoming *Mathematica* Online—*Mathematica* 10 doesn’t run its interface or computations in the cloud. Instead, it maintains all the advantages of running these natively on your local computer—but connects to the Wolfram Cloud so it can have cloud-based files and other forms of cloud-mediated sharing, as well as the ability to access cloud-based parts of the Wolfram Knowledgebase.

If you’re an existing *Mathematica* user, you’ll notice some changes when you start using notebooks in *Mathematica* 10. Like there’s now autocompletion everywhere—for option values, strings, wherever. And there’s also a hovering help box that lets you immediately get function templates or documentation. And there’s also—as much requested by the user community—computation-aware multiple undo. It’s horribly difficult to know how and when you can validly undo *Mathematica* computations—but in *Mathematica* 10 we’ve finally managed to solve this to the point of having a practical multiple undo.

Another very obvious change in *Mathematica* 10 is that plots and graphics have a fresh new default look (you can get the old look with an option setting, of course):

And as in lots of other areas, that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Underneath, there’s actually a whole powerful new mechanism of “plot themes”—where instead of setting lots of individual options, you can for example now just specify an overall theme for a plot—like “web” or “minimal” or “scientific”.

But what about more algorithmic areas? There’s an amazing amount there that’s new in *Mathematica* 10. Lots of new algorithms—including many that we invented in-house. Like the algorithm that lets *Mathematica* 10 routinely solve systems of numerical polynomial equations that have 100,000+ solutions. Or the cluster of algorithms we invented that for the first time give exact symbolic solutions to all sorts of hybrid differential equations or differential delay equations—making such equations now as accessible as standard ordinary differential equations.

Of course, when it comes to developing algorithms, we’re in a spectacular position these days. Because our multi-decade investment in coherent system design now means that in any new algorithm we develop, it’s easy for us to bring together algorithmic capabilities from all over our system. If we’re developing a numerical algorithm, for example, it’s easy for us to do sophisticated algebraic preprocessing, or use combinatorial optimization or graph theory or whatever. And we get to make new kinds of algorithms that mix all sorts of different fields and approaches in ways that were never possible before.

From the very beginning, one of our central principles has been to automate as much as possible—and to create not just algorithms, but complete meta-algorithms that automate the whole process of going from a computational goal to a specific computation done with a specific algorithm. And it’s been this kind of automation that’s allowed us over the years to “consumerize” more and more areas of computation—and to take them from being accessible only to experts, to being usable by anyone as routine building blocks.

And in *Mathematica* 10 one important area where this is happening is machine learning. Inside the system there are all kinds of core algorithms familiar to experts—logistic regression, random forests, SVMs, etc. And all kinds of preprocessing and scoring schemes. But to the user there are just two highly automated functions: Classify and Predict. And with these functions, it’s now easy to call on machine learning whenever one wants.

There are huge new algorithmic capabilities in *Mathematica* 10 in graph theory, image processing, control theory and lots of other areas. Sometimes one’s not surprised that it’s at least possible to have such-and-such a function—even though it’s really nice to have it be as clean as it is in *Mathematica* 10. But in other cases it at first seems somehow impossible that the function could work.

There are all kinds of issues. Maybe the general problem is undecidable, or theoretically intractable. Or it’s ill conditioned. Or it involves too many cases. Or it needs too much data. What’s remarkable is how often—by being algorithmically sophisticated, and by leveraging what we’ve built in *Mathematica* and the Wolfram Language—it’s possible to work around these issues, and to build a function that covers the vast majority of important practical cases.

Another important issue is just how much we can represent and do computation on. Expanding this is a big emphasis in the Wolfram Language—and *Mathematica* 10 has access to everything that’s been developed there. And so, for example, in *Mathematica* 10 there’s an immediate symbolic representation for dates, times and time series—as well as for geolocations and geographic data.

The Wolfram Language has ways to represent a very broad range of things in the real world. But what about data on those things? Much of that resides in the Wolfram Knowledgebase in the cloud. Soon we’re going to be launching the Wolfram Discovery Platform, which is built to allow large-scale access to data from the cloud. But since that’s not the typical use of *Mathematica*, basic versions of *Mathematica* 10 are just set up for small-scale data access—and need explicit Wolfram Cloud Credits to get more.

Still, within *Mathematica* 10 there are plenty of spectacular new things that will be possible by using just small amounts of data from the Wolfram Knowledgebase.

A little while ago I found a to-do list for *Mathematica* that I wrote in 1991. Some of the entries on it were done in just a few years. But most required the development of towers of technology that took many years to build. And at least one has been a holdout all these years—until now.

On the to-do it was just “PDEs”. But behind those four letters are centuries of mathematics, and a remarkably complex tower of algorithmic requirements. Yes, *Mathematica* has been able to handle various kinds of PDEs (partial differential equations) for 20 years. But in *Mathematica* we always seek as much generality and robustness as possible, and that’s where the challenge has been. Because we’ve wanted to be able to handle PDEs in any kind of geometry. And while there are standard methods—like finite element analysis—for solving PDEs in different geometries, there’s been no good way to describe the underlying geometry in enough generality.

Over the years, we’ve put immense effort into the design of *Mathematica* and what’s now the Wolfram Language. And part of that design has involved developing broad computational representations for what have traditionally been thought of as mathematical concepts. It’s difficult—if fascinating—intellectual work, in effect getting “underneath” the math to create new, often more general, computational representations.

A few years ago we did it for probability theory and the whole cluster of things around it, like statistical distributions and random processes. Now in *Mathematica* 10 we’ve done it for another area: geometry.

What we’ve got is really a fundamental extension to the domain of what can be represented computationally, and it’s going to be an important building block for many things going forward. And in *Mathematica* 10 it delivers some very powerful new functionality—including PDEs and finite elements.

So, what’s hard about representing geometry computationally? The problem is not in handling specific kinds of cases—there are a variety of methods for doing that—but rather in getting something that’s truly general, and extensible, while still being easy to use in specific cases. We’ve been thinking about how to do this for well over a decade, and it’s exciting to now have a solution.

It turns out that math in a sense gets us part of the way there—because it recognizes that there are various kinds of geometrical objects, from points to lines to surfaces to volumes, that are just distinguished by their dimensions. In computer systems, though, these objects are typically represented rather differently. 3D graphics systems, for example, typically handle points, lines and surfaces, but don’t really have a notion of volumes or solids. CAD systems, on the other hand, handle volumes and solids, but typically don’t handle points, lines and surfaces. GIS systems do handle both boundaries and interiors of regions—but only in 2D.

So why can’t we just “use the math”? The problem is that specific mathematical theories—and representations—tend once again to handle, or at least be convenient in, only specific kinds of cases. So, for example, one can describe geometry in terms of equations and inequalities—in effect using real algebraic geometry—but this is only convenient for simple “math-related” shapes. One can use combinatorial topology, which is essentially based on mesh regions, and which is quite general, but difficult to use directly—and doesn’t readily cover things like non-bounded regions. Or one could try using differential geometry—which may be good for manifolds, but doesn’t readily cover geometries with mixed dimensions, and isn’t closed under Boolean operations.

What we’ve built in effect operates “underneath the math”: it’s a general symbolic representation of geometry, which makes it convenient to apply any of these different mathematical or computational approaches. And so instead of having all sorts of separate “point in polygon”, “point in mesh”, “point on line” etc. functions, everything is based on a single general RegionMember function. And similarly Area, Volume, ArcLength and all their generalizations are just based on a single RegionMeasure function.

The result is a remarkably smooth and powerful way of doing geometry, which conveniently spans from middle-school triangle math to being able to describe the most complex geometrical forms for engineering and physics. What’s also important—and typical of our approach to everything—is that all this geometry is deeply integrated with the rest of the system. So, for example, one can immediately find equation solutions within a geometric region, or compute a maximum in it, or integrate over it—or, for that matter, solve a partial differential equation in it, with all the various kinds of possible boundary conditions conveniently being described.

The geometry language we have is very clean. But underneath it is a giant tower of algorithmic functionality—that relies on a fair fraction of the areas that we’ve been developing for the past quarter century. To the typical user there are few indications of this complexity—although perhaps the multi-hundred-page treatise on the details of going beyond automatic settings for finite elements in *Mathematica* 10 provides a clue.

Geometry is just one new area. The drive for generality continues elsewhere too. Like in image processing, where we’re now supporting most image processing operations not only in 2D but also in 3D images. Or in graph computation, where everything works seamlessly with directed graphs, undirected graphs, mixed graphs, multigraphs and weighted graphs. As usual, it’s taken developing all sorts of new algorithms and methods to deal with cases that in a sense cross disciplines, and so haven’t been studied before, even though it’s obvious they can appear in practice.

As I’ve mentioned, there are some things in *Mathematica* 10 that we’ve been able to do essentially because our technology stack has now reached the point where they’re possible. There are others, though, that in effect have taken solving a problem, and often a problem that we’ve been thinking about for a decade or two. An example of this is the system for handling formal math operators in *Mathematica* 10.

In a sense what we’re doing is to take the idea of symbolic representation one more step. In math, we’ve always allowed a variable like *x* to be symbolic, so it can correspond to any possible value. And we’ve allowed functions like *f* to be symbolic too. But what about mathematical operators like derivative? In the past, these have always been explicit—so for example they actually take derivatives if they can. But now we have a new notion of “inactive” functions and operators, which gives us a general way to handle mathematical operators purely symbolically, so that we can transform and manipulate expressions formally, while still maintaining the meaning of these operators.

This makes possible all sorts of new things—from conveniently representing complicated vector analysis expressions, to doing symbolic transformations not only on math but also on programs, to being able to formally manipulate objects like integrals, with built-in implementations of all the various generalizations of things like Leibniz’s rule.

In building *Mathematica* 10, we’ve continued to push forward into uncharted computational—and mathematical—territory. But we’ve also worked to make *Mathematica* 10 even more convenient for areas like elementary math. Sometimes it’s a challenge to fit concepts from elementary math with the overall generality that we want to maintain. And often it requires quite a bit of sophistication to make it work. But the result is a wonderfully seamless transition from the elementary to the advanced. And in *Mathematica* 10, we’ve once again achieved this for things like curve computations and function domains and ranges.

The development of the Wolfram Language has had many implications for *Mathematica*—first visible now in *Mathematica* 10. In addition to all sorts of interaction with real-world data and with external systems, there are some fundamental new constructs in the system itself. An example is key-value associations, which in effect introduce “named parts” throughout the system. Another example is the general templating system, important for programmatically constructing strings, files or web pages.

With the Wolfram Language there are vast new areas of functionality—supporting new kinds of programming, new structures and new kinds of data, new forms of deployment, and new ways to integrate with other systems. And with all this development—and all the new products it’s making possible—one might worry that the traditional core directions of *Mathematica* would be left behind. But nothing is further from the truth. And in fact all the new Wolfram Language development has made possible even more energetic efforts in traditional *Mathematica* areas.

Partly that is the result of new software capabilities. Partly it is the result of new understanding that we’ve developed about how to push forward the design of a very large knowledge-based system. And partly it’s the result of continued strengthening and streamlining of our internal R&D processes.

We’re still a fairly small company (about 700 people), but we’ve been steadily ramping up our R&D output. And it’s amazing to see what we’ve been able to build for *Mathematica* 10. In the 19 months (588 days) since *Mathematica* 9 was released, we’ve finished more than 700 new functions that are now in *Mathematica* 10—and we’ve added countless enhancements to existing functions.

I think the fact that this is possible is a great tribute to the tools, team and organization we’ve built—and the strength of the principles under which we’ve been operating all these years.

To most people in the software business, if they knew the amount of R&D that’s gone into *Mathematica* 10, it would seem crazy. Most would assume that a 26-year-old product would be in a maintenance mode, with tiny updates being made every few years. But that’s not the story with *Mathematica* at all. Instead, 26 years after its initial release, its rate of growth is still accelerating. There’s going to be even more to come.

But today I’m pleased to announce that the fruits of a “crazy” amount of R&D are here: *Mathematica* 10.

*To comment, please visit the copy of this post at the Wolfram Blog »*

My goal with the Wolfram Language in general—and Wolfram Programming Cloud in particular—is to redefine the process of programming, and to automate as much as possible, so that once a human can express what they want to do with sufficient clarity, all the details of how it is done should be handled automatically.

I’ve been working toward this for nearly 30 years, gradually building up the technology stack that is needed—at first in *Mathematica*, later also in Wolfram|Alpha, and now in definitive form in the Wolfram Language. The Wolfram Language, as I have explained elsewhere, is a new type of programming language: a knowledge-based language, whose philosophy is to build in as much knowledge about computation and about the world as possible—so that, among other things, as much as possible can be automated.

The Wolfram Programming Cloud is an application of the Wolfram Language—specifically for programming, and for creating and deploying cloud-based programs.

How does it work? Well, you should try it out! It’s incredibly simple to get started. Just go to the Wolfram Programming Cloud in any web browser, log in, and press New. You’ll get what we call a notebook (yes, we invented those more than 25 years ago, for *Mathematica*). Then you just start typing code.

It’s all interactive. When you type something, you can immediately run it, and see the result in the notebook.

Like let’s say you want to build a piece of code that takes text, figures out what language it’s in, then shows an image based on the flag of the largest country where it’s spoken.

First, you might want to try out the machine-learning language classifier built into the Wolfram Language:

OK. That’s a good start. Now we have to find the largest country where it’s spoken:

Now we can get a flag:

Notebooks in the Wolfram Programming Cloud can mix text and code and anything else, so it’s easy to document what you’re doing:

We’re obviously already making pretty serious use of the knowledge-based character of the Wolfram Language. But now let’s say that we want to make a custom graphic, in which we programmatically superimpose a language code on the flag.

It took me about 3 minutes to write a little function to do this, using image processing:

And now we can test the function:

It’s interesting to see what we’ve got going on here. There’s a bit of machine learning, some data about human languages and about countries, some typesetting, and finally some image processing. What’s great about the Wolfram Language is that all this—and much much more—is built in, and the language is designed so that all these pieces fit perfectly together. (Yes, that design discipline is what I personally have spent a fair fraction of the past three decades of my life on.)

But OK, so we’ve got a function that does something. Now what can we do with it? Well, this is one of the big things about the Wolfram Programming Cloud: it lets us use the Wolfram Language to deploy the function to the cloud.

One way we can do that is to make a web API. And that’s very straightforward to do in the Wolfram Language. We just specify a symbolic API function—then deploy it to the cloud:

And now from anywhere on the web, if we call this API by going to the appropriate URL, our Wolfram Language code will run in the Wolfram Cloud—and we’ll get a result back on the web, in this case as a PNG:

There are certainly lots of bells and whistles that we can add to this. We can make a fancier image. We can make the code more efficient by precomputing things. And so on. But to me it’s quite spectacular—and extremely useful—that in a matter of seconds I’m able to deploy something to the cloud that I can use from any website, web program, etc.

Here’s another example. This time I’m setting up a URL which, every time it’s visited, gives the computed current number of minutes until the next sunset, for the inferred location of the user:

Every time you visit this URL, then, you get a number, as a piece of text. (You can also get JSON and lots of other things if you want.)

It’s easy to set it up a dashboard too. Like here’s a countdown timer for sunset, which, web willing, updates every half second:

What about forms? Those are easy too. This creates a form that generates a map of a given location, with a disk of a given radius:

Here’s the form:

And here’s the result of submitting the form:

There’s a lot of fancy technology being used here. Like even the fields in the form are “Smart Fields” (as indicated by their little icons), because they can accept not just literal input, but hundreds of types of arbitrary natural language—which gets interpreted by the same Natural Language Understanding technology that’s at the heart of Wolfram|Alpha. And, by the way, if, for example, your form needs a color, the Wolfram Programming Cloud will automatically create a field with a color picker. Or you can have radio buttons, or a slider, or whatever.

OK, but at this point, professional programmers may be saying, “This is all very nice, but how do I use this in my particular environment?” Well, we’ve gone to a lot of effort to make that easy. For example, with forms, the Wolfram Language has a very clean mechanism for letting you build them out of arbitrary XML templates, to give them whatever look and feel you want.

And when it comes to APIs, the Wolfram Programming Cloud makes it easy to create “embed code” for calling an API from any standard language:

Soon it’ll also be easy to deploy to a mobile app. And in the future there’ll be Embedded Wolfram Engines and other things too.

So what does it all mean? I think it’s pretty important, because it really changes the whole process—and economics—of programming. I’ve even seen it quite dramatically within our own company. As the Wolfram Language and the Wolfram Programming Cloud have been coming together, there’ve been more and more places where we’ve been able to use them internally. And each time, it’s been amazing to see programming tasks that used to take weeks or months suddenly get done in days or less.

But much more than that, the whole knowledge-based character of the Wolfram Language makes feasible for the first time all sorts of programming that were basically absurd to consider before. And indeed within our own organization, that’s for example how it became possible to build Wolfram|Alpha—which is now millions of lines of Wolfram Language code.

But the exciting thing today is that with the launch of the Wolfram Programming Cloud, all this technology is now available to anyone, for projects large and small.

It’s set up so that anyone can just go to a web browser and—for free—start writing Wolfram Language code, and even deploying it on a small scale to the Wolfram Cloud. There are then a whole sequence of options available for larger deployments—including having your very own Wolfram Private Cloud within your organization.

Something to mention is that you don’t have to do everything in a web browser. It’s been a huge challenge to implement the Wolfram Programming Cloud notebook interface on the web—and there are definite limitations imposed by today’s web browsers and tools. But there’s also a native desktop version of the Wolfram Programming Cloud—which benefits from the 25+ years of interface engineering that we’ve done for *Mathematica* and CDF.

It’s very cool—and often convenient—to be able to use the Wolfram Programming Cloud purely on the web. But at least for now you get the very best experience by combining desktop and cloud, and running the native Wolfram Desktop interface connected to the Wolfram Cloud. What’s really neat is that it all fits perfectly together, so you can seamlessly transfer notebooks between cloud and desktop.

I’ve built some pretty complex software systems in my time. But the Wolfram Programming Cloud is the most complex I’ve ever seen. Of course, it’s based on the huge technology stack of the Wolfram Language. But the collection of interactions that have to go on in the Wolfram Programming Cloud between the Wolfram Language kernel, the Wolfram Knowledgebase, the Wolfram Natural Language Understanding System, the Wolfram Cloud, and all sorts of other subsystems are amazingly complex.

There are certainly still rough edges (and please don’t be shy in telling us about them!). Many things will, for example, get faster and more efficient. But I’m very pleased with what we’re able to launch today as the Wolfram Programming Cloud.

So if you’re going to try it out, what should you actually do? First, go to the Wolfram Programming Cloud on the web:

There’s a quick Getting Started video there. Or you can check out the Examples Gallery. Or you can go to Things to Try—and just start running Wolfram Language examples in the Wolfram Programming Cloud. If you’re an experienced programmer, I’d strongly recommend going through the Fast Introduction for Programmers:

This should get you up to speed on the basic principles and concepts of the Wolfram Language, and quickly get you to the point where you can read most Wolfram Language code and just start “expanding your vocabulary” across its roughly 5000 built-in functions:

Today is an important day not only for our company and our technology, but also, I believe, for programming in general. There’s a lot that’s new in the Wolfram Programming Cloud—some in how far it’s been possible to take things, and some in basic ideas and philosophy. And in addition to dramatically simplifying and automating many kinds of existing programming, I think the Wolfram Programming Cloud is going to make possible whole new classes of software applications—and, I suspect, a wave of new algorithmically based startups.

For me, it’s been a long journey. But today I’m incredibly excited to start a new chapter—and to be able to see what people will be able to do with the Wolfram Language and the Wolfram Programming Cloud.

*To comment, please visit the copy of this post at the Wolfram Blog »*

Thank you for inviting me to be part of this celebration today—and congratulations to this year’s OHS graduates.

You know, as it happens, I myself never officially graduated from high school, and this is actually the first high school graduation I’ve ever been to.

It’s been fun over the past three years—from a suitable parental distance of course—to see my daughter’s experiences at OHS. One day I’m sure everyone will know about online high schools—but you’ll be able to say, “Yes, I was there when that way of doing such-and-such a thing was first invented—at OHS.”

It’s great to see the OHS community—and to see so many long-term connections being formed independent of geography. And it’s also wonderful to see students with such a remarkable diversity of unique stories.

Of course, for the graduates here today, this is the beginning of a new chapter in their stories.

I suspect some of you already have very definite life plans. Many are still exploring. It’s worth remembering that there’s no “one right answer” to life. Different people are amazingly different in what they’ll consider an “‘A’ in life”. I think the first challenge is always to understand what you really like. Then you’ve got to know what’s out there to do in the world. And then you’ve got to solve the puzzle of fitting the two together.

Maybe you’ll discover there’s a niche that already exists; maybe you’ll have to create one.

I’ve always been interested in trajectories of peoples’ lives, and one thing I’ve noticed is that after some great direction has emerged in someone’s life, one can almost always look back and see the seeds of it very early.

Like I was recently a bit shocked actually to find some things I did when I was 12 years old—about systematizing knowledge and data—and to realize that what I was trying to do was incredibly similar to Wolfram|Alpha. And then to realize that my tendency to invent projects and organize other kids to help do them was awfully like leading an entrepreneurial company.

You know, it’s funny how things can play out. Back when I was a kid I was really interested in physics. And to do physics you have to do a lot of math calculations. Which I found really boring, and wasn’t very good at.

So what did I do? Well, I figured out that even though I might not be good at these calculations, I could make a computer be good at them. And needless to say, that’s what I did—and through a pretty straight path, that’s what brought the world *Mathematica* and Wolfram|Alpha.

You know, another thing was that when I was a kid I always had a hard time getting myself to do exercises from textbooks. I kept on thinking to myself, “Why am I doing this exercise when zillions of other people have already done it? Why don’t I do something different, that’s new, and mine?”

People might think: that must be really hard. But it’s not. It’s just that you have to learn not just about how to do stuff, but also about how to figure out what stuff to do. And actually one thing I’ve noticed is that in almost every area, the people who go furthest are not the ones with the best technical skills, but the ones who have the best strategy for figuring out what to do.

But I have to say that for me it’s just incredibly fun inventing new stuff—and that’s pretty much what I’ve spent my life doing.

I think most people don’t really internalize enough how stuff in our world gets made. I mean, everything we have in our civilization—our technology, our ways of doing things, whatever—had to be invented. It had to start with some person somewhere—maybe like you—having an idea. And then that idea got turned into reality.

It’s a wonderful thing going from nothing but an idea—to something real in the world. For me, that’s my favorite thing to do. And I’ve been fortunate enough to do that with a number of big projects, alternating between science, technology and business. At some level, my projects might look very different: building a new kind of science, creating a computer language, encoding the world’s knowledge in computational form.

But it turns out that at some level they’re really all the same. They’re all about taking some complicated area, drilling down to the essence of it, then doing a big project to build up to something that’s useful in the world.

And when you think about what it is you really like, and what you’re really good at, it’s important to be thematic. Maybe you like math. But why? Is it the definiteness? Problem solving? Elegance? Even at OHS you only get to learn about certain specific subjects. So to understand yourself, you have to take your reactions to them, and generalize—figure out the overall theme.

You know, something I’ve learned is that the more different areas I know about, the better. When I was a kid I learned Latin and Greek—and I was always complaining that they’d never be useful. But then I grew up—and had to make up names for products and things. And actually for years a big part of what I’ve done every day is to take ideas from very different areas that I’ve learned about—and bring them together to make new ideas.

One thing, if you want to do this, is that you really have to keep all those things you’ve learned at your fingertips. History of science can’t stay in a history of science class. It has to inform that clever social media idea you have, or that great new policy direction you come up with, or that artistic creation you’re making, or whatever. The real payoff comes not from doing well in the class, but from internalizing that way of thinking or that knowledge so it becomes part of you.

You know, as you think about what to do in the world, it’s worth remembering that some of the very best areas are ones that almost nobody’s heard about yet—and there certainly aren’t classes about. But if you get into one of those new areas, it’s great—because there’s still all this basic ground-floor stuff to do there, and as the area grows, you get propelled by that.

I’ve been pretty lucky in that regard. Because early in life I got really interested in computation, and in the computational way of thinking about things. And I think it’s becoming clear that computation is really the single most important idea that’s emerged in the past century. And that even after all the technology that’s been built with it, we’re only just beginning to see its true significance.

And today, you just have to prepend the word “computational” to almost any existing field to get something that’s an exciting growth direction: computational law, computational medicine, computational archaeology, computational philosophy, computational photography, whatever.

And yes, to be able to do all this stuff, you have to get familiar with the computational way of thinking, and with things like programming. That’s going to be an increasingly important literacy skill. And I have to say that in general, even more valuable than learning the content of specific fields is to learn general approaches and tools—and keep up to date with them.

It’s not for everybody, but I myself happen to have spent a lot of time actually building tools. And for me the most powerful thing has been being able to build a tower of tools, then to use them to figure things out, then to use those things to go on and build more tools. And I’ve been fortunate enough to be able to go on doing that for more than 30 years now.

You know, it’s always an interesting judgment call when to go on in a life direction you’re already going, and when to branch into something new, or to chase some new opportunity. For myself, I try to maintain a portfolio—continuing to build on what I’ve done, but also always making sure to add new things.

One of the consequences of that is that at any given time, there’s always an area where I’m basically a beginner—and just learning. Right now, for example, that happens to be programming education. We’ve managed to automate a lot of programming—which I think is going to be a pretty big deal in general—but for education it means there’s a much broader range of people and places where programming can be taught. But how should it be done? Math and language and areas like that have centuries of education experience to draw on. But with what’s now possible with programming education, we’ve got a completely new situation, that kind of has to be figured out from the ground up. It’s always a little scary doing something like that, and I always think, “Maybe this is finally an area I’ll never figure out.” But somehow if one has the confidence to keep going, it always seems to come together—and it’s really satisfying.

You know, when I was a kid I learned some things in school and some things on my own. I was always doing projects about this or that. And somehow I’ve just kept on doing projects and learning more and more things. You’ve been exposed to lots of interesting things at OHS. Make sure you expose yourselves to lots more things in college or wherever you’re going next. And don’t forget to do projects—to do things that are really yours, and that people can look at and really get a sense of you from.

And don’t just learn stuff. Keep thinking about strategy too. Keep trying to solve the puzzle of what your best niche is. You might find it or you might have to create it. But there will be something great out there for you. And never assume that the world won’t let you get to it. It’s all part of the puzzle to solve. And the seeds are already there in who you are; you just have to find them, nurture them, and keep pushing to let them grow as each chapter of your story unfolds…

]]>*Two weeks ago I spoke at SXSW Interactive in Austin, TX. Here’s a slightly edited transcript (it’s the “speaker’s cut”, including some demos I had to abandon during the talk):*

Well, I’ve got a lot planned for this hour.

Basically, I want to tell you a story that’s been unfolding for me for about the last 40 years, and that’s just coming to fruition in a really exciting way. And by *just* coming to fruition, I mean pretty much today. Because I’m planning to show you today a whole lot of technology that’s the result of that 40-year story—that I’ve never shown before, and that I think is going to be pretty important.

I always like to do live demos. But today I’m going to be pretty extreme. Showing you a lot of stuff that’s very very fresh. And I hope at least a decent fraction of it is going to work.

OK, here’s the big theme: taking computation seriously. Really understanding the idea of computation. And then building technology that lets one inject it everywhere—and then seeing what that means.

I’ve pretty much been chasing this idea for 40 years. I’ve been kind of alternating between science and technology—and making these bigger and bigger building blocks. Kind of making this taller and taller stack. And every few years I’ve been able to see a bit farther. And I think making some interesting things. But in the last couple of years, something really exciting has happened. Some kind of grand unification—which is leading to a kind of Cambrian explosion of technology. Which is what I’m going to be showing you pieces of for the first time here today.

But just for context, let me tell you a bit of the backstory. Forty years ago, I was a 14-year-old kid who’d just started using a computer—which was then about the size of a desk. I was using it not so much for its own sake, but instead to try to figure out things about physics, which is what I was really interested in. And I actually figured out a few things—which even still get used today. But in retrospect, I think the most important thing I figured out was kind of a meta thing. That the better the tools one uses, the further one can get. Like I was never good at doing math by hand, which in those days was a problem if you wanted to be a physicist. But I realized one could do math by computer. And I started building tools for that. And pretty soon me with my tools were better than almost anyone at doing math for physics.

And back in 1981—somewhat shockingly in those days for a 21-year-old professor type—I turned that into my first product and my first company. And one important thing is that it made me realize that products can really drive intellectual thinking. I needed to figure out how to make a language for doing math by computer, and I ended up figuring out these fundamental things about computation to be able to do that. Well, after that I dived back into basic science again, using my computer tools.

And I ended up deciding that while math was fine, the whole idea of it really needed to be generalized. And I started looking at the whole universe of possible formal systems—in effect the whole computational universe of possible programs. I started doing little experiments. Kind of pointing my computational telescope into this computational universe, and seeing what was out there. And it was pretty amazing. Like here are a few simple programs.

Some of them do simple things. But some of them—well, they’re not simple at all.

This is my all-time favorite, because it’s the first one like this that I saw. It’s called rule 30, and I still have it on the back of my business cards 30 years later.

Trivial program. Trivial start. But it does something crazy. It sort of just makes complexity from nothing. Which is a pretty interesting phenomenon. That I think, by the way, captures a big secret of how things work in nature. And, yes, I’ve spent years studying this, and it’s really interesting.

But when I was first studying it, the big thing I realized was: I need better tools. And basically that’s why I built *Mathematica*. It’s sort of ironic that *Mathematica* has math in its name. Because in a sense I built it to get beyond math. In *Mathematica* my original big idea was to kind of drill down below all the math and so on that one wanted to do—and find the computational bedrock that it could all be built on.
And that’s how I ended up inventing the language that’s in *Mathematica*. And over the years, it’s worked out really well. We’ve been able to build ever more and more on it.

And in fact *Mathematica* celebrated its 25th anniversary last year—and in those 25 years it’s gotten used to invent and discover and learn a zillion things—in pretty much all the universities and big companies and so on around the world. And actually I myself managed to carve out a decade to actually use *Mathematica* to do science myself. And I ended up discovering lots of things—scientific, technological and philosophical—and wrote this big book about them.

Well, OK, back when I was a kid something I was always interested in was systematizing information. And I had this idea that one day one should be able to automate being able to answer questions about basically anything. I figured out a lot about how to answer questions about math computations. But somehow I imagined that to do this in general, one would need some kind of general artificial intelligence—some sort of brain-like AI. And that seemed very hard to make.

And every decade or so I would revisit that. And conclude that, yes, that was still hard to make. But doing the science I did, I realized something. I realized that if one even just runs a tiny program, it can end up doing something of sort of brain-like complexity.

There really isn’t ultimately a distinction between brain-like intelligence, and this. And that’s got lots of implications for things like free will versus determinism, and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. But for me it also made me realize that you shouldn’t need a brain-like AI to be able to answer all those questions about things. Maybe all you need is just computation. Like the kind we’d spent years building in *Mathematica*.

I wasn’t sure if it was the right decade, or even the right century. But I guess that’s the advantage of having a simple private company and being in charge; I just decided to do the experiment anyway. And, I’m happy to say, it turned out it was possible. And we built Wolfram|Alpha.

You type stuff in, in natural language. And it uses all the curated data and knowledge and methods and algorithms that we’ve put into it, to basically generate a report about what you asked. And, yes, if you’re a Wolfram|Alpha user, you might notice that Wolfram|Alpha on the web just got a new spiffier look yesterday. Wolfram|Alpha knows about all sorts of things. Thousands of domains, covering a really broad area. Trillions of pieces of data.

And indeed, every day many millions of people ask it all sorts of things—directly on the website, or through its apps or things like Siri that use it.

Well, OK, so we have *Mathematica*, which has this kind of bedrock language for describing computations—and for doing all sorts of technical computations. And we also have Wolfram|Alpha—which knows a lot about the world—and which people interact with in this sort of much messier way through natural language. Well, *Mathematica* has been growing for more than 25 years, Wolfram|Alpha for nearly 5. We’ve continually been inventing ways to take the basic ideas of these systems further and further.
But now something really big and amazing has happened. And actually for me it was catalyzed by another piece: the cloud.

Now I didn’t think the cloud was really an intellectual thing. I thought it was just sort of a utility. But I was wrong. Because I finally understood how it’s the missing piece that lets one take kind of the two big approaches to computation in *Mathematica* and in Wolfram|Alpha and make something just dramatically bigger from them.

Now, I’ve got to tell you that what comes out of all of this is pretty intellectually complicated. But it’s also very very directly practical. I always like these situations. Where big ideas let one make actually really useful new products. And that’s what’s happened here. We’ve taken one big idea, and we’re making a bunch of products—that I hope will be really useful. And at some level each product is pretty easy to explain. But the most exciting thing is what they all mean together. And that’s what I’m going to try to talk about here. Though I’ll say up front that even though I think it’s a really important story, it’s not an easy story to tell.

But let’s start. At the core of pretty much everything is what we call the Wolfram Language. Which is something we’re just starting to release now.

The core of the Wolfram Language has been sort of incubating in *Mathematica* for more than 25 years. It’s kind of been proven there. But what just happened is that we got all these new ideas and technology from Wolfram|Alpha, and from the Cloud. And they’ve let us make something that’s really qualitatively different. And that I’m very excited about.

So what’s the idea? It’s really to make a language that’s knowledge based. A language where built right into the language is huge amounts of knowledge about computation and about the world. You see, most computer languages kind of stay close to the basic operations of the machine. They give you lots of good ways to manage code you build. And maybe they have add-on libraries to do specific things.

But our idea with the Wolfram Language is kind of the opposite. It’s to make a language that has as much built in as possible. Where the language itself does as much as possible. To make everything as automated as possible for the programmer.

OK. Well let’s give it a try.

You can use the Wolfram Language completely interactively, using the notebook interface we built for *Mathematica*.

OK, that’s good. Let’s do something a little harder:

Yup, that’s a big number. Kind of looks like a bunch of random digits. Might be like 60,000 data points of sensor data.

How do we analyze it? Well, the Wolfram Language has all that stuff built in.

So like here’s the mean:

And the skewness:

Or hundreds of other statistical tests. Or visualizations.

That’s kind of weird actually. But let me not get derailed trying to figure out why it looks like that.

OK. Here’s something completely different. Let’s have the Wolfram Language go to some kind volunteer’s Facebook account and pull out their friend network:

OK. So that’s a network. The Wolfram Language knows how to deal with those. Like let’s compute how that breaks into communities:

Let’s try something different. Let’s get an image from this little camera:

OK. Well now let’s do something to that. We can just take that image and feed it to a function:

So now we’ve gotten the image broken into little pieces. Let’s make that dynamic:

Let’s rotate those around:

Let’s like even sort them. We can make some funky stuff:

OK. That’s kind of cool. Why don’t we tweet it?

OK. So the whole point is that the Wolfram Language just intrinsically knows a lot of stuff. It knows how to analyze networks. It knows how to deal with images—doing all the fanciest image processing. But it also knows about the world. Like we could ask it when the sun rose this morning here:

Or the time from sunrise to sunset today:

Or we could get the current recorded air temperature here:

Or the time series for the past day:

OK. Here’s a big thing. Based on what we’ve done for Wolfram|Alpha, we can understand lots of natural language. And what’s really powerful is that we can use that to refer to things in the real world.

Let’s just type `control-= nyc`:

And that just gives us the entity of New York City. So now we can find the temperature difference between here and New York City:

OK. Let’s do some more:

Let’s find the lengths of those borders:

Let’s put that in a grid:

Or maybe let’s make a word cloud out of that:

Or we could find all the former Soviet countries:

And let’s find their flags:

And let’s like find which is closest to the French flag:

Pretty neat, eh?

Or let’s take the first few former Soviet republics. And generate maps of their capital cities. With 10-mile discs marked:

I think it’s pretty amazing that you can do that kind of thing right from inside a programming language, with just a line of code.

And, you know, there’s a huge amount of knowledge built into the Wolfram Language. We’ve been building this for more than a quarter of a century.

There’s knowledge about algorithms. And about the world.

There are two big principles here. The first is maximum automation: automate as much as possible. You define what you want the language to do, then it’s up to it to figure out how to do it. There might be hundreds of algorithms for doing different cases of something. But what we want to do is to make a meta-algorithm that selects the best way to do it. So kind of all the human has to do is to define their goal, then it’s up to the system to do things in the way that’s fastest, most accurate, best looking.

Like here’s an example. There’s a function `Classify` that tries to classify things. You just type `Classify`.
Like here’s a very small training set of handwritten digits:

And this makes a classifier.

Which we can then apply to something we draw:

OK, well here’s another big thing about the Wolfram Language: coherence. Unification. We want to make everything in the language fit together. Even though it’s a huge system, if you’re doing something over here with geographic data, we want to make sure it fits perfectly with what you’re doing over there with networks.

I’ve spent a decent fraction of the last 25 years of my life implementing the kind of design discipline that’s needed. It’s been fascinating, but it’s been hard work. Spending all that time to make things obvious. To make it so it’s easy for people to learn and remember and guess. But you know, having all these building blocks fit together: that’s also where the most powerful new algorithms come from. And we’ve had a great time inventing tons and tons of new algorithms that are really only possible in our language—where we have all these different areas integrated.

And there’s actually a really fundamental reason that we can do this kind of integration. It’s because the Wolfram Language has this very fundamental feature of being symbolic. If you just type `x` into the language, it doesn’t give some error about *x* being undefined. `x` is just a thing—symbolic `x`—that the language can deal with. Of course that’s very nice for math.

But as far as I am concerned, one of the big discoveries is that this idea of a symbolic language is incredibly powerful for zillions of other things too. Everything in our language is symbolic. Math expressions.

Or entities, like Austin, TX:

Or like a piece of graphics. Here’s a sphere:

Here are a bunch of cylinders:

And because everything is just a symbolic expression, we could pick this up, and, like, do image processing on it:

You know, everything is just a symbolic expression. Like another example is interfaces. Here’s a symbolic slider:

Here’s a whole array of sliders:

You know, once everything is symbolic, there’s just a whole lot you can do. Here’s nesting some purely symbolic function *f*:

Here’s nesting, like, a function that makes a frame:

And here’s symbolically nesting, like, an interface element:

My gosh, it’s a fractal interface!

You know, once things are symbolic, it’s really easy to hook everything up. Like here’s a plot:

And now it’s trivial to make it interactive:

You can do that with anything:

OK. Here’s another thing that can be made symbolic: documents.

The document I’m typing into here is just another symbolic expression. And you can create whatever you want in it symbolically.

Like here’s some text. We could twirl it around if we want to:

All just symbolic expressions.

OK. So here’s yet another thing that’s a symbolic expression: code. Every piece of code in the Wolfram Language is just a symbolic expression, that can be picked up and manipulated, and passed around, and run, wherever you want. That’s incredibly important for programming. Because it means you can build things in a really modular way. Every piece can stand on its own.

It’s also important for another reason: it’s a great way to deal with the cloud, sort of treating it as a giant active repository for symbolic lumps of computation. And in fact we’ve built this whole infrastructure for that, that I’m going to demo for the first time here today.

Well, let’s say we have a symbolic expression:

Now we can just deploy it to the Cloud like this:

And we’ve got a symbolic `CloudObject`, with a URL we can go to from anywhere. And there’s our material.

Now let’s make this not static content, but an actual program. And on the web, a good way to do that is to have an API. But with our whole notion of everything being symbolic, we can represent that as just another symbolic expression:

And now we can deploy that to the Cloud:

And we’ve got an Instant API. Now we can just fill in an API parameter ?size=150 and we can run this from anywhere on the web:

And every time what’ll happen is that you’ll be calling that piece of Wolfram Language code in the Wolfram Cloud, and getting the result back. OK.

Here’s another thing to do: make a form. Just change the `APIFunction` to a `FormFunction`:

Now what we’ve got is a form:

Let’s add a feature:

Now let’s fill some values into the form:

And when we press Submit, here’s the result:

OK. Let’s try a different case. Here’s a form that takes two cities, and draws a map of the path between them:

Let’s deploy it in the Cloud:

Now let’s fill in the form:

And when we press Submit, here’s what we get:

One line of code and an actual little web app! It’s got quite a bit of technology inside it. Like you see these fields. They’re what we call smart fields. That leverage our natural language understanding stack:

If you don’t give a city, here’s what happens:

When you do give a city, the system is automatically interpreting the inputs as city entities. Let me show you what happens inside. Let’s just define a form that just returns a list of its inputs:

Now if we enter cities, we just get Wolfram Language symbolic entity objects. Which of course we can then compute with:

All right, let’s try something else.

Let’s do a sort of modern programming example. Let’s make a silly app that shows us pictures through the eyes of a cat or a dog. OK, let’s build the framework:

Now let’s pull in an actual algorithm for dog vision. Color channels, and acuity.

OK. Let’s deploy with that:

Now we can send that over as an app. But first let’s build an icon for it:

And now let’s deploy it as a public app:

Now let’s go to the Wolfram Cloud app on an iPad:

And there’s the app we just published:

Now we click that icon—and there we have it: a mobile app running against the Wolfram Language in the Cloud:

And we can just use the iPad camera to input a picture, and then run the app on it:

Pretty neat, eh?

OK, but there’s more. Actually, let me tell you about the first product that’s coming out of our Wolfram Language technology stack. It should be available very soon. We call it the Wolfram Programming Cloud.

It’s all the stuff I’m showing you, but all happening in the Cloud. Including the programming. And, yes, there’s a desktop version too.

OK, so here’s the Programming Cloud:

Deploy from the Cloud. Define a function and just use `CloudDeploy[]`:

Or use the GUI:

Oh, another thing is to take CDF and deploy it to run in the Cloud.

Let’s take some code from the Wolfram Demonstrations Project. Actually, as it happens, this was the very first Demonstration I wrote when were originally building that site:

Now here’s the deployed Cloud CDF:

It just needs a web browser. And gives arbitrary interactivity by running against the Wolfram Engine in the Cloud.

OK, well, using this technology, another product we’re building is our Data Science Platform.

And the idea is that data comes in, from all sorts of sources. And then we have all these automatic ways to analyze it. Using sort of a giant meta-algorithm. As well as using all the knowledge of the actual world that we have.

Well, then you can program whatever you want with the Wolfram Language. And in the end you can make reports. On demand, like from an API or an app. Or just on a schedule. And we can use our whole CDF symbolic documents to set up these reports.

Like here’s a template for a report on the state of my email inbox. It’s just defined as a symbolic document. That I go ahead and edit.

And then programmatically generate reports from:

You know, there are some really spectacular things we can do with data using our whole symbolic language technology stack. And actually just recently we realized that we can use it to make a very clean unification and generalization of SQL and NoSQL databases. And we’re implementing that in sort of four transparent levels. In memory. In files. In databases. And distributed.

But OK. Another thing is that we’ve got a really good way to represent individual pieces of data. We call it WDF—the Wolfram Data Framework.

And basically what it is, is taking the kind of algorithmic ontology that we built for Wolfram|Alpha—and that we know works—and exposing that. And using our natural language understanding to be able to take unstructured data, and automatically convert it to something that’s structured and computable. And that for example our Data Science Platform can do really good things with.

Well, OK. Here’s another thing. A rapidly increasing source of data out there in the world are connected devices. And we’ve been pretty deeply involved with those. And actually one thing I wanted to do recently was just to find out what devices there are out there. So we started our Connected Devices Project, to just curate the devices out there—just like we curate all sorts of other things in Wolfram|Alpha.

We have about 2500 devices in here now, growing every day. And, yes, we’re using WDF to organize this, and, yes, all this data is available from Wolfram|Alpha.

Well, OK. So there are all these devices. And they measure things and do things. And at some point they typically make web contact. And one thing we’re doing—with our Data Science Platform and everything—is to create a really smooth infrastructure for handling things from there on. For visualizing and analyzing and computing everything that comes from that Internet of Things.

You know, even for devices that haven’t yet made web contact, it can be a bit messier, but we’ve got a framework for handling those too. Like here’s an accelerometer connected to an Arduino:

Let’s see if we can get that data into the Wolfram Language. It’s not too hard:

And now we can immediately plot this:

So that’s connecting a device to the Wolfram Language. But there’s something else coming too. And that’s actually putting the Wolfram Language onto devices. And this is where 25 years of tight software engineering pays back. Because as soon as devices run things like Linux, we can run the Wolfram Language on them. And actually there’s now a preliminary version of the Wolfram Language bundled with the standard operating system for every Raspberry Pi.

It’s pretty neat being able to have little $25 devices that persistently run the Wolfram Language. And connect to sensors and actuators and things. And every little computer out there just gets represented as yet another symbolic object in the Wolfram Language. And, like, it’s trivial to use the built-in parallel computation capabilities of the Wolfram Language to pull data from lots of such machines.

And going forward, you can expect to see the Wolfram Language running on lots of embedded processors. There’s another kind of embedding we’re interested in too. And that’s software embedding. We want to have a Universal Deployment System for the Wolfram Language.

Given a Wolfram Language program, there are lots of ways to deploy it.

Here’s one: being able to call Wolfram Language code from other languages.

And we have a really easy way to do that. There’s a GUI, but in the Wolfram Language, you can just take an API function, and say: create embed code for this for Python. Or Java. Or whatever.

And you can then just insert that code in your external program, and it’ll call the Wolfram Cloud to get a computation done. Actually, there are going to be ways to do this from inside IDEs, like Wolfram *Workbench*.

This is really easy to set up, and as I said, it just calls the Wolfram Cloud to run Wolfram Language code. But there’s even another concept. There’s an Embedded Wolfram Engine that you can run locally too. And essentially the same code will then work. But now you’re running on your local machine, not in the Cloud. And things get pretty interesting, being able to put Embedded Wolfram Engines inside all kinds of software, to immediately add all that knowledge-based capability, and all those algorithms, and natural language and so on. Here’s what the Embedded Wolfram Engine looks like inside the Unity Game Engine IDE:

Well, talking of embedding, let me mention yet another part of our technology stack. The Wolfram Language is supposed to describe the world. And so what about describing devices and machines and so on.

Well, conveniently enough we have a product related to our *Mathematica* business called *SystemModeler*, which does large-scale system modeling and simulation:

And now that’s all getting integrated into the Wolfram Language too.

So here’s a representation of a rectifier circuit:

And this is all it takes to simulate this device:

And to plot parameters from the simulation:

And here’s yet another thing. We’re taking the natural language understanding capabilities that we created for Wolfram|Alpha, and we’re setting them up to be customizable. Now of course that’s big when one’s querying databases, or controlling devices. It’s also really interesting when one’s interacting with simulations. Looking at some machine out in the field, and being able to figure out things about it by talking to one’s mobile device, and then getting a simulation done in the Cloud.

There are lots of possibilities. But OK, so how can people actually use these things? Well, in the next couple of weeks there’ll be an open sandbox on the web for people to use the Wolfram Language. We’ve got a gallery of examples that gives good places to start.

Oh, as well as 100,000 live examples in the Wolfram Language documentation.

And, OK, the Wolfram Programming Cloud is also coming very soon. And it’ll be completely free to start developing with it, and even to do small-scale deployments.

So what does this mean?

Well, I think it’s pretty exciting. Because I think we just really changed the economics of going from algorithmic ideas to deployed products. If you come by our booth at the South By trade show, we’ll be doing a bunch of live coding there. And perhaps we’ll even be able to create little products for people right there. But I think our Programming Cloud is going to open up a surge of algorithmic startups. And I’ll be really interested to see what comes out.

OK. Here’s another thing that’s going to change I think: programming education. I think the Wolfram Language is sort of uniquely good for education. Because it’s a language where you get to do real things incredibly easily. You get to see computation at work in an incredibly powerful way. And, by the way, rather effortlessly see a bunch of modern computer science ideas… and immediately connect to the real world.

And the natural language aspect makes it really easy to get started. For serious programmers, I think having snippets of natural language programming, particularly in places where one’s connecting to the real world, is very powerful. But for people getting started, it’s really nice to be able to create things just with natural language.

Like here we can just say:

And have the code generated automatically.

We’re really interested in all the educational possibilities here. Certainly there’s the raw material for a zillion great hackathon projects.

You know, every summer for the past dozen years we’ve done a very successful summer school about the new kind of science I’ve worked on:

Where we’re effectively doing real-time science. We’ve also for a few years had a summer camp for high-school students:

And we’re using our experience here to build out a bunch of ways to use the Wolfram Language for programming education. You know, we’ve been involved in education for a long time—more than 25 years. *Mathematica* is incredibly widely used there. Wolfram|Alpha I’m happy to say has become sort of a universal tool for students.

There’s more and more coming.

Like here’s a version of Wolfram|Alpha in Chinese that’s coming soon:

Here’s a Problem Generator created with the Wolfram Language and available through Wolfram|Alpha Pro:

And we’re going to be doing all sorts of elaborate educational analytics and things through our Cloud system. You know, there are just so many possibilities. Like we have our CDF—Computable Document Format—that people have used for quite a few years to make interactive Demonstrations.

In fact here’s our site with nearly 10,000 of them:

And now with our Cloud system we can just run all of these directly in a web browser, using Cloud CDF, so they become easy to integrate into web learning environments. Like here’s an example that just got done by Versal:

Well, OK, at kind of the other end of things from education, there’s a lot going on in the corporate area. We’ve been doing large-scale custom deployments of Wolfram|Alpha for several years. But now with our Data Science Platform coming, we’ve got a kind of infinitely customizable version of that. And of course everything is integrated between cloud and desktop. And we’re going to have private clouds too.

But all this is just the beginning. Because what we’ve got with the whole Wolfram Language stack is a kind of universal platform for creating products. And we’ve got a whole sequence of products in the pipeline. It’s an exciting feeling having all this stuff that we’ve been doing for more than a quarter of a century come together like this.

Of course, it’s big challenge dealing with all the possibilities. I mean, we’re just a little private company with about 700—admittedly very talented—people.

We’ve started spinning off companies. Like Touch Press which makes iPad ebooks.

And we’ll be doing more of that, though we need more entrepreneurs. And we might even take investors.

But, OK, what about the broader future?

I think about that a fair amount. I don’t have time to say much here. But let me say just a few things. In what we’ve done with computation and knowledge, we’re trying to take the knowledge of our civilization, and put it in computable form. So we can essentially inject it everywhere. In something like Wolfram|Alpha, we’re essentially doing on-demand computation. You ask for something, and Wolfram|Alpha will do it.

Increasingly, we’re going to have preemptive computation. We’re building towards that a lot with the Wolfram Language. Being able to model the world, and make predictions about what’s going to happen. Being able to tell you what you might want to do next. In fact, whenever you use the Wolfram Language interactively, you’ll see this little Suggestions Bar that’s using some fairly fancy computation to suggest what to do next.

But the real way to have that work is to use knowledge about you. I’ve been an enthusiast of personal analytics for a long time. Like here’s a 25-year history of my diurnal email rhythm:

And as we have more sensors and outsource more of our memory, our machines will be better and better at telling us what to do. And at some level the machines take over just because the humans tend to follow the auto-suggests they make.

But OK. Here’s something I realized recently. I’m interested in history, and I was visiting the archives of Gottfried Leibniz, who lived about 300 years ago, and had a lot of rather modern ideas about computing. But in his time he had only one—very primitive—proto-computer that he built:

Today we have billions of computers. So I was thinking about the extrapolation. And I realized that one day there won’t just be lots more computers—everything will actually be made of computers.

Biology has already a little bit figured out this idea. But one day it won’t be worth making anything out of dumb materials; instead everything will be made out of stuff that’s completely programmable.

So what does that mean? Well, of course it really blurs the distinction between hardware and software. And it means that these languages we create sort of become what everything is made of. You know, I’ve been interested for a long time in the fundamental theory of physics. And in fact with a bunch of science I’ve done, I think there’s a real possibility that we’ve finally got a new way to find such a theory. In effect a way to find our physical universe out in the computational universe of all possible universes.

But here’s the funny thing: once everything is made of computers, even though it’ll be really cool to find the fundamental theory of physics—and I still want to do it—it’s not going to matter so much. Because in effect that actually physics is just the machine code for the universe. But everything we deal with is on top of a layer that we can program however we want.

Well, OK, what does that mean for us humans? No doubt we’ll get to deploy in that sort of much-more-than-biology-programmable world. Where in effect you can just build any universe for yourself. I sort of imagine this moment where there’s a box of a trillion souls. Running in whatever pieces of the computational universe they want.

And what happens? Well, there’s lots of computation going on. But from the science I’ve done—and particularly the Principle of Computational Equivalence—I think it’s sort of a very Copernican situation. I don’t think there’s anything fundamentally different about that computation, from what goes on all over the universe, and even in rather simple programs.

And at some level the only thing that’s special about that particular box of a trillion souls is that it’s based on our particular history. Now, you know, I deal with all this tech stuff. But I happen to like people; I guess that’s why I’ve liked building a company, and mentoring lots of people. And in a sense seeing how much is possible, and how much can sort of be generalized and virtualized with technology, actually makes me think people are more important rather than less. Because when everything is possible, what matters is just what one wants or chooses to do.

It’s sort of a big version of what we’re doing with the Wolfram Language. Humans define the goals, then technology automatically tries to achieve them. And the more we can inject computation into everything, the more this becomes possible. And, you know, I happen to think that the injection of computation into everything will be a defining feature—perhaps the defining feature—of this time in history.

And I have to say I’m personally pleased to have lived at the right time to make some contribution to this. It’s a great privilege. And I’m very pleased to have been able to tell you a little bit about it here today.

Thank you very much.

]]>Here’s a short video demo I just made. It’s amazing to me how much of this is based on things I hadn’t even thought of just a few months ago. Knowledge-based programming is going to be much bigger than I imagined…

]]>In the end, we want every type of connected device to be seamlessly integrated with the Wolfram Language. And this will have all sorts of important consequences. But as we work toward this, there’s an obvious first step: we have to know what types of connected devices there actually are.

So to have a way to answer that question, today we’re launching the Wolfram Connected Devices Project—whose goal is to work with device manufacturers and the technical community to provide a definitive, curated, source of systematic knowledge about connected devices.

We have a couple of thousand devices (from about 300 companies) included as of today—and we expect this number to grow quite rapidly in the months ahead. For each device, there is a certain amount of structured information:

Whenever possible, this information is set up to be computable, so that it can for example be used in Wolfram|Alpha:

Soon you’ll be able to make all sorts of complex queries about devices, very much like the queries you can make now about consumer products:

We’re working hard to make the Wolfram Connected Devices Project an important and useful resource in its own right. But in the end our goal is not just to deal with information about devices, but actually be able to connect to the devices, and get data from them—and then do all sorts of things with that data.

But first—at least if we expect to do a good job—we must have a good way to represent all the kinds of data that can come out of a device. And, as it turns out, we have a great solution for this coming: WDF, the Wolfram Data Framework. In a sense, what WDF does is to take everything we’ve learned about representing data and the world from Wolfram|Alpha, and make it available to use on data from anywhere.

There’s a lot to say about WDF. But in terms of devices, it provides an immediate way to represent not just raw numbers from a device, but, say, images or geopositions—or actual measured physical quantities.

In Wolfram|Alpha we’ve, of necessity, assembled the world’s most complete system for handling physical quantities and their units. We’ve got a couple of thousand physical quantities built in (like length, or torque, or tensile strength, or clicks per impression), as well as nearly 10,000 units of measure (like inches, or meters per second or katals or micropascals per square root hertz). And in WDF we immediately get to use this whole setup.

So once we can get data out of a device, WDF provides a great way to represent it. And given the WDF form, there are lots of things we can do with the data.

For researchers, we’re building the Wolfram Data Repository, that lets people publish data—from devices or otherwise—using WDF in an immediately computable form.

We’re also building the Wolfram Data Science Platform, that lets people visualize and analyze data using all the sophistication of the Wolfram Language—and then generate complete interactive reports from the data, that can be deployed on the web, on mobile, offline, and so on.

But how can one actually interact with the device? Well, within the Wolfram Language we’ve been building a powerful framework for this. From a user’s point of view, there’s a symbolic representation of each device. Then there are a standard set of Wolfram Language functions like `DeviceRead`, `DeviceExecute`, `DeviceReadBuffer` and `DeviceReadTimeSeries` that perform operations related to the device.

Ultimately, this is implemented by having a Wolfram Language driver for each device. But the idea is that the end user never has to know about this. The appropriate driver is just automatically retrieved from the Wolfram Cloud when it’s needed. And then the general Wolfram Language framework goes from the low-level operations in the driver to all the various higher-level symbolic device functions. Like `DeviceReadTimeSeries`, which samples a series of data points from the device, then returns them in a symbolic `TimeSeries` object which can immediately be used for further visualization, analysis, etc.

There is another issue here, though: How does one actually make the connection to a particular device? It depends on the device. Some devices automatically connect to the cloud, perhaps through an intermediate mobile device. And in those cases, one typically just has to connect to an API exposed in the cloud.

But at least right now, many more devices connect in various kinds of wired or wireless ways to a specific local computer. Sometimes one may then want to interact with the data directly on that local computer.

But more often one either wants to have something autonomous happen with the data on the local computer. Or one wants to get the data into the cloud. For example so one can systematically have people or machines query it, generate reports from it, and so on.

And in both these cases, it’s often really convenient to have the basic device connect to some kind of small embeddable computer system. Like the Raspberry Pi $25 Linux computer, on which, conveniently enough, the Wolfram Language is bundled as part of its standard system software.

And if one’s running the Wolfram Language on the local machine connected to the device, there are mechanisms built into the language that allow both for immediate discovery, and for communication with the cloud. And more than that, with this setup there’s a symbolic representation of the device immediately accessible to the Wolfram Language in the cloud. Which means, for example, that parallel computation operations in the language can be used to aggregate data from networks of devices, and so on.

But, OK, so what are the kinds of devices one will be able to do all this with? Well, that’s what the Wolfram Connected Devices Project is intended to answer.

It’s certainly a very diverse list. Yes, there are lots of acceleration- and/or heart-rate-based health devices, and lots of GPS-based devices. But there are lots of other kinds of devices too, measuring scores of different physical quantities.

The devices range from tiny and cheap to huge and expensive. In the current list, about 2/3 of the devices are basically standalone, and 1/3 require continuous physical connectivity. The border of what counts as a “device”, as opposed to, for example, a component, is a bit fuzzy. Our operational definition for the Wolfram Connected Devices Project is that something can be considered a “connected device” if it measures some physical quantity, and can be connected to a general-purpose computer using some standard connector or connection technology.

For now, at least, we’ve excluded objects that in effect have complex custom electrical connectivity—for example, sensors that have the form factor of integrated circuits with lots of “legs” that have to be plugged into something. We’ve included, though, objects that have just a few wires coming out, that can for example immediately be plugged into GPIO ports, say on Raspberry Pi—or into analog ports on something like an Arduino connected to a Raspberry Pi.

The case of a device whose “interface” is just a few wires is usually one of the more straightforward. Things usually get more complicated when there are serial connections, USB, Bluetooth, and so on, involved. Sometimes devices make use of slightly higher-level protocols (like ANT+ or Bluetooth LE). But our experience so far is that ultimately there’s very little that’s truly standard. Each device requires custom work to create a driver, map properly to WDF, and so on.

The good news, of course, is that with the Wolfram Language we have an incredibly rich toolset for creating such drivers. Whether it’s by making use of the hundreds of import and export formats built into the language. Or all the mechanisms for calling external programs. Or the ways of handling time or place information. Or the algorithms for doing signal processing and time series analysis.

We’ve been interacting with many device manufacturers over the past year or so. And it’s been very encouraging. Because it seems as if the technology stack we’ve been building all these years is exactly what people need.

Countless times we’ve heard the same thing. ”We’re building this great device; now we want to do great things with the data from it—analyzing it, delivering it to customers, and so on.” Well, that’s exactly what we’re going to be set up to do. And we have both the deep technical capabilities that are needed, and the practical infrastructure.

The first step is to get a Wolfram Language driver for the device. Once that’s done, everything flows from it. Whether it’s just storing computable versions of data in the Wolfram Data Repository. Or doing analysis or reporting through the Wolfram Data Science Platform. Or creating dashboards. Or exposing the data through an API. Or an app. Or producing alerts from the data. Or aggregating lots of data. Or, for that matter, combining data from multiple devices—for example in effect to create “synthetic sensors”.

There are lots of possibilities. One can use Wolfram *SystemModeler* to have a model for a device, that can be used to run a simulation in real time. Or one can use the control systems functions in the Wolfram Language to create a controller with the device. Or in a quite different direction, one can use our Wolfram|Alpha-style linguistic capabilities to let end users make natural language or voice queries about data coming from a device.

There are several common end results that manufacturers of devices typically want. One is just that it should be possible to take data from the device and flow it into the Wolfram Data Science Platform, or *Mathematica*, or some other Wolfram Language system, for some kind of processing. Another is that the whole user infrastructure around the device is built using our technology. Say creating a portal or dashboard on the web, or on a mobile device, for every single user of a particular type of device. That can use either our cloud, or a private cloud. And instead of a dashboard, one can have a query mechanism. Say through natural language for humans—or through some structured API for machines or programs.

In some ways the situation with connected devices right now is probably something of a transient. Because we’re mostly thinking about connecting devices to computers, and having those run the Wolfram Language. But in the future, the Wolfram Language is going to be running on increasingly small and ubiquitous embedded computers. And I expect that more and more connected devices are just going to end up having the computer power to run the Wolfram Language inside—so that they can do all sorts of Wolfram Language processing completely internally.

Of course, even in this case there is still going to have to be Wolfram Language code that reads raw data from sensors and so on. So there’s no getting around building drivers, just like for the current way most connected devices are set up.

We’ve had the experience now of building quite a few drivers. For simple devices, it’s a quick process. But as devices start to have more commands, and can generate more sophisticated data, it takes longer. In many ways, it feels like a curation task. Given all the Wolfram Language tools we have, it’s rarely about the details of manipulating data. Rather it’s about knowing what the data means, and knitting it into the whole WDF and Wolfram Language framework.

We’re going to have a service for manufacturers to work with us to connect their devices to our system. We’re also planning to run a sequence of hackathon-like events where students and others can work with devices to set up connections (and often get free devices at the end!).

The goal is to get seamless integration of as many kinds of devices as possible. And the more kinds of devices we have, the more interesting things are going to get. Because it means we can connect to more and more aspects of the physical world, and be in a position to compute more and more about it.

Within the Wolfram Language we have a rich symbolic way to represent the world. And with connected devices we have a way to attach this representation to real things in the world. And to make the Wolfram Language become a complete language for the Internet of Things.

But today we’re taking a first step. Launching the Wolfram Connected Devices Project to start the process of curating just what things exist so far in the current generation of the Internet of Things.

Visit the Wolfram Connected Devices Project »

]]>