I'm not sure I get this... How often do you have a formula about a physical property that you don't know about. Sure it might be baffling - but you know what it might be *about*.

Wouldn't it be better to search for " *energy* related to *mass* ", where the * denote keywords? The you get given the formulae that link the properties you've searched for and get a wee explanation too.

If it is non-physical formulae such as some kind of abstract algebraic construct (like a calculus problem) - then I can see the need to figure out how to tackle it. You might enter the formula and be told that, to get 'x', you require to integrate by parts or some such.

Do you know what I mean - or is that a load of F(x)?

Being serious though, a big problem is that there is no
semantic standard for math equations. We have latex, but
that's purely typographic. There are people working on this
problem in the MathML community.

This would be potentially useful for the sciences where a
computer could sift through published papers and try to find
mathematical similarities between disparate disciplines.

// there is no semantic standard for math equations //

That's because not only are all mathematicians quite mad, but they get a vicious enjoyment from making it difficult for non-mathematicians.

It wasn't difficult to develop an arithmetic symbology that early, basic computers (and even some Games teachers) could understand. Algebraic symbology is more about problems with mathematicians than problems with mathematics.

I don't think it would be easy to explain, say, the Schrodinger equation in words of one syllable. You're either learning the subject properly or it just won't make sense to you.

For equations that are easy to understand, I generally find that Google will bring up some relevant pages that will help you understand it.