3 ms·
The quality of graphs is pretty bad. http://i.imgur.com/sRyxzN5.png http://i.imgur.com/sRyxzN5.png Compare it to WolframAlpha http://www.wolframalpha.com/inp
by ye 13y ago
The quality of graphs is pretty bad.
http://i.imgur.com/sRyxzN5.png http://i.imgur.com/sRyxzN5.png
Compare it to WolframAlpha
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=d%2Fdx%28sin%28x*x%29+%2B+log%28x+%2B1+%29%29 http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=d%2Fdx%28sin%28x*x%29+%...
- chm 13y agoThat's probably because the author is able to devote less resources per client than Wolfram?
- twodayslate 13y agoThe graph.tk graph is displaying from ~-300 to ~300 while the WolframAlpha graph is only displaying from -10 to 10. That is hardly a fair comparison.
- andrewryno 13y agoIf you change the x-axis to be roughly the same range as on graph.tk, it turns out like this: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=d%2Fdx%28sin%28x*x%29+%2B+log%28x+%2B1+%29%29+x%3D-300..300 http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=d%2Fdx%28sin%28x*x%29+%...
- jakebellacera 13y agoThis is actually a browser issue. AFAIK, Chrome and Firefox both round subpixels (e.g. 1.6px -> 2px). If you try doing the same thing in Safari you will notice that the graph looks as smooth as butter. http://i.imgur.com/XzDgKtP.png http://i.imgur.com/XzDgKtP.png