A172 > For example, if your student number is 10012345 and the sentence is > Fred An Ng went to Darwin on Saturday. > then your N is 5, the sentence has 3010 letters and the 5th letter > is A. After your program has run, memory cell E0 will contain 1D > (which is hex for 3010) and E1 will contain 41 (ASCII for A). I know nothing about SLIM programs but I can do it in HP4xG assembly If you want to know how it is done let me know. Also I have some questions: You do not seem to count spaces as letters but you include them in the 64 character length limit, right? What do you mean with 3010 letters I only count 30 (excluding the period at the end)? 1D is hex for 29 not 30 and most definitely not 3010 What do you count as letters? A-Z (#41-#5A) and a-z (#61-#7A) or do you also count numbers 0-9 (#30-#39) What about the . , ! ? % & etc chars? -- This message was written with 100% recycled electrons Pivo ==== assignment. I am fine with the logic and the flow of the program. But I am stuck with the code a bit. I need a little help with the assignment. Can anyone please help. I have to submit this on The problem: The problem depends on your student number. If the last digit of your student number is 0 then N=10, if it is 1 then N=11. Otherwise N is the last digit of your student number. A sentence (not a question or an exclamation) of less than 64 characters (including spaces) is converted to ASCII code and stored from memory location A0. Write a SLIM program that stores the number of letters in the sentence in memory location E0. It will also find the Nth letter in the sentence and store it in memory location E1. For example, if your student number is 10012345 and the sentence is Fred An Ng went to Darwin on Saturday. then your N is 5, the sentence has 3010 letters and the 5th letter is A. After your program has run, memory cell E0 will contain 1D (which is hex for 3010) and E1 will contain 41 (ASCII for A). donkarnash@yahoo.com ==== I've noticed my HP 49 is slower than my TI 89, which does not surprise me. What does surprise me is that simple command line tasks like entering characters can hang for several seconds. Other than 20 or so variables, memory is empty, so I don't see how garbage collection is at fault. I'm using the firmware version that shipped on the 49, 1.18. Steve ==== > I've noticed my HP 49 is slower than my TI 89, which does not surprise > me. Could be, particularly if you're just copying an algebraic expression into the calculator. But I guess that RPL input generally gives a useful answer to real-world problems faster. I hope that you using RPN mode; ALG mode seems pretty miserable to me. > What does surprise me is that simple command line tasks like > entering characters can hang for several seconds. Other than 20 or so > variables, memory is empty, so I don't see how garbage collection is > at fault. The reason that garbage collection could be the problem is that, in general, the more free memory you have, the longer each GC takes. If you have less free memory, GC will have to be done more frequently, but each GC will take less time. Also note that in general, the more you have on the stack, the longer GC takes, and if you have several objects on the stack that are really elements of a list (or other composite), GC will slow drastically. In general, don't keep things on the stack that you're not going to use. Use http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search?group=comp.sys.hp48 to search for much more information on gc or garbage collection. > I'm using the firmware version that shipped on the 49, 1.18. Definitely. See www.epita.fr/~avenar_j/hp/49.html or the ROM upgrade information on www.hpcalc.org for a list of improvements. In particular, one of the releases (I don't recall which one) changed the clock routine so that it doesn't use TEMPOB memory, and so GC won't be necessary so often. -- James ==== > > I'm using the firmware version that shipped on the 49, 1.18. > > Definitely. See www.epita.fr/~avenar_j/hp/49.html or the ROM upgrade > information on www.hpcalc.org for a list of improvements. In particular, > one of the releases (I don't recall which one) changed the clock routine > so that it doesn't use TEMPOB memory, and so GC won't be necessary so > often. I do display the clock, so that may have been the problem. Upgrading to 1.19-6 over the weekend seemed to have cured the problem. Overall I prefer the 49 over the 89, but I must say my 89 (HW 2.0 if that makes a difference) seems quicker for most operations. I'll do some more timings (with 1.19-6) and see if this is still true. Steve ==== > I do display the clock, so that may have been the problem. Upgrading > to 1.19-6 over the weekend seemed to have cured the problem. Overall I > prefer the 49 over the 89, but I must say my 89 (HW 2.0 if that makes > a difference) seems quicker for most operations. I'll do some more > timings (with 1.19-6) and see if this is still true. I have a good idea which operations the two calculators are good at, and which they aren't. If you write what you have most problems with, I may have a couple of comments. ==== > I've noticed my HP 49 is slower than my TI 89, which does not surprise > me. Which type of commands are slower on your HP49G? > What does surprise me is that simple command line tasks like > entering characters can hang for several seconds. Other than 20 or so > variables, memory is empty, so I don't see how garbage collection is > at fault. I'm using the firmware version that shipped on the 49, 1.18. > Should I upgrade to 1.19-6? Will performance improve? Absolutely - upgrade to v1.19.6. v1.18 stinks. ==== Can anyone help me with the codes that are needed to be sent to the SDL30 power level for communication with my HP48. Martin ==== I would appreciate it if you could help me in this RPL task: %%HP: T(3)A(D)F(.); << 81000 TICKS B->R DO WHILE KEY NOT REPEAT TICKS B->R DUP ROT - ROT MIN SWAP END UNTIL 13 == END DROP >> and I will expecte to get the minimum loop time(in the final program I add the 1 SRECV DROP2 commads to count pulses). but I always get a zero while I am pressing on C to stop. Tal ==== > >I appreciate it if you could help me >in this RPL task: > >Now, I'm trying to include a maximum >speed option. > >%%HP: T(3)A(D)F(.); ><< > 81000 TICKS B->R > DO > WHILE > KEY NOT > REPEAT > TICKS B->R DUP ROT - ROT MIN SWAP > END > UNTIL > 13 == > END > DROP >>> > >and I will expecte to get the minimum loop >time(in the final program I add the >1 SRECV DROP2 commads to count pulses). >but I always get a zero while I am pressing >on C to stop. The problem here is that you first convert to reals and then subtract. But, 64 digits binaries are much much more accurate than the 12 digits reals. Example: If you subtract #1D6DD03EC1478h from #1D6DD03EC1479h you get #1h. If you then convert it to real you get 1. But if you convert the binaries both to reals, then you get 5.17719718631E14 and 5.17719718631E14. Subtraction result then in 0. So modify your code as follows: %%HP: T(3)A(D)F(.); << 81000. TICKS DO WHILE KEY NOT REPEAT TICKS DUP ROT - B->R ROT MIN SWAP END UNTIL 13 == END DROP >> Greetings, Nick. By the way, I get a minimum of 250. ticks, that is 30.5 milliseconds per pass. Wow! Greetings, Nick. ==== All this with sysRPL is very nice but my question is: Is there any way to test programs writen in sysRPL on the computer without transfering them to my hp40g? I tried using emu48 and it emulates the calculator and i can upload the files from my hp40, but i cant load anything from disk!!? Transfering program to the calc. everytime i want to check something is a lot of work and it would be great if i could load the program directly to emulator? ==== The only way to transfer HP38/39/40 programs directly to Emu48 is using a Null-Modem cable connected at two serial ports of your PC. Therefore your PC must have two serial COM ports, that might be a problem on newer PC's. One of them must be COM1 or COM2 when using the HPComm software, Emu48 on the other side supports COM1-COM16. Christoph Ivan Senji schrieb im Newsbeitrag > All this with sysRPL is very nice but my question is: > Is there any way to test programs writen in sysRPL on the computer > without transfering them to my hp40g? I tried using emu48 and it > emulates the calculator and i can upload the files from my hp40, but i > cant load anything from disk!!? Transfering program to the calc. > everytime i want to check something is a lot of work and it would be > great if i could load the program directly to emulator? ==== > The only way to transfer HP38/39/40 programs directly to Emu48 is using a > Null-Modem cable connected at two serial ports of your PC. Therefore your PC > must have two serial COM ports, that might be a problem on newer PC's. One > of them must be COM1 or COM2 when using the HPComm software, Emu48 on the > other side supports COM1-COM16. I tried connecting 2 COM ports with calculator to calculator cable with serial adapters ob both sides, but i can only use COM1, the other ones don't work even if i disable the modem (which is on COM3) Transfering to my HP and from my HP to Emu48 is a lot of work for a everytime if it works! ==== > The only way to transfer HP38/39/40 programs directly to Emu48 is using a > Null-Modem cable connected at two serial ports of your PC. Therefore your PC > must have two serial COM ports, that might be a problem on newer PC's. One > of them must be COM1 or COM2 when using the HPComm software, Emu48 on the > other side supports COM1-COM16. I wonder how difficult it would be under Windows NT to create a virtual COM port that is doing just that. ==== Ivan Senji escribi.97 en el mensaje > All this with sysRPL is very nice but my question is: > Is there any way to test programs writen in sysRPL on the computer > without transfering them to my hp40g? I tried using emu48 and it > emulates the calculator and i can upload the files from my hp40, but i > cant load anything from disk!!? Transfering program to the calc. > everytime i want to check something is a lot of work and it would be > great if i could load the program directly to emulator? I frequently use Emu48 for testing my 48 programs. If you write them on the Emu, simply run them. If you are talking about downloaded programs, all I do is drag and drop, then install. Also, Emu 48 has load and save options in its menu... Perhaps I'm not understanding you... ==== You'd have to check with Christoph Giesslink to be sure but I'm reasonably certain that the answer is no. I think that the only way to upload is via a wire connection to the calculator. Basically the calculator (and hence the emulator) is only set up to accept communication in a certain way (via IR or cable: Kermit or Xmodem) and so reading from disk is not an option. Is it really so bad? Just leave HPGComm running and transfer to the calculator with RECV then turn around and SEND to the emulator. How hard is that? Total transfer maybe 45 seconds to 1 minute. > All this with sysRPL is very nice but my question is: > Is there any way to test programs writen in sysRPL on the computer > without transfering them to my hp40g? I tried using emu48 and it > emulates the calculator and i can upload the files from my hp40, but i > cant load anything from disk!!? Transfering program to the calc. > everytime i want to check something is a lot of work and it would be > great if i could load the program directly to emulator? > ==== I just finished version 2.1 of XCELL48 for the HP49. Because all the corrects all the bugs of the HP49 version that caused the calc to crash. Except for a Save as... function, nothing else has changed. I will start working on version 2.2 that will adress speed but I will accept any suggestions. version 2.1. Alain Robillard Reply-To: G Savage ==== > > I just finished version 2.1 of XCELL48 for the HP49. Because all the > corrects all the bugs of the HP49 version that caused the calc to crash. > Except for a Save as... function, nothing else has changed. I will start > working on version 2.2 that will adress speed but I will accept any > suggestions. > > version 2.1. > > > Alain Robillard > > ==== in my upcoming exam I've to cumulate numbers from a list and to calculate the percentage of the sum. Does anyone how to do this in a simple way? Is there a program that does the job quickly? Georg. ==== > > in my upcoming exam I've to cumulate numbers from a list and to > calculate the percentage of the sum. Does anyone how to do this in a > simple way? You can use GSLIST which gives the total of the list GS is the capital greek sigma (chr 133) it can be found in the MTH menu under LIST -- This message was written with 100% recycled electrons Pivo ==== Peter Geelhoed schrieb: > > >> >>in my upcoming exam I've to cumulate numbers from a list and to >>calculate the percentage of the sum. Does anyone how to do this in a >>simple way? > > > You can use GSLIST which gives the total of the list > > GS is the capital greek sigma (chr 133) > > it can be found in the MTH menu under LIST > > -- > This message was written with 100% recycled electrons > > Pivo > > > Unfortunately I need the cumulative subtotals of the list, not only the total. But thanks anyway. Georg. ==== > Unfortunately I need the cumulative subtotals of the list, not only the > total. > > But thanks anyway. Wou won't get rid of me that easily << DUP SIZE { } SWAP 1 SWAP FOR I OVER 1 I SUB 0 + GSLIST + NEXT SWAP GSLIST / >> {1 2 3 4} -> {.1 .3 .6 1.} is that more like it? -- This message was written with 100% recycled electrons Pivo ==== Peter Geelhoed schrieb: > > >>Unfortunately I need the cumulative subtotals of the list, not only the >>total. >> >>But thanks anyway. > > > Wou won't get rid of me that easily > > << DUP SIZE { } SWAP > 1 SWAP > FOR I > OVER 1 > I SUB > 0 + > GSLIST + > NEXT > SWAP GSLIST > / > > > {1 2 3 4} -> {.1 .3 .6 1.} > > is that more like it? > > > > -- > This message was written with 100% recycled electrons > > Pivo > > it's me again. It works great. Any idea how to output the subtotals ({1 2 3 4} -> {1 3 6 10} -> {.1 .3 .6 1.}) at the same time? I tried several things but didn't find a good solution. Georg. ==== > it's me again. It works great. Any idea how to output the subtotals ({1 > 2 3 4} -> {1 3 6 10} -> {.1 .3 .6 1.}) at the same time? > > I tried several things but didn't find a good solution. > of course: change the last SWAP to DUP ROT << DUP SIZE { } SWAP 1 SWAP FOR I OVER 1 I SUB 0 + GSLIST + NEXT DUP ROT GSLIST / >> -- This message was written with 100% recycled electrons Pivo ==== That's what I've been looking for. Georg. Peter Geelhoed schrieb: > > >>Unfortunately I need the cumulative subtotals of the list, not only the >>total. >> >>But thanks anyway. > > > Wou won't get rid of me that easily > > << DUP SIZE { } SWAP > 1 SWAP > FOR I > OVER 1 > I SUB > 0 + > GSLIST + > NEXT > SWAP GSLIST > / > > > {1 2 3 4} -> {.1 .3 .6 1.} > > is that more like it? > > > > -- > This message was written with 100% recycled electrons > > Pivo > > > ==== > Unfortunately I need the cumulative subtotals of the list, not only the > total. Cumulative subtotals? Example please? ==== > > > Darn, we really need some more innovation in the calculator world. I > > don't think TI is going to meet my expectations. > > Not even with third-party add-ons? Can the primitive memory management of the TI OS be fixed by third party add-on ? Can the autosimplification be disabled by add-ons ? Can all the troubles TI give to third party developpers can be fixed by add-ons ? And you seem to forget that HP calculators have much more third party add-ons than the TI calculators will ever have. And at least HP is/was not giving third party developpers as many troubles as TI is. ==== > > There are two problems: for the price, the TI-89, 92+, and 200 > > calculators should have at least either the same or better CAS > > The CAS is practically equally good on both. Most of the time TI > is faster and in most cases it is HP that is unable to solve > something, not TI, altough opposite examples also exist. Well,even TI users admit that out of the box the HP CAS is better. I find it personnaly better because it is not alterated by TI-OS limitations,it often has better algorithms and it doesn't have the often nuisible autosimplification of the TI-CAS(examples:try to work with small matrix whom elements are complex expressions with square roots or try to expand rationnal fractions whom roots of the denominator are complex numbers or expressions). > > and numeric capabilities than the HP, > > TI is more accurate in floating point. Yes but it is often much slower. Do you know that it is possible to write TI-Basic program barelly slower than the built-in functions for numeric computations ? I have written a TI-Basic function for doing matrix inversions and it is only 50 % slower than the built-in function for 15*15 random matrix. It is twice faster for diagonal matrix !!! Assuming the legendary slowness of the TI-Basic,it is a shame. > > or at least more CPU power, > > Motorola 68k is more powerfull than Saturn. Yep,but TI would need to use at least a 68040 to beat the HP49 in speed for everything because the TI engineers are unable to use a decent compiler,the right algorithms and to correctly optimise the software code. > > memory, > > Have you used all the memory of your HP49 or TI ? I have run out of memory with my TI92+ and there is only TI-Basic programs and normal variables(no C/ASM programs,no Flash apps) in my memory. Additionnaly the RAM memory is highly insufficient even for TI-Basic programming. > TI could have better memory management. > Current is worse than HP. It is an euphemism. > > But TI is wallowing at about 1/3 of this CPU speed, and memory could > > certainly be increased 4-fold. These improvements would allow more > > power to be packed into the CAS. > > By increasing 16 fold it would improve even better. That is not a reasonable > price range of $500 is not competitive to the laptops. Well with the number of calculators TI sold,it could produce easily a TI68k with a faster CPU,at least 1 MB of RAM and much more Flash ROM than the Voyage 200 and at even a lower price. Don't forget that all TI calculators are highly overpriced and use almost obsolete hardware(less archaic than HP but,you get the idea). > > The second problem is that the HP is much more powerful mathematically, > > Any examples ? This statement is untrue. Each calc has it's strengths and > weaknesses. It happens that out of the box the HP software has much less weaknesses and much more strengths than TI software. The OS core is much more powerful including memory management. The object oriented design of the HP OS is way superior to the archaic design of the TI OS. The HP User Interface is much more flexible and customisable. The HP software use most of the time better algorithms and is much more optimised,etc... And overall you can do much more with the HP than with the TI. Only TI engineers and TI worshippers can believe the opposite. > > yet my reading of the manual makes me a bit displeased as to how easy it > > seems to learn it. The TI user interface seems much easier, but I could > > be wrong here because I haven't much experience with either calculators, > > only TI-83s. > > You are wrong. One of the great advantages of HP is that it's interface > allows much easier and deeper integration of software, where TI seems > rather as a group of unrelated pieces of software that have hard time > to talk to each other. Here we agree. > > -- > > _____________________ > > Christopher R. Carlen > > crobc@earthlink.net > > Jack ==== > Well,even TI users admit that out of the box the HP CAS is better. > I find it personnaly better because it is not alterated by TI-OS > limitations,it often has better algorithms and it doesn't have the > often nuisible autosimplification of the TI-CAS(examples:try to work > with small matrix whom elements are complex expressions with square > roots or try to expand rationnal fractions whom roots of the > denominator are complex numbers or expressions). I don't. Out of the box it is TI CAS that is usually more faster and better. Especially when it comes down to long equations. Long equations which are normally the product of chain of calculations are rather norm than the exception unless you are just very low level beginer in math (but then why you even need advanced calculator). HP with long equations not only slows down to the totally useless speed and also the display becomes amazingly insufficient to communicate anything usefull especially when combined with the fact, that HP by default not only is incapable to simplify expressions, but also very often is incapable to do so with EVAL and similar commands. The simple number of functions that HP suppose to have more over TI does not convince me that HP is better. To the contrary, most of them are exotic functions needed only rarely and most of them can be replaced with simple macros on any other machine. There are some of the HP advanteges, like those that you mentioned but what usefullness is of it, if it only practically works on the short formulas and makes calculator die on the long ones. By the way, in time when TI is done with chain of complex formulas and even manages to simplfy them, HP usually is still working on the first one. So much for the advnaced CAS. > > > and numeric capabilities than the HP, > > > > TI is more accurate in floating point. > > Yes but it is often much slower. That is in general not true. It is TI Basic that is very slow. Most of the built in floating point calculations are usually faster than HP. You can see that when ploting functions that require complex floating point math to produce answer. > Do you know that it is possible to write TI-Basic program barelly > slower than the built-in functions for numeric computations ? > I have written a TI-Basic function for doing matrix inversions and it > is only 50 % slower than the built-in function for 15*15 random > matrix. > It is twice faster for diagonal matrix !!! > Assuming the legendary slowness of the TI-Basic,it is a shame. Matrix on TI is in fact very slow. For some reason TI implemented matrix as always symbolic even if the entire matrix has real or complex numbers. That is why when implemented in TI Basic as numerical matrix computation you almost reach TI built in speed. But try symbolic matrix on TI and on HP and you will find out that often TI outruns HP in symbolic matrix despite the fact that TI manages to simplify expressions and HP doesn't even try to do so. True, that numerical matrix is faster on HP. > > Motorola 68k is more powerfull than Saturn. > > Yep,but TI would need to use at least a 68040 to beat the HP49 in > speed for everything because the TI engineers are unable to use a > decent compiler,the right algorithms and to correctly optimise the > software code. Nonsense. With 68K TI generally outruns HP49 in most functions despite the fact, that TI Basic is very slow and floting point is implemented in BCD never intended to be mainstream M68K data format. > > Have you used all the memory of your HP49 or TI ? > > I have run out of memory with my TI92+ and there is only TI-Basic > programs and normal variables(no C/ASM programs,no Flash apps) in my > memory. You are unique. In your case HP49 is a better machine. > Additionnaly the RAM memory is highly insufficient even for TI-Basic > programming. What do you mean ? Do you need flash RAM or what ? ;-) > Well with the number of calculators TI sold,it could produce easily a > TI68k with a faster CPU,at least 1 MB of RAM and much more Flash ROM > than the Voyage 200 and at even a lower price. > Don't forget that all TI calculators are highly overpriced and use > almost obsolete hardware(less archaic than HP but,you get the idea). And how exactly do you know that ? Are you working for the internal TI not a mass market product as one would think. They are sold in a significantly lower numbers than a typical engineering calculator. Short production series often drive high cost. > > > The second problem is that the HP is much more powerful mathematically, > > > > Any examples ? This statement is untrue. Each calc has it's strengths and > > weaknesses. > > It happens that out of the box the HP software has much less > weaknesses and much more strengths than TI software. > The OS core is much more powerful including memory management. OS core has nothing to do with mathematically powerfull. > The object oriented design of the HP OS is way superior to the archaic > design of the TI OS. Object oriented has nothing to do with mathematically powerfull. > The HP User Interface is much more flexible and customisable. User interface has nothing to do with mathematically powerfull. > The HP software use most of the time better algorithms and is much > more optimised,etc... Not true. There are examples where TI can solve problems which HP cant' and opposite. Especially in integrals it is TI which usually does one when HP can't. > And overall you can do much more with the HP than with the TI. > Only TI engineers and TI worshippers can believe the opposite. Not true. Jack ==== > > > Well,even TI users admit that out of the box the HP CAS is better. > > I find it personnaly better because it is not alterated by TI-OS > > limitations,it often has better algorithms and it doesn't have the > > often nuisible autosimplification of the TI-CAS(examples:try to work > > with small matrix whom elements are complex expressions with square > > roots or try to expand rationnal fractions whom roots of the > > denominator are complex numbers or expressions). > > I don't. Out of the box it is TI CAS that is usually more faster and better. > Especially when it comes down to long equations. Long equations > which are normally the product of chain of calculations are rather norm than > the exception unless you are just very low level beginer in math (but then why > you even need advanced calculator). HP with long equations not only slows > down to the totally useless speed and also the display becomes amazingly > insufficient to communicate anything usefull especially when combined with > the fact, that HP by default not only is incapable to simplify expressions, > but also very often is incapable to do so with EVAL and similar commands. > The simple number of functions that HP suppose to have more over TI does > not convince me that HP is better. To the contrary, most of them are exotic > functions needed only rarely and most of them can be replaced with simple > macros on any other machine. There are some of the HP advanteges, like > those that you mentioned but what usefullness is of it, if it only practically > works on the short formulas and makes calculator die on the long ones. > By the way, in time when TI is done with chain of complex formulas and even > manages to simplfy them, HP usually is still working on the first one. > So much for the advnaced CAS. Here we highly disagree and i don't think that we can agree one day. The HP CAS give abilities to manipulate symbolic expressions at the level which can only be almost match when you use the EQW Flash apps on the TI. Out the box the TI simply can't. The autosimplification of the TI simply inputs such manipulations and the unability to desactive it will always hold back the TI CAS. And don't tell me that the TI is even remotely as powerful as the HP for trigonometry,integer and polynomials arithmetics. About equations that highly depend of the kind of equations. And in my experience it is the TI which dramatically slow down when one works with big expressions especially one with complex objects. > > > > and numeric capabilities than the HP, > > > > > > TI is more accurate in floating point. > > > > Yes but it is often much slower. > > That is in general not true. It is TI Basic that is very slow. > Most of the built in floating point calculations are usually > faster than HP. You can see that when ploting functions > that require complex floating point math to produce answer. Well,when doing 3D plotting and 3D rotation the HP49 is significantly faster. In my experecience the HP is generally faster. > > Do you know that it is possible to write TI-Basic program barelly > > slower than the built-in functions for numeric computations ? > > I have written a TI-Basic function for doing matrix inversions and it > > is only 50 % slower than the built-in function for 15*15 random > > matrix. > > It is twice faster for diagonal matrix !!! > > Assuming the legendary slowness of the TI-Basic,it is a shame. > > Matrix on TI is in fact very slow. For some reason TI implemented matrix > as always symbolic even if the entire matrix has real or complex numbers. > That is why when implemented in TI Basic as numerical matrix > computation you almost reach TI built in speed. But try symbolic > matrix on TI and on HP and you will find out that often TI outruns > HP in symbolic matrix despite the fact that TI manages to simplify > expressions and HP doesn't even try to do so. True, that numerical > matrix is faster on HP. I can't believe that you still think that TI software converts numeric matrix to symbolic to do computations then converts it back to numeric format before displaying results. If TI software was able of such high performances for even symbolic manipulations,i won't complain about TI software because even if it would still suck for numeric matrix computations,it would be incredibly powerful for symbolic computations. The truth is that TI uses unapropriate algorithms for numeric matrix computations. Why the hell do you think that they use different algorithm for numeric and symbolic QR and LU decomposition(read the TI92+ guidebook) ? If you don't believe me,ask to Bhuvanesh or even to TI engineers if you can. The slowness of TI matrix computations is the combo of unapropriate algorithms and of 16 digits BCD floating point numbers with a CPU never design to handle BCD computations to begin with. > > > Motorola 68k is more powerfull than Saturn. > > > > Yep,but TI would need to use at least a 68040 to beat the HP49 in > > speed for everything because the TI engineers are unable to use a > > decent compiler,the right algorithms and to correctly optimise the > > software code. > > Nonsense. With 68K TI generally outruns HP49 in most functions > despite the fact, that TI Basic is very slow and floting point is > implemented in BCD never intended to be mainstream M68K data > format. This is what you think. Btw have you ever use HP49 with the last ROM ? > > Additionnaly the RAM memory is highly insufficient even for TI-Basic > > programming. > > What do you mean ? Do you need flash RAM or what ? ;-) No,i mean RAM. Unless,i am wrong it is not possible to use Flash ROM as virtual memory on the TI. > > Well with the number of calculators TI sold,it could produce easily a > > TI68k with a faster CPU,at least 1 MB of RAM and much more Flash ROM > > than the Voyage 200 and at even a lower price. > > Don't forget that all TI calculators are highly overpriced and use > > almost obsolete hardware(less archaic than HP but,you get the idea). > > And how exactly do you know that ? Are you working for the internal TI > not a mass market product as one would think. They are sold in a significantly > lower numbers than a typical engineering calculator. Short production series > often drive high cost. No,i don't work for the TI finance departement but i know that TI does significant profit over calculators sales(i have heard of dozens of millions us $ of profits) and sell highly overpriced calculators. In Europe: The TI83+ is 15 euros more expensive than the more powerful HP40. And the TI83+ SE is 10 % more expensive than the significanlty more powerful Algebra FX 2.0. The TI89 is almost as expensive as the HP49(13 euros of difference). By the way the Palm m100 is sold at almost half the price of the TI89. And you tell me that TI calculators are not overpriced ? > > > > The second problem is that the HP is much more powerful mathematically, > > > > > > Any examples ? This statement is untrue. Each calc has it's strengths and > > > weaknesses. > > > > It happens that out of the box the HP software has much less > > weaknesses and much more strengths than TI software. > > The OS core is much more powerful including memory management. > > OS core has nothing to do with mathematically powerfull. It does. Do you really think that the unability of TI OS to use bigger than 32 KB objects or over 64 KB for expression stack don't limits the mathematical power of the TI68k ? If so explain me why TI89/TI92+ are unable to solve problem that require less than their availlable RAM to solve. > > The object oriented design of the HP OS is way superior to the archaic > > design of the TI OS. > > Object oriented has nothing to do with mathematically powerfull. It does have an effect on computer algebra programming with TI-Basic. This is why you must give an initial value to local variables before useing them in TI-Basic programs and functions while you didn't to on the TI92. > > The HP User Interface is much more flexible and customisable. > > User interface has nothing to do with mathematically powerfull. Well,in my experience it is much easier and faster to view big symbolic results on the HP. And the built-in EQW and Matrix writer enables operations which are impossible on the TI without the third party EQW. Have you ever tried to edit big expressions results or Matrix with the command line ? A pain in ass,isn't it ? > > The HP software use most of the time better algorithms and is much > > more optimised,etc... > > Not true. There are examples where TI can solve problems which HP > cant' and opposite. Especially in integrals it is TI which usually > does one when HP can't. I don't limit myself to integrals. Try for example Taylor series on both calculators. Let me give you one that the TI68k can't solve because of both wrong algorithm and archaic memory management: taylor(tan(tanh(x))-tanh(tan(x)),x,1,7) Try also polynomials factorisation or matrix computations either symbolic or numeric. As you are at that compare both tools without bias for algebra and calculus then perhaps you will see what i mean. And about integrals why then the TI is unable to compute the anti-derivative of functions such as: f'(x)*exp(f(x)) where f(x) is for example a polynomial ? > > And overall you can do much more with the HP than with the TI. > > Only TI engineers and TI worshippers can believe the opposite. > > Not true. Have you really exploited the HP49 or do you use it only as a HP48 replacement ? > Jack ==== > Here we highly disagree and i don't think that we can agree one day. > The HP CAS give abilities to manipulate symbolic expressions at the > level which can only be almost match when you use the EQW Flash apps > on the TI. I consider autosimplification as an advantage. Lack of it is for me a serious HP fault as a calculator. Keep in mind, that I do not consider advanced calculator as a math research tool. For this I use Mathematica. Calculator is rather a practical tool for the engineering work. I'm not interested in the complicated unsimplified formulas that need significant effort and enormous time on HP49 to reduce them to the readable form. > Out the box the TI simply can't. The problem with HP on the other hand is that in most practical cases it can't simplify or simplification consume so much time, that the user gives up the effort long before the equation has any reasonable form. away long time ago. > The autosimplification of the TI simply inputs such manipulations and > the unability to desactive it will always hold back the TI CAS. > And don't tell me that the TI is even remotely as powerful as the HP > for trigonometry,integer and polynomials arithmetics. For any practical purposes it is. I don't consider exotic functions rarely used as a big deal. > About equations that highly depend of the kind of equations. > And in my experience it is the TI which dramatically slow down when > one works with big expressions especially one with complex objects. With such equations HP simply dies. > > That is in general not true. It is TI Basic that is very slow. > > Most of the built in floating point calculations are usually > > faster than HP. You can see that when ploting functions > > that require complex floating point math to produce answer. > > Well,when doing 3D plotting and 3D rotation the HP49 is significantly > faster. I wasn't talking about 3D plot. 3D plot for all the practicall purposes is a joke and a toy for kids on both calculators. Have you ever used your calculators for any real work or you just play with the new toy ? > In my experecience the HP is generally faster. In mine the opposite is true (keep in mind, that I use HP everyday for other advantages). > I can't believe that you still think that TI software converts numeric > matrix to symbolic to do computations then converts it back to numeric > format before displaying results. Compare the timing on simple symbolic and real, small arrays. The timing is very similar. Even if the same algorithm is used the real array should be many times faster (dur to the automatic reduction) than symbolic but it is not. Please, explain. > If TI software was able of such high performances for even symbolic > manipulations,i won't complain about TI software because even if it > would still suck for numeric matrix computations,it would be > incredibly powerful for symbolic computations. And it is. It outruns HP in symbolic matrix math easily. > > Nonsense. With 68K TI generally outruns HP49 in most functions > > despite the fact, that TI Basic is very slow and floting point is > > implemented in BCD never intended to be mainstream M68K data > > format. > > This is what you think. > Btw have you ever use HP49 with the last ROM ? Of course. I use it everyday. > > > Additionnaly the RAM memory is highly insufficient even for TI-Basic > > > programming. > > > > What do you mean ? Do you need flash RAM or what ? ;-) > > No,i mean RAM. Please explain, why RAM is insufficient for programming ? My PC runs programs on RAM just fine. > Unless,i am wrong it is not possible to use Flash ROM as virtual > memory on the TI. It would be a nonsenes to use flash RAM as a virtual memory. Flash RAM is not only slower than regular RAM but also more expensive. > No,i don't work for the TI finance departement but i know that TI does > significant profit over calculators sales(i have heard of dozens of > millions us $ of profits) and sell highly overpriced calculators. Unfortunately the problem with rumors is that those are usually not true. Corporations do not publish their profits made on the particular product and it is impossible to know it outside of the financial departament of such company. > In Europe: > The TI83+ is 15 euros more expensive than the more powerful HP40. > And the TI83+ SE is 10 % more expensive than the significanlty more > powerful Algebra FX 2.0. Pontiac Grand Prix GTP is more powerfull than BMW 528 but is cost significantly less. The power of the machine is only part of the equation. > The TI89 is almost as expensive as the HP49(13 euros of difference). > By the way the Palm m100 is sold at almost half the price of the TI89. > And you tell me that TI calculators are not overpriced ? Palm is sold without any advanced software and you are talking only about models that are actually on sale, because Palm Inc is getting rid of them. New Palm models cost more than advanced calc. Competing windows CE machines usually cost twice as much as any advanced calculator in the cheapest version. Beside this plams are sold in much larger series than advanced calculators. Mass production lowers the cost since Ford Model T. > > OS core has nothing to do with mathematically powerfull. > > It does. > Do you really think that the unability of TI OS to use bigger than 32 > KB objects or over 64 KB for expression stack don't limits the > mathematical power of the TI68k ? I don't. It's exotic case, proof of using inappropriate tool for the job. For such large expression you should use PC based software. Even if you can generate such expression on the HP49 it will probably take 10 minutes or better for a single command when you trying to do anything with it. > If so explain me why TI89/TI92+ are unable to solve problem that > require less than their availlable RAM to solve. Why HP is unable to integrate many verys simple itegrals ? > > Object oriented has nothing to do with mathematically powerfull. > > It does have an effect on computer algebra programming with TI-Basic. > This is why you must give an initial value to local variables before > useing them in TI-Basic programs and functions while you didn't to on > the TI92. Usage of the uninitialized variables is a big no-no in any advanced programming. Most of the modern compilers will issue a warning of bad programming practice if they discover uninitialized variable during compile time. Ask any programmer if you don't belive. > > > The HP User Interface is much more flexible and customisable. > > > > User interface has nothing to do with mathematically powerfull. > > Well,in my experience it is much easier and faster to view big > symbolic results on the HP. ROTFL. First you need to simplify them. After several minutes of HP gard work maybe you will be able to see them in a readable form. > And the built-in EQW and Matrix writer enables operations which are > impossible on the TI without the third party EQW. > Have you ever tried to edit big expressions results or Matrix with the > command line ? Actually that is the only practical way to simplify the large equations within reasonable time on HP. Of course, one has to abandon built in useless tools for simplification due to their total uselessness and edit text directly using old paper and pencil approach and it's own head. > A pain in ass,isn't it ? It is. I prefer, when calculator does it for me, like TI92 does. Jack ==== > > > Here we highly disagree and i don't think that we can agree one day. > > The HP CAS give abilities to manipulate symbolic expressions at the > > level which can only be almost match when you use the EQW Flash apps > > on the TI. > > I consider autosimplification as an advantage. Lack of it is for me > a serious HP fault as a calculator. Keep in mind, that I do not > consider advanced calculator as a math research tool. For this > I use Mathematica. Calculator is rather a practical tool for the > engineering work. I'm not interested in the complicated unsimplified > formulas that need significant effort and enormous time on HP49 to > reduce them to the readable form. This is why,i think that we can't agree. To counter what you say,the TI autosimplification can generates awful results and takes much more time than even the worse cases of the HP. I guess that you haven't work a lot with expressions involving complex and square roots on the TI92+. I have done it and i can tell you that the results are awful. > > Out the box the TI simply can't. > > The problem with HP on the other hand is that in most practical cases > it can't simplify or simplification consume so much time, that the user > gives up the effort long before the equation has any reasonable form. > away long time ago. It is true that the HP doesn't have built-in advanced autosimplification but i prefer doing simplification myself. Sometimes,it is painful but at least you can control what you are doing. For example sometimes you need results with complex numbers at the denominator(expansion of rationnal fractions for example) and it is impossible to achieve it on the TI. > > The autosimplification of the TI simply inputs such manipulations and > > the unability to desactive it will always hold back the TI CAS. > > And don't tell me that the TI is even remotely as powerful as the HP > > for trigonometry,integer and polynomials arithmetics. > > For any practical purposes it is. I don't consider exotic functions rarely > used as a big deal. To convert an expression with sincos to an expression with tan or halftan is exotic,perhaps ? What about having a complex expression not splitted between the real and the imaginary part ? It is also exotic ? > > About equations that highly depend of the kind of equations. > > And in my experience it is the TI which dramatically slow down when > > one works with big expressions especially one with complex objects. > > With such equations HP simply dies. I don't think so. Just try to do some computations with 2*2 or 3*3 matrix whom elements contains both square roots and complex numbers and tell me how fast is the TI with them. > I wasn't talking about 3D plot. 3D plot for all the practicall purposes > is a joke and a toy for kids on both calculators. Have you > ever used your calculators for any real work or you just play > with the new toy ? I never play with calculators. If i wanted to play,i would use PC CAS. 3D plotting on calculators are interesting to quickly have an idea of what a 3D plot look like. For people without computers or without specific applications,it is probably the only way to work with 3D plots. Unless you think that they haven't the right to ? > > In my experecience the HP is generally faster. > > In mine the opposite is true (keep in mind, that I use HP everyday > for other advantages). I was talking of numeric computations. > > I can't believe that you still think that TI software converts numeric > > matrix to symbolic to do computations then converts it back to numeric > > format before displaying results. > > Compare the timing on simple symbolic and real, small arrays. The > timing is very similar. Even if the same algorithm is used > the real array should be many times faster (dur to the automatic > reduction) than symbolic but it is not. Please, explain. What arrays are you talking of ? 2*2 or 3*3 ? Because with 10*10 numeric matrix: the built-in function takes 23 s. With the method you are talking of the TI92+ HW1 need at least 17 min to convert the matrix to an exact one,compute the rest and computes a numeric approximation of the results. Even with 5*5 numeric matrix: the built-in function takes 3 s your method takes 33 s. Btw i don't use matrix generates by randmat but a matrix generates by randmat than mutiply by 101./109. Thus you get a matrix whom each elements has at 13 digits after the dot. The TI-Cas used the same algorithm for symbolic and numeric matrix computations(besides for LU,QR decompositions and eigvc,eigvl). But with numeric matrix the TI software use floating point arithmetic. > > If TI software was able of such high performances for even symbolic > > manipulations,i won't complain about TI software because even if it > > would still suck for numeric matrix computations,it would be > > incredibly powerful for symbolic computations. > > And it is. It outruns HP in symbolic matrix math easily. No,kidding with an over 10 times faster CPU,it is even curious that the HP49 was still able to outperform it for some symbolic computations. > Please explain, why RAM is insufficient for programming ? My PC runs > programs on RAM just fine. The 256 KB of RAM of the TI68k are insufficient for the kind of programs i used to write in TI-basic because some of these programs generates object which can't be stored in the Flash ROM as they needed to be modified. Additionnaly some of the Flash apps use significant amount of RAM. The Voyage 200 has almost only 128 KB of RAM availlable because of some preloaded Flash apps. > > No,i don't work for the TI finance departement but i know that TI does > > significant profit over calculators sales(i have heard of dozens of > > millions us $ of profits) and sell highly overpriced calculators. > > Unfortunately the problem with rumors is that those are usually not true. > Corporations do not publish their profits made on the particular product > and it is impossible to know it outside of the financial departament of such > company. I can't give you my sources(last times i did one of them has had some troubles with HP) but they are very reliable. > > > OS core has nothing to do with mathematically powerfull. > > > > It does. > > Do you really think that the unability of TI OS to use bigger than 32 > > KB objects or over 64 KB for expression stack don't limits the > > mathematical power of the TI68k ? > > I don't. It's exotic case, proof of using inappropriate tool for the job. > For such large expression you should use PC based software. > Even if you can generate such expression on the HP49 > it will probably take 10 minutes or better for a single command >when you trying to do anything with it. I am not talking of exotic cases. Because of autosimplification and/or wrong alogrithms some pretty simple problems can generates incredibly big intermediate results and thus a better memory management and more RAM become very important. If you have already done computer algebra programming,you should know what i am talking of. > > If so explain me why TI89/TI92+ are unable to solve problem that > > require less than their availlable RAM to solve. > > Why HP is unable to integrate many verys simple itegrals ? Alogrithms problem,nothing to do with what we are talking of here. > > > Object oriented has nothing to do with mathematically powerfull. > > > > It does have an effect on computer algebra programming with TI-Basic. > > This is why you must give an initial value to local variables before > > useing them in TI-Basic programs and functions while you didn't to on > > the TI92. > > Usage of the uninitialized variables is a big no-no in any > advanced programming. Most of the modern compilers will issue > a warning of bad programming practice if they discover uninitialized > variable during compile time. Ask any programmer if you don't belive. There you are comparing apples and oranges. Computer algebra programming is quite different of other kind programmings. Do you use enavaluated results in something else than computer algebra ? > > > > The HP User Interface is much more flexible and customisable. > > > > > > User interface has nothing to do with mathematically powerfull. > > > > Well,in my experience it is much easier and faster to view big > > symbolic results on the HP. > > ROTFL. First you need to simplify them. After several minutes of > HP gard work maybe you will be able to see them in a readable form. No comment. > > And the built-in EQW and Matrix writer enables operations which are > > impossible on the TI without the third party EQW. > > Have you ever tried to edit big expressions results or Matrix with the > > command line ? > > Actually that is the only practical way to simplify the large equations > within reasonable time on HP. Of course, one has to abandon built > in useless tools for simplification due to their total uselessness > and edit text directly using old paper and pencil approach and it's > own head. My words would go beyond my thoughts so i prefer just say: No comment. > > A pain in ass,isn't it ? > > It is. I prefer, when calculator does it for me, like TI92 does. Perhaps the TI92 is able to edit expressions and matrix without you typeing on the keyboard ? Sorry,i couldn't resist. > Jack ==== > This is why,i think that we can't agree. > To counter what you say,the TI autosimplification can generates awful > results and takes much more time than even the worse cases of the HP. > I guess that you haven't work a lot with expressions involving complex > and square roots on the TI92+. > I have done it and i can tell you that the results are awful. To the contrary. Try to solve the following problem. Imagine for example that you have three points on the ellipse that is described by the equation: x^2/a^2 + y^2/b^2 = 1 Those points are for any given parameter t located as follows (rectangular coordinates): P1: x1 = a*cos(t); y1 = b*sin(t) P2: x2 = a*cos(t+2*pi/3); y2 = b*sin(t+2*pi/3) P3: x3 = a*cos(t-2*pi/3); y3 = b*sin(t-2*pi/3) where xn,yn are coordinates for each point, t is the angular parameter and a and b are main axis of the ellipse. Assuming (skip the proof) that for any given value of the parameter t there is exactly one point P such that when connected with the points P1,P2 and P3 with lines, the angles between each combination of the three lines is equal 2*pi/3. Now find an equation of the curve that is the set of all such points P for all possible values of angular parameter t. Such problem is relatively easy to solve TI89/92 and with autosimplification and quickly leads to the solution. With HP49 good luck. I hope, you can do simple analytical geometry up to conical sections curves. By the way, this is a real problem in mechanical engineering and affects dynamical imbalance of the front wheel drive autmotive halfshafts that use specific inner CV joint. For the fun of it also try to find out the angle that is between line created by points P-P1 ands axis x. This might give you a clue, why such joint is a true kinematical CV joint but not exactly dynamically balanced when exposed to some angle. Universal (Cardan) joint does the opposite. Jack ==== > To the contrary. Try to solve the following problem. > Imagine for example that you have three points on the ellipse that > is described by the equation: > > x^2/a^2 + y^2/b^2 = 1 > > Those points are for any given parameter t located as follows (rectangular coordinates): > > P1: x1 = a*cos(t); y1 = b*sin(t) > P2: x2 = a*cos(t+2*pi/3); y2 = b*sin(t+2*pi/3) > P3: x3 = a*cos(t-2*pi/3); y3 = b*sin(t-2*pi/3) > > where xn,yn are coordinates for each point, t is the angular parameter > and a and b are main axis of the ellipse. Assuming (skip the proof) > that for any given value of the parameter t there is exactly one point P > such that when connected with the points P1,P2 and P3 with lines, the > angles between each combination of the three lines is equal 2*pi/3. Now > find an equation of the curve that is the set of all such points P for all > possible values of angular parameter t. > > Such problem is relatively easy to solve TI89/92 and with autosimplification and > quickly leads to the solution. With HP49 good luck. I hope, you can do simple > analytical geometry up to conical sections curves. > Could you give the method you are using on a Ti89/92? I have solved the problem with a desktop software and it seems not really feasible with a calculator. The method I used is naive. First set a:=1 which does not change the problem Then trig expand the coordinates of P2 and P3. Let M(x,y) be the solution, then we have to solve d(M,P1)^2*d(M,P2)^2=4*scalar_product(vector(M,P1),vector(M,P2)) and the same equation with P2 replaced by P3 (taking squares remove all sqrt except sqrt(3) and we have a polynomial system that symbolic solvers can reduce using Groebner basis) Hence the system, after adding and substracting the 2 equations to remove the sqrt(3) (6*(cos(t))^4*b^4+(-(12*(cos(t))^4))*b^2+6*(cos(t))^4+24*(cos(t))^3*b^2*x+(- (24*(cos(t))^3))*x+(-(3*(cos(t))^2))*b^4+24*(cos(t))^2*b^3*sin(t)*y+(-(18*(co s(t))^2))*b^2*x^2+(-(18*(cos(t))^2))*b^2*y^2+12*(cos(t))^2*b^2+(-(24*(cos(t)) ^2))*b*sin(t)*y+18*(cos(t))^2*x^2+18*(cos(t))^2*y^2-9*(cos(t))^2+(-(30*cos(t) ))*b^2*x+12*cos(t)*x^3+12*cos(t)*x*y^2+18*cos(t)*x-3*b^4+(-(6*b^3))*sin(t)*y+ 21*b^2*x^2+9*b^2*y^2+3*b^2+12*b*x^2*sin(t)*y+12*b*sin(t)*y^3+(-(6*b))*sin(t)* y-12*x^4+(-(24*x^2))*y^2-9*x^2-12*y^4+3*y^2)/2 =0 -3*(cos(t))^3*sin(t)*b^4-(-(6*(cos(t))^3))*sin(t)*b^2-3*(cos(t))^3*sin(t)-(- (3*cos(t)))*sin(t)*b^4-9*cos(t)*sin(t)*b^2*x^2-9*cos(t)*sin(t)*b^2*y^2-3*cos( t)*sin(t)*b^2-(-(9*cos(t)))*sin(t)*x^2-(-(9*cos(t)))*sin(t)*y^2-(-(6*cos(t))) *b*x^2*y-(-(6*cos(t)))*b*y^3-6*cos(t)*b*y-(-(6*sin(t)))*b^2*x-6*sin(t)*x^3-6* sin(t)*x*y^2=0 It requires about 5 s. and 3M of RAM to solve with maple, therefore I would consider this type of problem as unsolvable with a calc with around 200K of RAM. Unless there is some trick to make the problem easier... BTW, when comparing TI and HP CAS you often said that there are many exotic functions on the 49. Could you be more precise? ==== > Could you give the method you are using on a Ti89/92? > I have solved the problem with a desktop software and it seems not > really > feasible with a calculator. Not for TI89/92. You get an answer in about 10 minutes. The steps entered onto the calculator are marked below by (#) Here is the method: First assume, that you have three (non coincident) points on the plane P1, P2, P3. The points have rectangular coordinates: P1: (XX1, YY1); P2: (XX2, YY2); P3: (XX3, YY3) Through the point P1 put a line in the angular direction of s. The parametric equation of the line (parameter u) is: XP1 = XX1 + u * cos(s) YP1 = YY1 + u * sin(s) Through the point P2 put the line in the angular direction s + 2 * PI / 3. The parametric equation of the second line (parameter v) is: XP2 = XX2 + v * cos(s + 2 * PI / 3) YP2 = YY2 + v * sin(s + 2 * PI / 3) Through the point P3 put the line in the angular direction s - 2 * PI / 3. The parametric equation of the third line (parameter w) is: XP3 = XX3 + w * cos(s + 2 * PI / 3) YP3 = YY3 + w * sin(s + 2 * PI / 3) It's easy to notice, that the lines are at 120 degrees (2*PI/3) to each other. The goal is to find such direction s, that the three above lines intersect in one point. Above equations are sufficient to find it. They have four unknowns: u,v,w and s. To find s, one has to solve four following equations: XP1 = XP2 YP1 = YP2 XP1 = XP3 YP1 = YP3 Switch on TI92+ and enter the equations as follows: Step 01 # tExpand( XX1 + u * cos(s) - ( XX2 + v * cos(s + 2 * PI / 3) ) = 0 ) * 2 STO> e1 Step 02 # tExpand( YY1 + u * sin(s) - ( YY2 + v * sin(s + 2 * PI / 3) ) = 0 ) * 2 STO> e2 Step 03 # tExpand( XX1 + u * cos(s) - ( XX3 + w * cos(s - 2 * PI / 3) ) = 0 ) * 2 STO> e3 Step 04 # tExpand( YY1 + u * sin(s) - ( YY3 + w * sin(s - 2 * PI / 3) ) = 0 ) * 2 STO> e4 The tExpand and multiplication by 2 is to simplify a little bit the equations (is not neccessary but usefull). Once we entered the equations, let's enter the coordinates of P1, P2, and P3 as stated in the original poblem. Step 05 # a * cos( t ) STO> XX1 Step 06 # b * sin( t ) STO> YY1 Step 07 # tExpand( a * cos( t + 2 * PI / 3 ) ) STO> XX2 Step 08 # tExpand( b * sin( t + 2 * PI / 3 ) ) STO> YY2 Step 09 # tExpand( a * cos( t - 2 * PI / 3 ) ) STO> XX3 Step 10 # tExpand( b * sin( t - 2 * PI / 3 ) ) STO> YY3 Now let's solve. Step 11 # Solve( e1 , u ) Step 12 # Define [here bring just found solution for u from the history using keyboard] Step 13 # Solve( e2 , v ) Step 14 # Define [here bring just found solution for v from the history using keyboard] The 'u' that was found in step 11 was expressed in terms of v. Bring up u to remove v from it's defining equation. Altough this step is not neccessary, it will speed up the further process. Step 15 # u Step 16 # Ans(1) STO> u Step 17 # Solve( e3 , w ) Step 18 # Define [here bring just found solution for w from the history using keyboard] Once the u,v,w was solved, bring up equation e4 (defined in step 4) to look at it. Step 19 # e4 The equation has a form: 6*(a+b)*(cos(s)*sin(t)-sin(s)*cos(t))/(cos(s)-sqrt(3)*sin(s)) = 0 As can be easily seen (thanks to TI92 simplification) the denominator can be removed. This step is not neccessary, but speeds up the problem solving. I skip the exception when cos(s) = sqrt(3)*sin(s) - it's an engineering problem, not mathematical ;-) Step 20 # Ans(1) * ( cos( s ) - sqrt( 3 ) * sin( s ) ) STO> e4 Now it's time to solve for direction s: Step 21 # Solve( e4 , s ) The answer is in the form of: s = mod( 2 * t - PI , 2 * PI ) / 2 + @n1 * PI - PI / 2 or a + b = 0 Assuming t to be within reasonable engineering limits we can skip modulus and assuming particular solution @n1 = 1 the solution simplfies to the form: s = t The above is a proof, that the joint is a CV joint (the lines rotate by the same angle as the points projected onto the ellipse. Let's use the above solution for s: Step 22 # t STO> s Because we already solved for u and s, the common intersection point can be found from the very first two equations listed in this posting: Step 23 # XX1 + u * cos( s ) STO> x Step 24 # YY1 + u * sin( s ) STO> y x = (a-b)*(4*(sin(t))^2-1)*cos(t)/2 y = -(a-b)*sin(t)*(4*(cos(t))^2-1)/2 The last step is a lucky guess by observing the above equations (but one can assume it and test for it) Step 25 # x ^ 2 + y ^ 2 Ta - Da !!! :-) IT'S A CIRCLE OF a radius of (a-b)/2 which indicates, that the ougoing end of shaft of that CV joint orbits a circle thereof creating vibrations. I don't know how much RAM it actually used, but 200K was fully sufficient to solve it and the solving time was short, mostly limited by my speed of typing. Trying to do so with HP49 is probably possible but I gave up after several hours. I don't think so, that the above was a trick. It's pretty straigtforward use of analytical geometry using parametric equations for the line. The above is a simple theory for the straight plunging tripod CV joint shown here: http://cvcoupling.com/hisory_cvj.html Jack ==== > Switch on TI92+ and enter the equations as follows: > > Step 01 # tExpand( XX1 + u * cos(s) - ( XX2 + v * cos(s + 2 * PI / 3) ) = 0 ) * 2 STO> e1 > Step 02 # tExpand( YY1 + u * sin(s) - ( YY2 + v * sin(s + 2 * PI / 3) ) = 0 ) * 2 STO> e2 > Step 03 # tExpand( XX1 + u * cos(s) - ( XX3 + w * cos(s - 2 * PI / 3) ) = 0 ) * 2 STO> e3 > Step 04 # tExpand( YY1 + u * sin(s) - ( YY3 + w * sin(s - 2 * PI / 3) ) = 0 ) * 2 STO> e4 > This is my best solution on the 49 following your steps with a bit more linear algebra and in RPN mode. Computing time is less than 3 minutes. Take a=1, let B=b/a (does not change the problem by dilatation) Enter with matrix editor the matrix of the system with respect to u,v,w (4*4 matrix since there are 4 equations) [[ 'COS(S)' 0 'COS(S-2*PI/3)' 'COS(T-2*PI/3)-COS(T)'] [ 'SIN(S)' 0 'SIN(S-2*PI/3)' 'B*(SIN(T-2*PI/3)-SIN(T))' ] [ 'COS(S)' 'COS(S+2*PI/3)' 0 'COS(T+2*PI/3)-COS(T)' ] [ 'SIN(S)' 'SIN(S+2*PI/3)' 0 'B*(SIN(T+2*PI/3)-SIN(T))' ]] TEXPAND 'M' STO (4.5s) DET (31s) FACTOR (21s) Looking at the factored expression, it is immediate (make a TLIN for the factor containing T) that the only solution to DET(M)=0 is S=T mod pi. We can avoid S=T+pi because it corresponds to changing the sign of u,v,w, hence S=T. M 'S=T' SUBST (3s) RREF (28s) TRIGCOS (32s) This gives the reduced matrix, the last column is [u,v,w,0], for example {1,4} GET 'U' STO will save u Then the x coordinate of the point is U 1 + 'COS(T)' * TLIN (3s) -> (B-1)/2*COS(3*T) the y coordinate U B + 'SIN(T)' * TLIN (3s) -> (B-1)/2*SIN(3*T) Hence (x,y) describes the circle of radius (1-B)/2, 3 times faster than the points moves on the ellipsis (which is expected since T->T+2*PI/3 gives the same point). (After redilatation the radius of the circle is (a-b)/2). ==== > Enter with matrix editor the matrix of the system with respect to u,v,w > (4*4 matrix since there are 4 equations) > [[ 'COS(S)' 0 'COS(S-2*PI/3)' 'COS(T-2*PI/3)-COS(T)'] > [ 'SIN(S)' 0 'SIN(S-2*PI/3)' 'B*(SIN(T-2*PI/3)-SIN(T))' ] > [ 'COS(S)' 'COS(S+2*PI/3)' 0 'COS(T+2*PI/3)-COS(T)' ] > [ 'SIN(S)' 'SIN(S+2*PI/3)' 0 'B*(SIN(T+2*PI/3)-SIN(T))' ]] > > TEXPAND 'M' STO (4.5s) > DET (31s) > FACTOR (21s) > Looking at the factored expression, it is immediate (make a TLIN > for the factor containing T) that the only > solution to DET(M)=0 is S=T mod pi. We can avoid S=T+pi because > it corresponds to changing the sign of u,v,w, hence S=T. > M 'S=T' SUBST (3s) > RREF (28s) > TRIGCOS (32s) > This gives the reduced matrix, the last column is [u,v,w,0], for example > {1,4} GET 'U' STO > will save u > Then the x coordinate of the point is > U 1 + 'COS(T)' * TLIN (3s) -> (B-1)/2*COS(3*T) > the y coordinate > U B + 'SIN(T)' * TLIN (3s) -> (B-1)/2*SIN(3*T) > Hence (x,y) describes the circle of radius (1-B)/2, 3 times faster > than the points moves on the ellipsis (which is expected since T->T+2*PI/3 > gives the same point). (After redilatation the radius of the circle > is (a-b)/2). This just proves the point that TI is faster :-) tExpand(m) STO> n (2.5 s) Det(n) (20 s) Factor is not needed, the equation is already simplified to the form of: 3 * (b + 1) * (sqrt(3) * cos(s) + 3 * sin(s)) * (cos(s) * sin(t) - sin(s) * cos(t)) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- 4 * (cos(s) + sqrt(3) * sin(s)) which is easy to see that is zero for any value of t only when s = t to always zero the component: (cos(s) * sin(t) - sin(s) * cos(t)) t STO> s (0s) rref(n) STO> p (15 s) p[1,4] STO> u x coordiante: tCollect((u+1)*cos(t)) (1 s) y coordinate tCollect((u+b)*sin(t)) (1 s) And the outcome is: x = (b-1)*cos(3*t)/2 and y = (b-1)*sin(3*t)/2 Overall TI did the task in 39.5 seconds where HP49 for the same (similar due to the fact that autosimplification of TI eliminates some of them) sequence of events needed 119.5 seconds. That makes TI89/92 3 times faster than HP49. Jack ==== > This just proves the point that TI is faster :-) > Something I said in my previous post, the reason is that there is no advanced algorithm involved (e.g. no polynomial gcd, etc.), therefore the CPU speed is important. > tExpand(m) STO> n (2.5 s) > Det(n) (20 s) > > Factor is not needed, the equation is already simplified to the form of: > > 3 * (b + 1) * (sqrt(3) * cos(s) + 3 * sin(s)) * (cos(s) * sin(t) - sin(s) * cos(t)) > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- > 4 * (cos(s) + sqrt(3) * sin(s)) > Rather strange answer for an autosimplifying calc, there is an obvious factor which is not cancelled between numerator and denominator. Moreover, a determinant has no denominator, except if the input has, therefore we knew that only the 4 should be there... > Overall TI did the task in 39.5 seconds where HP49 for the same (similar due > to the fact that autosimplification of TI eliminates some of them) sequence of > events needed 119.5 seconds. That makes TI89/92 3 times faster than HP49. Yes, but for this problem. Of course xcas does it much faster on my ipaq. ==== > > x = (a-b)*(4*(sin(t))^2-1)*cos(t)/2 > y = -(a-b)*sin(t)*(4*(cos(t))^2-1)/2 > > The last step is a lucky guess by observing the above equations (but one can assume it and test for it) > > Step 25 # x ^ 2 + y ^ 2 > > Ta - Da !!! :-) > > IT'S A CIRCLE OF a radius of (a-b)/2 > > which indicates, that the ougoing end of shaft of that CV joint orbits a circle thereof creating vibrations. > > I don't know how much RAM it actually used, but 200K was fully sufficient to solve it and the solving time > was short, mostly limited by my speed of typing. Trying to do so with HP49 is probably possible but I > gave up after several hours. I don't think so, that the above was a trick. It's pretty straigtforward > use of analytical geometry using parametric equations for the line. > than my naive method. Which shows (again) than maths will ease the solution. However I see no reason why you claim the 49 can not solve the problem following the same steps. Your method does not require any intensive computation. It's linear system solving (solve step 1, 2, 3+replace in 4 and multiply by the determinant of 1,2,3) and trigonometric rewriting. You can make step 25 without guess since TLINerizing the equations will show you that the solution describes a circle at 3* the speed of the original ellipsis. It's probable that the 49 will be slower than the 89/92 during the process because there is no polynomial gcd computation involved. Could you answer to my question about what you call exotic functions ==== > > > than my naive method. Which shows (again) than maths will ease > the solution. However I see no reason why you claim the 49 can > not solve the problem following the same steps. ... Probably it, can once you know the exact method. Keep in mind, that I arrived to this method of solving the problem after playing with time consuming different methods that led to nowhere. HP49 was simply too slow to find out that this particular method leads to the solution. HP49 is too slow and is missing simplification to do much of the search for the right solution type of tasks. The good proof is you :-) One almost need to be a math professor to develop proper solution for the HP49 and that with the help of an engineer that found out the method on TI :-) But seriously, I asked Timite to solve the problem. I wonder, how long it would took him to find the right solution using capabilities and speed of HP49. Now of course, we will never know. He had magnificent help in you, who actually programmed HP49 and knew all it's strengths and weaknesses, and on top of it, knew the method that leads to the simple solution. > Could you answer to my question about what you call exotic functions All 'MOD' comands (like ADDTMOD). All 2S, 2C etc. commands (like ACOS2S) Commands like CHINREM, DIVPC, EGCD, EPSX0. Commands creating polynominals of special type or special numbers (like HERMITE or IBERNOULLI). Commands that implement particular algoritm that duplicate regular math (like HORNER, HALFTAN). Rarely used (in general) functions (like PSI, PTAYL) Many matrix related commands that are used for matrix decomposition in a specific way etc, beyond simply solving linear equations. Even eigenevalues are practically used in a narrow technical field of vibrations resonance etc and most people do not have use for it at all. Don't get me wrong. OIt is OK, if those functions are available. The fact is, that most of them are used in a field of interest of a narrow group of experts in that field and are not needed and usually not even known to the average user. If I would have a choice of those functions versus faster machine with better display I would choose faster machine every time. That is why I don't consider as a big advantage that HP49 has more functions than TI89/92. Counting raw number of funtions does not yet translate to huge quality difference. Jack ==== > Probably it, can once you know the exact method. Keep in mind, that I > arrived to this method of solving the problem after playing with time > consuming different methods that led to nowhere. HP49 was simply > too slow to find out that this particular method leads to the solution. > HP49 is too slow and is missing simplification to do much of the search > for the right solution type of tasks. The good proof is you :-) One almost > need to be a math professor to develop proper solution for the HP49 and > that with the help of an engineer that found out the method on TI :-) > My first try was a naive method because you said you solved with your TI whose autosimplification made all the work. I'm further convinced you could not solve the problem on a TI without the right mathematical approach. Once you have the right math method, using the kind of linear algebra instructions I used is standard (1st year university level). It's automation of linear system solving. > But seriously, I asked Timite to solve the problem. I wonder, how long it > would took him to find the right solution using capabilities and speed > of HP49. Now of course, we will never know. He had magnificent help > in you, who actually programmed HP49 and knew all it's strengths > and weaknesses, and on top of it, knew the method that leads to the > simple solution. > There are a lot of mathematical problems which can not be solved easily using naive method, and can be solved with injection of maths ideas. That's why people will always have to learn maths despite the fact that computer power increase. I'm sure Timite would have solve it using the same kind of linalg instructions once you showed your method. The method I used on the 49 does not require any knowledge of the way the 49 is programmed. Taking the determinant of a system is standard, factoring an equation to find where it vanishes is standard etc. > >>Could you answer to my question about what you call exotic functions > > > All 'MOD' comands (like ADDTMOD). > All 2S, 2C etc. commands (like ACOS2S) > Commands like CHINREM, DIVPC, EGCD, EPSX0. Well, then you are using some of them everyday without knowing it. RSA cryptography (which is used in almost every cryptographic program nowadays) use modular arithmetic (POWMOD). IEGCD is the instructions you must use to find the secrete key from the public key (or conversely) when you generate the keys from n=p*q. To find p and q, you need ISPRIME. CHINREM may be used to compute gcd of polynomials using modular methods. > Commands creating polynominals of special type or special numbers (like HERMITE or IBERNOULLI). > Commands that implement particular algoritm that duplicate regular math (like HORNER, HALFTAN). > Rarely used (in general) functions (like PSI, PTAYL) > Many matrix related commands that are used for matrix decomposition in a specific way etc, beyond > simply solving linear equations. Even eigenevalues are practically used in a narrow technical field > of vibrations resonance etc and most people do not have use for it at all. > I think you just show that these commands are exotic commands with respect to you. My students are very happy to have all these commands at hand. I'm sure every student in a university is happy to have eigenvalues/eigenvectors or quadratic form reduction etc. Real world is quantum mechanics and is therefore governed by eigenvalues/eigenvectors However I don't think these instructions are really useful for real world computations but not because they are exotic, but because the 49 CPU is too slow. Something I can not change unfortunately. ==== > My first try was a naive method because you said you solved with your TI > whose autosimplification made all the work. I'm further convinced you > could not solve the problem on a TI without the right mathematical > approach. Once you have the right math method, using the kind of linear > algebra instructions I used is standard (1st year university level). > It's automation of linear system solving. That is an obvious truth. Rarely one can solve anything without the right mathematical approach. > I'm sure Timite would have solve it using the same kind of linalg > instructions once you showed your method. I'm not so sure. Too late to proove it. > The method I used on the 49 does not require any knowledge > of the way the 49 is programmed. Taking the determinant of a system > is standard, factoring an equation to find where it vanishes is standard > etc. > > All 'MOD' comands (like ADDTMOD). > > All 2S, 2C etc. commands (like ACOS2S) > > Commands like CHINREM, DIVPC, EGCD, EPSX0. > > Well, then you are using some of them everyday without knowing it. > RSA cryptography (which is used in almost every cryptographic program > nowadays) use modular arithmetic (POWMOD). IEGCD is the instructions > you must use to find the secrete key from the public key (or conversely) > when you generate the keys from n=p*q. To find p and q, you need > ISPRIME. CHINREM may be used to compute gcd of polynomials using > modular methods. I don't actually use cryptography. Also within the cryptography, one based on the large primes is a narrow field of the cryptography, and a one that is only secure, because we assume, that there is no algorithm out there that can find large primes quickly. Did the Germans also assumed, that Enigma is mathematically close to impossible to break ? > I think you just show that these commands are exotic commands with > respect to you. My students are very happy to have all these > commands at hand. I'm sure every student in a university is happy > to have eigenvalues/eigenvectors or quadratic form reduction etc. > Real world is quantum mechanics and is therefore governed by > eigenvalues/eigenvectors > However I don't think these instructions are really useful for real > world computations but not because they are exotic, but because > the 49 CPU is too slow. Something I can not change unfortunately. With the respect to the most of the TI or HP users. It is you (and your students) who are happen to be a minority. If HP or TI would target strictly math students they would have a problem selling probably one tenth of what they are selling today. By the way, how your math students can live without geometry application for HP49. Geometry is a mother of math and only TI92 provides that :-) How many physicists are specializing in quantum mechanics ? Jack ==== > I don't actually use cryptography. I would be very astonished that you never use cryptography. Maybe you just don't realize. On-line sales and bank transactions are all crypted and they use public key systems, most of them use RSA. Even if you don't use these type of services yourself, you can not deny that cryptography based on arithmetic is widely used in the world. > Also within the cryptography, one based on the > large primes is a narrow field of the cryptography, and a one that is only secure, > because we assume, that there is no algorithm out there that can find large > primes quickly. Did the Germans also assumed, that Enigma is mathematically > close to impossible to break ? > You seem a little bit confused, the problem is not to find large prime quickly, in fact there are fast algorithm to find (pseudo)-primes. The problem is to factor integer with large prime factors. A cryptographic system is never safe. It may be safe for a period of time. Current algorithms on the market are very far to be able to crack 1024 bit n=p*q for example. It might be cracked in the future but who cares if it's 10 years in the future? > With the respect to the most of the TI or HP users. It is you (and your > students) who are happen to be a minority. I think you are judging too much on the standards you know. In my country, there are about 100 000 students per year *in the highschool* who learn about extended GCD algorithm. > If HP or TI would target > strictly math students they would have a problem selling probably one tenth > of what they are selling today. By the way, how your math students can > live without geometry application for HP49. There is 0h of geometry in the University (and only a few hours in the last year of highschool). On the other hand, there is about 100h/year of linear algebra or more (for about 100 000 students/year) > Geometry is a mother of math > and only TI92 provides that :-) Not completely true, I can do geometry on my ipaq. Anyway this kind of geometry is important in schools under say 15 or 16, not after. > How many physicists are specializing in > quantum mechanics ? > This is not the point. The point is that like cryptography some aspects of quantum physics affect our world. If it was not teached to you, it does not mean that it is not important. And eigenvalues/eigenvectors are at the heart of quantum mechanics. And there are several other areas where egv are important even outside physical application: e.g. statistics or biological modelization of some phenomena. ==== > > I would be very astonished that you never use cryptography. > Maybe you just don't realize. On-line sales and bank > transactions are all crypted and they use public key systems, > most of them use RSA. Even if you don't use these type of > services yourself, you can not deny that cryptography based > on arithmetic is widely used in the world. You are right that I use it, but I don't need to know the theory. As I mentioned, only small circle of specialists need to know the details. The fact, that you use electronic, electrical or mechanical devices does not mean that you know all details of theory that drives them and also did not prevented you (or someone other involved in HP49 design) from removing engineering library from HP49 :-) Please, explain why ? > You seem a little bit confused, the problem is not to find large > prime quickly, in fact there are fast algorithm to find (pseudo)-primes. > The problem is to factor integer with large prime factors. I'm not confudsed. That is exactly what I meant. > A cryptographic system is never safe. This is false statement. Theoretically cryptographic system with the secret key that is as long as the message itself and is never reused is unbreakable. Also recently introduced quantum systems are completely safe and on top of it they also are capable to discover evasedropping. > It may be safe > for a period of time. Current algorithms on the market are very > far to be able to crack 1024 bit n=p*q for example. It might be > cracked in the future but who cares if it's 10 years in the future? That is a common mistake of overconfidence, the Germans did. They assumed, that with known to them algorithms it was impossible to decypher Enigma messages within reasonable time. What they did not consider, was, that Polish mathematicians created algorithm that was not considered by them. Later French intelligence and after them Alan Turing of British intelligence improved algorithm and automated task, to the point, that they were able to decypher German messages almost the same day. The proper sentence should be publicly known algorithms. That is the whole world of difference. > I think you are judging too much on the standards you know. > In my country, there are about 100 000 students per year > *in the highschool* who learn about extended GCD algorithm. And used it later for ? > > If HP or TI would target > > strictly math students they would have a problem selling probably one tenth > > of what they are selling today. By the way, how your math students can > > live without geometry application for HP49. > > There is 0h of geometry in the University (and only a few hours in > the last year of highschool). On the other hand, there is about > 100h/year of linear algebra or more (for about 100 000 > students/year) In your country maybe there is 0h geometry. > > Geometry is a mother of math > > and only TI92 provides that :-) > > Not completely true, I can do geometry on my ipaq. Anyway > this kind of geometry is important in schools under say 15 > or 16, not after. So who is teaching engineering drafting in French engineering schools ? Do you use immigrants or rely on american CAD to do all the projections and intersections for them ? > > How many physicists are specializing in > > quantum mechanics ? > > > > This is not the point. The point is that like cryptography > some aspects of quantum physics affect our world. If it was > not teached to you, it does not mean that it is not important. > And eigenvalues/eigenvectors are at the heart of quantum > mechanics. And there are several other areas where egv are important > even outside physical application: e.g. statistics or biological > modelization of some phenomena. Sure, but you also skipped when programming HP49 things like calculus of variations - very usefull, partial differential equations solving - the whole world is described with those, integral equations, etc. Why have you choosen cryptography over partial differential equations ? Maybe in your country they don't teach partial differential equations ? Jack ==== > You are right that I use it, but I don't need to know the theory. > As I mentioned, only small circle of specialists need to know > the details. RSA cryptography is not complicated, we don't speak of elliptic curve crypography. There are tons of people who understand the theory. > The fact, that you use electronic, electrical or > mechanical devices does not mean that you know all details of > theory that drives them and also did not prevented you (or someone > other involved in HP49 design) from removing engineering library from > HP49 :-) Please, explain why ? > I'm not responsible for the choice of HP not to keep the EQLIB on the 49. And I disagree, you don't know all details of electronic, etc. but you know the principles like F=m*gamma or U=RI, etc. I believe the same should apply to e.g. understanding how public key cryptography work. > >>You seem a little bit confused, the problem is not to find large >>prime quickly, in fact there are fast algorithm to find (pseudo)-primes. >>The problem is to factor integer with large prime factors. > > > > I'm not confudsed. That is exactly what I meant. > Then reread your post, it's not what you said. > >>A cryptographic system is never safe. > > > This is false statement. Theoretically cryptographic system > with the secret key that is as long as the message itself and is never > reused is unbreakable. Also recently introduced quantum systems are > completely safe and on top of it they also are capable to discover > evasedropping. > Secret key systems are not safe because you must exchange keys. Quantum systems might be, but that shows another interest of studying quantum mechanics! > That is a common mistake of overconfidence, the Germans did. They > assumed, that with known to them algorithms it was impossible to > decypher Enigma messages within reasonable time. What they did > not consider, was, that Polish mathematicians created algorithm > that was not considered by them. Later French intelligence and after > them Alan Turing of British intelligence improved algorithm and > automated task, to the point, that they were able to decypher > German messages almost the same day. The proper sentence > should be publicly known algorithms. That is the whole world > of difference. > I don't care if some secret service can decrypt my transactions with my bank. And RSA is a public algorithm. If someone uses an unknown method to factor fast integers to decrypt some messages, it will be very difficult for him to keep it secret.. > > >>I think you are judging too much on the standards you know. >>In my country, there are about 100 000 students per year >>*in the highschool* who learn about extended GCD algorithm. > > > And used it later for ? > E.g. understand RSA. But extended gcd algorithm is a key algorithm in arithmetic. Like RSA, I bet you are using it. EGCD is the basic tool for partial fraction decomposition for example hence is called every time you integrate a fraction. > > In your country maybe there is 0h geometry. > I don't know other country curriculum, but I would be astonished if the kind of geometry package you find on the TI92 is usefull at University levels. > > So who is teaching engineering drafting in French engineering schools ? > Do you use immigrants or rely on american CAD to do all the > projections and intersections for them ? > I really don't know, it's a too specialized area. It's most certainly using software done by Indian (immigrants or not) for US corporations or homemade soft. Believe it or not, we have a lot of well trained engineers in France. This might change in the futur as fewer students enter scientific studies. > > Sure, but you also skipped when programming HP49 things like > calculus of variations - very usefull, partial differential equations > solving - the whole world is described with those, integral equations, etc. > Why have you choosen cryptography over partial differential equations ? Because arithmetic has a sense on a calc as partial diff equation require much more power. > Maybe in your country they don't teach partial differential equations ? > Sure we teach PDE, but not at the same level as arithmetic. OK, I think we are now too much out of topic, it would be a good idea to stop this thread, that's what I'll do myself. ==== > > In my experecience the HP is generally faster. > In mine the opposite is true (keep in mind, that I use HP everyday > for other advantages). X Which are (the other advantages) ?? ==== > >(keep in mind, that I use HP everyday for other advantages). > X > Which are (the other advantages) ?? Ease of quick on the fly programming. Portability. My TI92 doesn't fit the pocket :( Jack ==== X > > I don't. Out of the box it is TI CAS that is usually more faster and better. If I understand correctly the TI Derive uses large look-up tables and thus gives relatively fast school-book examples simplified. The HP 49G uses a slower, more general RISCH algorithm to integrate. X > Out the box the TI simply can't. Yes, but the out-of-the-box HP has some problems, too and TI-EQW is pretty good. > The autosimplification of the TI simply inputs such manipulations and > the unability to desactive it will always hold back the TI CAS. Unfortunately so. HP is better in many ways. (Flexible stack-orientation - available even in Algebraic mode EQW subexpression evaluation with expandable STARTEQW) > And don't tell me that the TI is even remotely as powerful as the HP > for trigonometry,integer and polynomials arithmetics. > About equations that highly depend of the kind of equations. > And in my experience it is the TI which dramatically slow down when > one works with big expressions especially one with complex objects. Both are too slow! They need a low-power future Play-Station 3 chip or something... > Well,when doing 3D plotting and 3D rotation the HP49 is significantly > faster. That's a clever trick by Cyrille, I guess, but the Zoom is cool !!! > In my experecience the HP is generally faster. I think it's slower and requires more from the user and there is no auto-simplification AND the CAS forces mode-changes with a stupid error message if you refuse. The only solution seems to be using a betaENTER program to change the flags back, but Vectored Enter doesn't work anymore in the Algebraic mode because of the new auto-quoting in Alg-mode. Especially the Alg-mode users (in Finland, where I advice people on the phone for HP/Radix without a charge [I've a got a free 49G]) need this keep MY flag settings feature. Units back to the EQW, please! BUT HP 49G is - as you explain - much more powerful and flexible. X > The slowness of TI matrix computations is the combo of unapropriate > algorithms and of 16 digits BCD floating point numbers with a CPU > never design to handle BCD computations to begin with. The numerix matrix operations are the salt of the HP 49G !!! X > Btw have you ever use HP49 with the last ROM ? I think that the fastest CAS was 1.14-7 If you have any possibilities to test - say between 1.16 vs. 1.18 (a wild guess) - I would be glad to here the answer. I remember seeing an old and a new version of Ti vs. HP where the old HP CAS was faster !! I don't know what Parisse did between the versions but maybe some re-arraing of the pre-parser and some ML coding could make it faster. Cyrille & Parisse together could do this. (wishful thinking :) > The TI89 is almost as expensive as the HP49(13 euros of difference). > By the way the Palm m100 is sold at almost half the price of the TI89. > And you tell me that TI calculators are not overpriced ? They are both overpriced, but try to buy a similar CAS environment for your Palm. How much would it cost? Is it available at all? Is it programmable or just a black-box solution? You should not compare apples and stables :-) Just apples and......lemons!! ;-) > > OS core has nothing to do with mathematically powerfull. > It does. Yep! And even the HP OS/Saturn has too limited memory ( and CPU). > > > The object oriented design of the HP OS is way superior to the archaic > > > design of the TI OS. > > Object oriented has nothing to do with mathematically powerfull. > It does have an effect on computer algebra programming with TI-Basic. Yes! I would still put emphasis on stack-oriented design of the HP OS. > > > The HP User Interface is much more flexible and customisable. > > User interface has nothing to do with mathematically powerfull. > Well,in my experience it is much easier and faster to view big > symbolic results on the HP. > And the built-in EQW and Matrix writer enables operations which are > impossible on the TI without the third party EQW. EQW has it's own matrix writer for a reason... The in-flexibility of the TI OS/CAS/Programmimg was the main reason for me to get rid of my TI 89, which *was* faster/better on integrate/solve. > I don't limit myself to integrals. > Try for example Taylor series on both calculators. To cut it shorter: there are many other things that the TI 89/92/V200 can't handle as well as the HP 49G. > > > And overall you can do much more with the HP than with the TI. > > > Only TI engineers and TI worshippers can believe the opposite. > > Not true. > Have you really exploited the HP49 or do you use it only as a HP48 > replacement ? I would like to ask the same question here, but when I look into the mirror I found myself not good enough on the TI 89 programming and OS quirks to give an un-biased statement. As a former HP 48SX user I found the Reverse Polish Lisp system better than anything else on a calculator when symbolics are involved. For numerics I would use perhaps a HP 42S. (I only have a 41CX) PS: Sorry for long comments, but I think that this forum is about opinions and surely this was all calculator related with no stupid humor around. I just had to defend both calculators - yet to find the 49G better for ME. ==== > X > > > I don't. Out of the box it is TI CAS that is usually more faster and > better. > If I understand correctly the TI Derive uses large look-up tables > and thus gives relatively fast school-book examples simplified. > The HP 49G uses a slower, more general RISCH algorithm to integrate. The Derive software is more capable than the TI CAS for integrations. I wouldn't be surprised if it also use an implementation of the Risch algorithm. Mathematic a uses both look-up tables and risch algorithm,i think. > > Out the box the TI simply can't. > Yes, but the out-of-the-box HP has some problems, too > and TI-EQW is pretty good. Yes,it is. It is a shame it doesn't come built-in,it would highly increase the power of the TI out of the box. > > The autosimplification of the TI simply inputs such manipulations and > > the unability to desactive it will always hold back the TI CAS. > Unfortunately so. HP is better in many ways. > (Flexible stack-orientation - available even in Algebraic mode > EQW subexpression evaluation with expandable STARTEQW) The worst with the TI is the impossibilit to get the result in a different form than the autosimplified result. > Both are too slow! > They need a low-power future Play-Station 3 chip or something... TI could use a low power 68040. In case of the HP the only solution is to port the software or emulate the tool on extremly powerful CPU. > > Well,when doing 3D plotting and 3D rotation the HP49 is significantly > > faster. > That's a clever trick by Cyrille, I guess, but the Zoom is cool !!! I agree;) > > In my experecience the HP is generally faster. > I think it's slower and requires more from the user > and there is no auto-simplification > AND the CAS forces mode-changes > with a stupid error message if you refuse. I was talking of numeric computations. The TI has the potential to be faster but with TI engineers laziness,it is hopeless. > > The slowness of TI matrix computations is the combo of unapropriate > > algorithms and of 16 digits BCD floating point numbers with a CPU > > never design to handle BCD computations to begin with. > The numerix matrix operations are the salt of the HP 49G !!! > X > > Btw have you ever use HP49 with the last ROM ? > I think that the fastest CAS was 1.14-7 > If you have any possibilities to test - say between 1.16 vs. 1.18 > (a wild guess) - I would be glad to here the answer. No,i haven't sorry. > I remember seeing an old and a new version of Ti vs. HP > where the old HP CAS was faster !! > I don't know what Parisse did between the versions > but maybe some re-arraing of the pre-parser and some ML coding > could make it faster. > Cyrille & Parisse together could do this. (wishful thinking :) > > > The TI89 is almost as expensive as the HP49(13 euros of difference). > > By the way the Palm m100 is sold at almost half the price of the TI89. > > And you tell me that TI calculators are not overpriced ? > They are both overpriced, but try to buy a similar CAS environment > for your Palm. How much would it cost? Is it available at all? > Is it programmable or just a black-box solution? > You should not compare apples and stables :-) > Just apples and......lemons!! ;-) It is true that there is no CAS for the Palm OS. But 99 euros is quite cheap for the hardware. > > > > The object oriented design of the HP OS is way superior to the archaic > > > > design of the TI OS. > > > Object oriented has nothing to do with mathematically powerfull. > > It does have an effect on computer algebra programming with TI-Basic. > Yes! > I would still put emphasis on stack-oriented design of the HP OS. > > > > > The HP User Interface is much more flexible and customisable. > > > User interface has nothing to do with mathematically powerfull. > > Well,in my experience it is much easier and faster to view big > > symbolic results on the HP. > > And the built-in EQW and Matrix writer enables operations which are > > impossible on the TI without the third party EQW. > EQW has it's own matrix writer for a reason... > The in-flexibility of the TI OS/CAS/Programmimg > was the main reason for me to get rid of my TI 89, > which *was* faster/better on integrate/solve. > > > I don't limit myself to integrals. > > Try for example Taylor series on both calculators. > To cut it shorter: there are many other things > that the TI 89/92/V200 can't handle as well as the HP 49G. I agree ! > > > > And overall you can do much more with the HP than with the TI. > > > > Only TI engineers and TI worshippers can believe the opposite. > > > Not true. > > Have you really exploited the HP49 or do you use it only as a HP48 > > replacement ? > > I would like to ask the same question here, > but when I look into the mirror I found myself not good enough on > the TI 89 programming and OS quirks to give an un-biased statement. > As a former HP 48SX user I found the Reverse Polish Lisp system > better than anything else on a calculator when symbolics are involved. > For numerics I would use perhaps a HP 42S. (I only have a 41CX) I have been useing TI68k for over 7 years and i have a very deep knowledge of those tools as i have used any model from the very first TI92(released in october 1995 with beta ROM 1.0) to the Voyage 200. So i perfectly know what i am talking. I have started used HP48 a few months before getting my first TI92 so i know quite well the HP4x calculators. > PS: Sorry for long comments, but I think that this forum is about opinions > and surely this was all calculator related with no stupid humor around. > I just had to defend both calculators - yet to find the 49G better for ME. I think that i have wasted too much time trying to find excuses for TI so now i don't hold my words anymore about what i think toward them and their products. Note that i have a very poor opinion of HP but it happens that i have a lot of respect for HP ACO members and Bernard parisse thus i am probably biased toward the HP49. I will try to be fair,in the future. ==== > > > But TI is wallowing at about 1/3 of this CPU speed, and memory could > > certainly be increased 4-fold. These improvements would allow more > > power to be packed into the CAS. > > Of course it would be better if we had all this, but we have to work > with what we have. TI doesn't have any competitors (in the market they > are targeting), so they don't have much motivation to add these > things. They did increase the amount of FlashROM for the Voyage 200, > BTW. > > > The second problem is that the HP is much more powerful mathematically, > > Considering only built-in functionality (no user add-ons), yes. What user add-ons exist for the 89 that make it comparable to the 49. I own both calcs and I know of nothing from TI or even third party sources that bring it up to par with the 49. The equation writer is nice but you have to pay $15.00 for it when the 49's comes with the calc. But what else exists that makes the 89 better mathematically? ==== > What user add-ons exist for the 89 that make it comparable to the 49. > I own both calcs and I know of nothing from TI or even third party > sources that bring it up to par with the 49. The equation writer is > nice but you have to pay $15.00 for it when the 49's comes with the > calc. But what else exists that makes the 89 better mathematically? It depends. What do you need? :-) Here's the beginning of a master program list for the TI-89/92+/V200: http://tiger.towson.edu/~bbhatt1/ti/beta/MPL.htm Also, there is the free version of the EQW: http://triton.towson.edu/users/bbhatt1/ti/eqw.htm Check the recommended websites on my page: http://triton.towson.edu/users/bbhatt1/ti/ I'll also take this chance to mention MathTools ;-) http://triton.towson.edu/users/bbhatt1/ti/#func Here's the HTML version of its documentation: http://triton.towson.edu/users/bbhatt1/ti/MathTools.htm -- Bhuvanesh ==== X > What user add-ons exist for the 89 that make it comparable to the 49. > I own both calcs and I know of nothing from TI or even third party > sources that bring it up to par with the 49. The equation writer is > nice but you have to pay $15.00 for it when the 49's comes with the > calc. But what else exists that makes the 89 better mathematically? Faster/better SOLVE ? Mathematically? - Nothing! ==== > Faster/better SOLVE ? For finding roots of polynomials, you mean? There's an add-on for that. Besides that, the TI-89 solve() and cSolve() are quite nice. -- Bhuvanesh ==== Exactly! I was defending the TI cSolve() this time! eg. faster & better !! ;-) > > > Faster/better SOLVE ? > > For finding roots of polynomials, you mean? There's an add-on for > that. Besides that, the TI-89 solve() and cSolve() are quite nice. > > -- > Bhuvanesh ==== > My point is simply that TI is about a factor of 2 to 3 weak in the CPU > and memory department. Consider the Palm m500, which they don't give > enough details about for me to be 100% certain, but I'd bet that it has > a 33MHz Dragonball, a 256x128 screen with backlight, and has 8MB of > memory. Factor of 3 all over the place. It's $200. I agree with you that TI could give us a better hardware, but consider, that HP49 was released after TI with even worse hardware and higher price. There was once discussion on this forum about who can afford expensive calculators. Keep in mind, that TI89 sells now for about $120 which is half it's original price, and HP49 doesn't sell at all anymore at least in US. If you don't sell certain number of hardware you cannot sustain low prices even with outdated hardware. HP was even forced to abandon calculator business altogether. > >> The second problem is that the HP is much more powerful > >> mathematically, > > > > Any examples ? This statement is untrue. Each calc has it's strengths > > and weaknesses. > Laplace transforms, discrete Fourier transforms, inverse Laplace, and > partial fraction expansions appear to be in the HP out of the box, and > these are the functions I will need regularly. Can TI do these things > out of the box? Can add on programs do them? I would like to get the > add ons if available. There are certain functions that HP has but there are also certain functions, that HP lacks and TI has. For example HP does not have entire geometry module out of the box. You and I don't need it but there might be people who do need it. I for example found out, that many algebraic expressions bog down HP to the point of being ridiculously unusable, where TI still does the same algebraic conversion fast. And I'm alking here about real life examples, not some exotic tests designed to bog down that particular machine. > Finally, which one solve systems of diff-eqs? It seems TI can and HP > not, so the advantage may lie with TI here. They both do. > But I haven't tested to see > exactly what they can handle. I'd like to run small examples of the > systems that arise in electronic circuits with non-linear semiconductor > elements. Perhaps neither calculator can go this far. To the contrary, I found that both can handle nonlinear diff-equations to the point of course. You can also solve it numerically if you are just studying engineering problem with given numerical values. Both calculators are capable to solve diff-equations numerically altough there are some restrictions to the format of the equation or set of equations if you are trying to solve higher degree equation. > This is an impression that I have been gathering as well. But the HP is > very different from the TI, and perhaps if I had never used any > calculator before they would seem equally obscure. The first thing to do, is to get used to and start appreciate RPN. If you don't like it, you are probably better off with TI and will never like HP. HP mistake was to introduce algebraic notation (and extreamally poor hardware). Not only it did not saved the HP calculators, but also enraged many dedicated HP users. The 49 RPN is significantly less consistent than HP48 and probably less consistent than TI exactly because it was trying to copy some of the TI interface ideas such as algebraic input, or APPS. APPS give you nice interface but makes object interchangebility less obvious than it was with HP48 interface. > Perhaps after > mastering the HP, one can do things in a way that would be much more > cumbersome than on the TI. But I was able to do things with the TI > within seconds, that I can't figure out how to do with the HP by just > looking at the keyboard. It is a matter of getting used to. Unfortunately HP menus are usually less descriptive than TI but their acess is more logically spreaded throughe the keyboard. > _____________________ > Christopher R. Carlen > crobc@earthlink.net Jack ==== > My point is simply that TI is about a factor of 2 to 3 weak in the CPU > and memory department. Consider the Palm m500, which they don't give > enough details about for me to be 100% certain, but I'd bet that it has > a 33MHz Dragonball, a 256x128 screen with backlight, and has 8MB of > memory. Factor of 3 all over the place. It's $200. Comparison with Palms is not a good idea. They are a completely different product, for a completely different market. > Laplace transforms, discrete Fourier transforms, inverse Laplace, and > partial fraction expansions appear to be in the HP out of the box, and > these are the functions I will need regularly. Can TI do these things > out of the box? Partial fraction expansions? Yes. There are add-ons for the rest: http://tiger.towson.edu/~bbhatt1/ti/beta/MPL.htm > Can either calculator for that matter, out of the box of with add ons, > do numerical minimization of functions of more than one variable? This > is another I'd like to do regularly. With add-ons, the TIs can do this. The simplex method (and its nonlinear variant) have been implemented, as has simulated annealing. > Finally, which one solve systems of diff-eqs? It seems TI can and HP > not, so the advantage may lie with TI here. Correct. Lars' programs can also solve integro-differential equations. -- Bhuvanesh ==== > > > My point is simply that TI is about a factor of 2 to 3 weak in the CPU > > and memory department. Consider the Palm m500, which they don't give > > enough details about for me to be 100% certain, but I'd bet that it has > > a 33MHz Dragonball, a 256x128 screen with backlight, and has 8MB of > > memory. Factor of 3 all over the place. It's $200. > > Comparison with Palms is not a good idea. They are a completely > different product, for a completely different market. > It is a good idea because both tools use 68k CPU. There are Palm OS PDA with at least 16 Mhz CPU and 2 MB of RAM with a price as low as 99 euros(a bit less than US $ 99). So how come the Voyage 200 sold at 243 euros can't have better or at least equal hardware ? And don't come with Bullshit about the softtware cost. The TI software hasn't significantly evolved since the A.M.S 2.0x release over 2 years ago and assuming the poor quality of TI flash apps,TI doesn't spend significant amount of money for their developpment and maintenance. ==== > > There are two problems: for the price, the TI-89, 92+, and 200 > > calculators should have at least either the same or better CAS > > The CAS is practically equally good on both. Most of the time TI > is faster and in most cases it is HP that is unable to solve > something, not TI, altough opposite examples also exist. I wasn't thinking about it that way (I was thinking of breadth of functionality rather than depth). I think you (Jack) are correct. > > The second problem is that the HP is much more powerful mathematically, > > Any examples ? This statement is untrue. Each calc has it's strengths and > weaknesses. Maybe he's talking about the number of functions. There are more functions on the HP49G than on the TI-89/92+/V200, although the HP49G functionality can be easily duplicated with user programs on the TIs. > You are wrong. One of the great advantages of HP is that it's interface > allows much easier and deeper integration of software, where TI seems > rather as a group of unrelated pieces of software that have hard time > to talk to each other. My impression from these years of reading posts on comp.sys.hp48 is that it is the other way round (the TI-89/92+/V200 have better software integration). -- Bhuvanesh ==== > > Maybe he's talking about the number of functions. There are more > functions on the HP49G than on the TI-89/92+/V200, although the HP49G > functionality can be easily duplicated with user programs on the TIs. Well,The HP49G cleary wins at this game as you can use directly System RPL on the HP49 to write even more powerful programs while you have to use C programming on PC to get similar results on the TI. > > You are wrong. One of the great advantages of HP is that it's interface > > allows much easier and deeper integration of software, where TI seems > > rather as a group of unrelated pieces of software that have hard time > > to talk to each other. > > My impression from these years of reading posts on comp.sys.hp48 is > that it is the other way round (the TI-89/92+/V200 have better > software integration). You are dead wrong. Here are some examples of software integration: You can use the EQW or the Matrix writer to add an object to the command line. You can call EQW or Matrix writer to edit an object in the stack. Or you can use built-in editors(EQW,Matrix writer,etc...) from users programs. Can you do the same on the TI ? ==== > > Maybe he's talking about the number of functions. There are more > > functions on the HP49G than on the TI-89/92+/V200, although the HP49G > > functionality can be easily duplicated with user programs on the TIs. > > Well,The HP49G cleary wins at this game as you can use directly System > RPL on the HP49 to write even more powerful programs while you have to > use C programming on PC to get similar results on the TI. I see nothing wrong with writing C programs on a PC. I do it quite often, and not only for calculators. -- Bhuvanesh ==== > > I see nothing wrong with writing C programs on a PC. I do it quite > often, and not only for calculators. There is one major problem. With HP49 you can write programs on the fly when you need them. With RPL using objects and stack efficiently it is fairly easy to write rather complicated programs for advanced problems. It is much more difficult to do so easily with TI Basic and impossible to do so if you are happen to be away from the computer in C. The main reason to buy advanced calculator is to be able to perform computations without carrying PC around. Of course, you can always go back to the PC later and write C program, but the problem might not important anymore or it might be too late to compute anything useful when you are back at the place where you have PC. Don't you think, that it would be much more useful to have built in 'C' compiler into the TI (especially full keyboard TI92 model ) and (hopefully) one, that uses binary floating point math libraries ? You still can program on the PC if you wish, just like you can do on HP. And just to close it, for the most of the small on the fly programs it is so much faster to write them in RPL than in either 'C' or TI Basic. Especially 'C' with strong built in type checking intended to prevent bugs in a large programs seems unnecessarily cumbersome for typical small in size and complication calculator programs. Beside this, once compiled 'C' program seems difficult to debug when run on the calculator. > > -- > Bhuvanesh Jack ==== > There is one major problem. With HP49 you can write programs on the fly > when you need them. With RPL using objects and stack efficiently it is fairly > easy to write rather complicated programs for advanced problems. It is much > more difficult to do so easily with TI Basic. Not really (you can easily write complicated programs for advanced problems). The only problem with TI-Basic is that it is slow. > And just to close it, for the most of the small on the fly programs it is > so much faster to write them in RPL than in either 'C' or TI Basic. My experience suggests that it's much easier to write programs on the fly in TI-Basic than in either C or RPL. I know a couple of HP users who say the same thing. > Beside this, once compiled 'C' program seems difficult to debug when run on > the calculator. Normally, I debug my C programs on VTI before transferring them to the calculator (because it's lower-level programming and I want to be able to use my calculator for purposes other than just development :-) ). -- Bhuvanesh ==== > You can call EQW or Matrix writer to edit an object in the stack. > Or you can use built-in editors(EQW,Matrix writer,etc...) from users > programs. > Can you do the same on the TI ? The EQW Flash app can edit objects in the stack. Both the free version of the EQW and the Flash app can be used from user programs. The Matrix writer and most of the other built-in apps can't. ==== > > You can call EQW or Matrix writer to edit an object in the stack. > > Or you can use built-in editors(EQW,Matrix writer,etc...) from users > > programs. > > Can you do the same on the TI ? > > The EQW Flash app can edit objects in the stack. Both the free version of > the EQW and the Flash app can be used from user programs. The Matrix writer > and most of the other built-in apps can't. But the EQW has it's own matrix editor... -- Bhuvanesh ==== > > Any examples ? This statement is untrue. Each calc has it's strengths and > > weaknesses. > > Maybe he's talking about the number of functions. There are more > functions on the HP49G than on the TI-89/92+/V200, although the HP49G > functionality can be easily duplicated with user programs on the TIs. Number of functions does not neccesairly translates to better math. Many of the functions on both calculators are obvious, rather simple macros such as ABS(x) or simple combinations of other functions. They maybe shorten the typing but not exactly add much more usability. There is also a class of functions on both calcs that are very obscure and usable only to the narrow circle of specialists. Those people clearly can than state that one calc is significantly better than the other. For example HP users can choose HP because it has powerful linear algebra that exceeds TI, others might choose TI because of geometry application, TI automatic expression simplification etc. I consider those functions to be obscure. The general math CAS is in both calcs on the very similar level, and in my opinion it is matter of personal choice rather than the true math advantage. > My impression from these years of reading posts on comp.sys.hp48 is > that it is the other way round (the TI-89/92+/V200 have better > software integration). Consider for example, that the TI output of program goes to the program screen and is unusable as a stack object for regular functions of the calculator without special needs. On HP (when running in RPN which is the only sensible way to run it) the good program take input from stack and outputs data to the stack. It does two things: makes output data naturally available for the other calc commands and programs, make the program itself natural extension of the calculator build in functions in the consistent manner. Jack ==== > > My impression from these years of reading posts on comp.sys.hp48 is > > that it is the other way round (the TI-89/92+/V200 have better > > software integration). > > Consider for example, that the TI output of program goes to the program > screen and is unusable as a stack object for regular functions of the > calculator without special needs. On HP (when running in RPN > which is the only sensible way to run it) the good program take > input from stack and outputs data to the stack. It does two things: > makes output data naturally available for the other calc commands > and programs, make the program itself natural extension of the > calculator build in functions in the consistent manner. This is why I generally use functions instead of programs. IMHO, functions should be the default TI-Basic program type. Programs do have their advantages too, in particular being able to use all instructions and built-in functions. -- Bhuvanesh ==== > > > Consider for example, that the TI output of program goes to the program > > screen and is unusable as a stack object for regular functions of the > > calculator without special needs. On HP (when running in RPN > > which is the only sensible way to run it) the good program take > > input from stack and outputs data to the stack. It does two things: > > makes output data naturally available for the other calc commands > > and programs, make the program itself natural extension of the > > calculator build in functions in the consistent manner. > > This is why I generally use functions instead of programs. IMHO, > functions should be the default TI-Basic program type. Programs do > have their advantages too, in particular being able to use all > instructions and built-in functions. One of the limits of such aprroach is, that the function outputs only single value. HP program can output as many values on the stack as the user want. > > -- > Bhuvanesh Jack ==== > > One of the limits of such aprroach is, that the function outputs only single > value. HP program can output as many values on the stack as the user want. > Can a TI-89(92+) function return complex numbers, lists, matrices? If so, then perhaps this isn't a problem. -- _____________________ Christopher R. Carlen crobc@earthlink.net ==== > > > > One of the limits of such aprroach is, that the function outputs only single > > value. HP program can output as many values on the stack as the user want. > > > > > Can a TI-89(92+) function return complex numbers, lists, matrices? If > so, then perhaps this isn't a problem. I disagree. Even, when it would be possible (which is not), this would be rather poor workaround to the problem. Grouping outcome of program into the list or matrix artificially puts them into the same physically related class, so later you need more operations to split them usually accessible only through the menus (unlike SWAP, DROP commands which are primary keys on HP keyboard). If my program for example calculates acceleration, speed and distance as three numbers it is doubtful it will have any use for built in calculator functions when grouped in the list or matrix simply because they represent different physical data that most likely need different functionality to be applied to each member of the list. It then force you to first breakup the list which is usually a menu hidden command not immediately accessible through primary keyboard key. And this is not a made up argument. On my HP49 I have several programs - calculator extensions that use such behavior. For example one of my programs calculates roots of the cubic equation and always produces three solutions (even when two are complex or identical etc.) on the stack as three separate numbers. Then using strictly keyboard DROP and SWAP keys I can quickly isolate one that is needed for other calculator functions or even keep other on the stack in the meantime for further work. Trying to mimic such functionality on TI although probably possible with tricks (through variables or in some other way) is awkward and is not an natural extension to the TI interface. Keep in mind, that we are discussing here consistency of the interface. Any workaround, if even possible only reinforces my argument, that TI interface is significantly less consistent, than HP interface in RPN mode. Jack ==== > >> >>>One of the limits of such aprroach is, that the function outputs only single >>>value. HP program can output as many values on the stack as the user want. >> >>Can a TI-89(92+) function return complex numbers, lists, matrices? If >>so, then perhaps this isn't a problem. I just tried it, and it seems that one can return complex variables, lists, and matrices from a function. > > I disagree. Even, when it would be possible (which is not), this would be > rather poor workaround to the problem. Grouping outcome of program into > the list or matrix artificially puts them into the same physically related > class, so later you need more operations to split them usually accessible > only through the menus (unlike SWAP, DROP commands which are > primary keys on HP keyboard). If my program for example calculates > acceleration, speed and distance as three numbers it is doubtful it will > have any use for built in calculator functions when grouped in the list or > matrix simply because they represent different physical data that > most likely need different functionality to be applied to each member > of the list. It then force you to first breakup the list which is usually a > menu hidden command not immediately accessible through primary > keyboard key. Actually, it seems one can simply do it like this: {m*v^2/2,m*v}->kep(m,v) for example, to define a function kep(m,v) that returns the kinetic energy and momentum of an object of mass m moving with velocity v. Then do: kep(2.34,5.67)[1] if you only want the first result, the kinetic energy, or [2] if you want the momentum. If you want both results hanging around for future use, then stick the returned value in a variable, and index the subelements later. This is par for the course with non-stack based programming languages, and interactive interpreted languages as well. There is nothing counterintuitive or inconsistent about it. One just needs to know the conventions used as to what part of the result is stored in what subelement of the result object. > And this is not a made up argument. On my HP49 I > have several programs - calculator extensions that use such behavior. > For example one of my programs calculates roots of the cubic equation > and always produces three solutions (even when two are complex or > identical etc.) on the stack as three separate numbers. Then using strictly > keyboard DROP and SWAP keys I can quickly isolate one that is needed > for other calculator functions or even keep other on the stack in the > meantime for further work. Trying to mimic such functionality on TI although > probably possible with tricks (through variables or in some other way) is > awkward and is not an natural extension to the TI interface. Keep in mind, > that we are discussing here consistency of the interface. Any workaround, > if even possible only reinforces my argument, that TI interface is > significantly less consistent, than HP interface in RPN mode. I'm not sure about less consistent, but less preferrable maybe, to one who prefers a stack machine. The argument as to whether a stack vs. load/store type paradigm is superior, I won't even go there because I don't care. Just use what you like! Hopefully, we will continue to have choices available. If you HP folks get stuck with no new calculators one day, then I will sincerely regret that situation. Good day! _____________________ Christopher R. Carlen crobc@earthlink.net ==== Well perahps,Jacek has used the wrong example. The true problems with useing list to return several results is that contrary to the HP lists,TI lists are not true lists in the sense that they can't handle many variables types such as list or matrix. If you must return results such as lists or matrix when you are screwed. Of course there are workarounds(such as put each result in a string for examples) but it would have been much simpler if programs could use the history to return and to get objects. > > Actually, it seems one can simply do it like this: > > {m*v^2/2,m*v}->kep(m,v) > > for example, to define a function kep(m,v) that returns the kinetic > energy and momentum of an object of mass m moving with velocity v. > > Then do: > > kep(2.34,5.67)[1] if you only want the first result, the kinetic energy, > or [2] if you want the momentum. If you want both results hanging > around for future use, then stick the returned value in a variable, and > index the subelements later. > > This is par for the course with non-stack based programming languages, > and interactive interpreted languages as well. There is nothing > counterintuitive or inconsistent about it. One just needs to know the > conventions used as to what part of the result is stored in what > subelement of the result object. > > > And this is not a made up argument. On my HP49 I > > have several programs - calculator extensions that use such behavior. > > For example one of my programs calculates roots of the cubic equation > > and always produces three solutions (even when two are complex or > > identical etc.) on the stack as three separate numbers. Then using strictly > > keyboard DROP and SWAP keys I can quickly isolate one that is needed > > for other calculator functions or even keep other on the stack in the > > meantime for further work. Trying to mimic such functionality on TI although > > probably possible with tricks (through variables or in some other way) is > > awkward and is not an natural extension to the TI interface. Keep in mind, > > that we are discussing here consistency of the interface. Any workaround, > > if even possible only reinforces my argument, that TI interface is > > significantly less consistent, than HP interface in RPN mode. > > I'm not sure about less consistent, but less preferrable maybe, to one > who prefers a stack machine. The argument as to whether a stack vs. > load/store type paradigm is superior, I won't even go there because I > don't care. Just use what you like! Hopefully, we will continue to > have choices available. If you HP folks get stuck with no new > calculators one day, then I will sincerely regret that situation. > > Good day! > > > _____________________ > Christopher R. Carlen > crobc@earthlink.net ==== > I'm not sure about less consistent, but less preferrable maybe, to one > who prefers a stack machine. The argument as to whether a stack vs. > load/store type paradigm is superior, I won't even go there because I > don't care. Just use what you like! Hopefully, we will continue to > have choices available. If you HP folks get stuck with no new > calculators one day, then I will sincerely regret that situation. > > Good day! It is less consistent. I only gave you the simples example where HP is automatically more consistent than TI with outputing everything into the main calculator stack. You seem to forget that on HP you can use many interactive features within program including graphs and interactive user graphic input that creates entries on the main calculator stack. You can put programs itself on the stack which opens myriad of programming possibilities using programs itself as a product of function for further executing. Try to do it so simply with TI without tricks. Good luck. Jack ==== > It is less consistent. I only gave you the simples example where HP is > automatically more consistent than TI with outputing everything into the > main calculator stack. You can very easily get a list of the solutions using exp>list(), or by using zeros()/cZeros() instead of solve()/cSolve(), and can then get a particular root using list subscripts. I don't see how that's less consistent. > You can put programs itself on the stack which opens myriad of > programming possibilities using programs itself as a product of > function for further executing. Try to do it so simply with TI without > tricks. Good luck. Define myprgm(args)=Prgm:...:EndPrgm ??? Yes, you can define programs and functions from within programs. -- Bhuvanesh ==== > Define myprgm(args)=Prgm:...:EndPrgm ??? Yes, you can define programs > and functions from within programs. Remarkable! Maybe I should have kept the TI 89 I had. Can it use list as programs. You know one can manipulate the lists with POS POT PUTI GET GETI SUB REPL SIZE HEAD TAIL DOLIST DOSUBS NSUB ENDSUB STREAM REVLIST SORT SEQ and that applies to programs as list in the HP 4x series Just supply { } instead of << >> and remember to use EVAL to run. RPL is surely not just a stack-based language like Forth but has also strong roots in LISP as well. Anything similar in the TI? Maybe I'll buy a V200 after all !! :-D ==== > > Define myprgm(args)=Prgm:...:EndPrgm ??? Yes, you can define programs > > and functions from within programs. > > Remarkable! Maybe I should have kept the TI 89 I had. > Can it use list as programs. You know one can manipulate the lists > with POS POT PUTI GET GETI SUB REPL SIZE HEAD TAIL > DOLIST DOSUBS NSUB ENDSUB STREAM REVLIST SORT SEQ > and that applies to programs as list in the HP 4x series > Just supply { } instead of << >> and remember to use EVAL to run. > RPL is surely not just a stack-based language like Forth > but has also strong roots in LISP as well. No the TI68k can't use list as program. > Anything similar in the TI? Some of the functions you have listed are built-in on the TI68k with off course different name for example: HEAD->listname[1] SIZE->dim() Some other can be emulated with Ti-basic functions: for examples REVLIST->seq(list[k],k,dim(list),1,-1),etc... > Maybe I'll buy a V200 after all !! I advice you not as you would probably waste your money. Because if you haven't found any real reason to buy a TI89 then you have no real reason to buy a Voyage 200. The only interesting new features are the clock and the time functions. Features availlable on the HP for ages. TI has also probably fix some bugs(after 2 years of inactivity,it is a minimum). But overall nothing really stellar. After that some people stiil don't understand why i have such a poor opinion of TI. > :-D ==== > > > Define myprgm(args)=Prgm:...:EndPrgm ??? Yes, you can define programs > > > and functions from within programs. > > > > Remarkable! Maybe I should have kept the TI 89 I had. > > Can it use list as programs. You know one can manipulate the lists X > No the TI68k can't use list as program. Aaaarrggh!. So much for the flexibility! X > > Maybe I'll buy a V200 after all !! > > I advice you not as you would probably waste your money. X ok, I wait for more convincing arguments from Bhuvanesh. Your other posts showed the result stack problems of the TI and other stupid design flaws. While I'm often pissed off by some peculiarities of the 49G I now see that there is even greater darkness... Only if we could get units back to the EQW Environment !! Parisse, Please !!! ==== > > > Can it use list as programs. You know one can manipulate the lists Of course you can manipulate lists on the TI-68k, if that's what you mean. > > No the TI68k can't use list as program. A list as a program?? > > > Maybe I'll buy a V200 after all !! > > > > I advice you not as you would probably waste your money. It kind of depends on what you'll use it for, but as a developer, I'm quite pleased with the TI-68k series. > ok, I wait for more convincing arguments from Bhuvanesh. I haven't been following this thread (too busy at work). I'll reply sometime soon. Better not reply until I understand everything that's been said ;-) -- Bhuvanesh ==== Bhuvanesh a .8ecrit : > > > > > > Can it use list as programs. You know one can manipulate the lists > > Of course you can manipulate lists on the TI-68k, if that's what you > mean. > Some comments: 1/ for Veli-Pekka: about units and EQW, I can't do anything for this, it's not my part of the code 2/ About the TI-OS. Since I'm currently implementing TI compatibility for my xcas application (xcas should be able to run TI Basic programs when it will be finished), I have a better understanding of the TI OS. On a mathematical point of view, an area where the code is much more advanced on the TI is autosimplification. One can regret however that it is not possible to switch it off (like with QUOTE on the 4xG series). Some maths fields like linear algebra and arithmetic require additional user programs. On a programmation point of view, in my opinion the main weakness are: * list can not contain list elements * you can not pass functions as arguments (hence you must cheat with strings) * the distinction between function and programs with respect to the IO screen seems very strange to me * an unpart instruction should be there I don't think that not being able to play with TI programs like lists is a limitation Otherwise writing programs in TI Basic is easy. It's easier than RPN where you have to keep track of the stack (which means that modifications of an existing program are always hard). In fact, I have adopted TI Basic as one of the modes for programming xcas (except that the limitations above are not present:-)). RPN is also there of course. Bernard Parisse ==== > On a programmation point of view, in my opinion the main weakness are: > * list can not contain list elements Well, there are workarounds for this limitation. Basically, the TIOS currently does not allow ragged arrays. > * you can not pass functions as arguments (hence you must cheat with > strings) Functions as arguments? Do you mean passing them unevaluated? If not, you can do, for example: Psi(0, Gamma(0.1)) to get 2.19924... > * the distinction between function and programs with respect to the > IO screen seems very strange to me The basic difference between functions and programs is that functions cannot have side-effects (they cannot change anything except locally). > * an unpart instruction should be there This is on the wish-list: http://www.angelfire.com/realm/ti_tiplist/WishList.html > I don't think that not being able to play with TI programs like > lists is a limitation > Otherwise writing programs in TI Basic is easy. It's easier > than RPN where you have to keep track of the stack (which > means that modifications of an existing program are always hard). > In fact, I have adopted TI Basic as one of the modes for programming > xcas > (except that the limitations above are not present:-)). Cool! :-) -- Bhuvanesh ==== >>On a programmation point of view, in my opinion the main weakness are: >>* list can not contain list elements > > > Well, there are workarounds for this limitation. Basically, the TIOS > currently does not allow ragged arrays. > Of course one can always make workarounds but it makes programs tricky harder to modify etc. I do not understand this limitation because internally a TI list can contain any type of object, it's probably just the parser, something that should be fixed. > > Functions as arguments? Do you mean passing them unevaluated? If not, > you can do, for example: Psi(0, Gamma(0.1)) to get 2.19924... > I mean something like {1,2,3} => l Define f(x)=Func: ... EndFunc map(f,l) where map would apply f to all elements of the list. f is evaluated and you will get argument error (even if you define map(f,l) to return f(l)). Just a quote instruction could fix that. TI-Basic is currently not a fonctionnal language, that's really a shame because fixing this is probably 1/4 h work for the OS programmers. > The basic difference between functions and programs is that functions > cannot have side-effects (they cannot change anything except locally). > Then a program should be usable like a function, i.e. return a value. >>In fact, I have adopted TI Basic as one of the modes for programming >>xcas >>(except that the limitations above are not present:-)). > > > Cool! :-) BTW, do you know where the binary format of TI is documented? Or will the libtifile give an API to read these files? ==== Is it possible to speed up the 49G RISCH via some look-up tables? > Bhuvanesh a .8ecrit : > > > > > Can it use list as programs. You know one can manipulate the lists > > Of course you can manipulate lists on the TI-68k, if that's what you > > mean. > Some comments: > 1/ for Veli-Pekka: about units and EQW, I can't do anything for this, > it's not my part of the code Sorry! I was barking the wrong tree. Who was it ?!! > 2/ About the TI-OS. X > On a programmation point of view, in my opinion the main weakness are: > * list can not contain list elements > * you can not pass functions as arguments (hence you must cheat with > strings) > * the distinction between function and programs with respect to the > IO screen seems very strange to me > * an unpart instruction should be there > I don't think that not being able to play with TI programs like > lists is a limitation Not a serious one, since one can use string manipulations. > Otherwise writing programs in TI Basic is easy. It's easier > than RPN where you have to keep track of the stack (which > means that modifications of an existing program are always hard). Local & compiled local variables are available... > In fact, I have adopted TI Basic as one of the modes for programming > xcas > (except that the limitations above are not present:-)). > RPN is also there of course. X Marvelous!! On which PDA platforms it will run on? Veli-Pekka ==== > > Is it possible to speed up the 49G RISCH via some look-up tables? > Most certainly, but I won't do it myself. Perhaps someone else will when the CAS is released under LGPL at the end of the next year. >>1/ for Veli-Pekka: about units and EQW, I can't do anything for this, >>it's not my part of the code > > Sorry! I was barking the wrong tree. Who was it ?!! > EQW is mainly Gerald's work. >>I don't think that not being able to play with TI programs like >>lists is a limitation > > Not a serious one, since one can use string manipulations. > I meant making programs that modify other programs should not be a common practice (i.e. only advanced programmer should have to do that and not often). > >>Otherwise writing programs in TI Basic is easy. It's easier >>than RPN where you have to keep track of the stack (which >>means that modifications of an existing program are always hard). > > Local & compiled local variables are available... > Yes, but the slow CPU on which SRPL is implemented has given birth to a lot of programs that use as little as possible local variables (there was also a memory reason for this on the 48). These programs which heavily use stack manipulation are much harder to modify. And for maths manipulation it is easier to use algebraic notation (coding, checking, modifying). > Marvelous!! On which PDA platforms it will run on? > but also MacOSX once XDarwin is installed), as well installed, you can run it on the Zaurus (once you have installed X11). ==== i put a pic running on the zaurus here: http://www.geocities.com/zauborg/ it is GREAT! as functional as in the PC! > but also MacOSX once XDarwin is installed), as well > installed, you can run it on the Zaurus (once you have installed > X11). the zaurus will be able to play XCAS from qtopia soon (with the software qtopia-x) PS: Proffesor. in the zaurus, the right side of the display does not show up all the way. Maybe the ipaq display is slightly wider. it does not affect the functionality, but it eats the right last menu in half (still, the menu works fine). i tried to move the window with no luck. ==== X > I haven't been following this thread (too busy at work). > I'll reply sometime soon. Better not reply until I understand > everything that's been said ;-) Why ??? ;-) ==== X > For example one of my programs calculates roots of the cubic equation > and always produces three solutions (even when two are complex or > identical etc.) on the stack as three separate numbers. Then using strictly > keyboard DROP and SWAP keys I can quickly isolate one that is needed > for other calculator functions or even keep other on the stack in the > meantime for further work. Trying to mimic such functionality on TI although > probably possible with tricks (through variables or in some other way) is > awkward and is not an natural extension to the TI interface. Keep in mind, > that we are discussing here consistency of the interface. Any workaround, > if even possible only reinforces my argument, that TI interface is > significantly less consistent, than HP interface in RPN mode. > > Jack Right on, Jack ! I have sometimes used the STARTEQW reserved variable in order to form a selection list when a HP command (SOLVE) returns several answers in a list (in my HP 49G). I then select the answer that I want and continue with the calculation. This could be one way to circumvent the TI 89 shortcomings if this is possible to do from the add-on EQW application. Bhuvanesh? ==== X > > Consider for example, that the TI output of program goes to the program > > screen and is unusable as a stack object for regular functions of the > > calculator without special needs. On HP (when running in RPN > > which is the only sensible way to run it) the good program take > > input from stack and outputs data to the stack. It does two things: > > makes output data naturally available for the other calc commands > > and programs, make the program itself natural extension of the > > calculator build in functions in the consistent manner. > > This is why I generally use functions instead of programs. IMHO, > functions should be the default TI-Basic program type. Programs do > have their advantages too, in particular being able to use all > instructions and built-in functions. Oh - that limitation had the very first Symbolic Calculator the HP 28C. You had to write functions in Algebraic form << -> argument'function(argument)+argument^2*...' >> restricting the user to build-in functions to build up new functions instead of using any commands available (even side-effects) Later, when the HP 28S was introduced any kind of program starting with an argument syntax or local variables (lambda variables/temporary variables) like this: << -> width length height << any commands >> >> was a legal Algebraic Function. In the introduction of the 48SX it went even further. User could supply his/her own function with a derivative starting the derivative name with der << -> x y << commands >> >> 'My.Fn' STO << -> x y dx dy << commands for derivative >> >> 'derMy.Fn' STO AND One could use APPLY to even add step-wise evaluation similar to the build-in functions to their own functions. Unfortunately it seems that this feature has been removed from the HP 49G OS and I'm not sure about the derNAME anymore since derivative now are d1NAME Naturally the CAS in the 49G has even more power available, but nevertheless there are only minor restrictions to functions versus commands/programs in the HP 4x series. ==== Agreed. Functions work best on TI89. More direct and straightforward. ed > This is why I generally use functions instead of programs. IMHO, > functions should be the default TI-Basic program type. Programs do > have their advantages too, in particular being able to use all > instructions and built-in functions. > > -- > Bhuvanesh ==== X > Consider for example, that the TI output of program goes to the program > screen and is unusable as a stack object for regular functions of the > calculator without special needs. On HP (when running in RPN > which is the only sensible way to run it) the good program take > input from stack and outputs data to the stack. It does two things: > makes output data naturally available for the other calc commands > and programs, make the program itself natural extension of the > calculator build in functions in the consistent manner. Exactly why I got rid of the TI 89 I found it much easier to program the HP 49G to do the tricks that I wanted. I also like the Custom Menu capability of the EQW. Does the EQW application on the TI 89 allow for user program expansions, Bhuvanesh?! ==== > Does the EQW application on the TI 89 allow > for user program expansions, Bhuvanesh?! Of course. -- Bhuvanesh ==== **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com **** Somebody told me that in september, the new ROM was going to be released. Is that true ? I'm eager for using the 1.19-7 Bye. Leon. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= *** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! *** http://www.usenet.com Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= ==== Of what you hear believe nothing, of what you see only the half. And keep on hoping. ;-) (Old greek wisdom, or new greek crazyness if you like.) Greetings, Nick. > **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com **** > > > Somebody told me that in september, the new ROM was going to be released. Is > that true ? I'm eager for using the 1.19-7 > > Bye. > Leon. > > > > > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= > *** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! *** > http://www.usenet.com > Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= ==== This unverified information is a rumor, but in the summer 2003 your dreams will come true. X > > Somebody told me that in september, the new ROM was going to be released. Is > > that true ? I'm eager for using the 1.19-7 ==== **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com **** 2003 ?? Oh, my....... I'm taken aback. Ok, I'll go on dreaming. :-( bye, Leon. > This unverified information is a rumor, > but in the summer 2003 your dreams will come true. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= *** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! *** http://www.usenet.com Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= ==== > This unverified information is a rumor, > but in the summer 2003 your dreams will come true. what??... 2003 ??? :o( Guenpovi ==== I'm looking for HP42S calculator in Italy and possibly in Puglia -- ==== COMO PODRIA HACER LO SIGUIENTE EN ML ?? 1 2 3 4 -> 4 2 3 1 ==== thanks pivo ==== > COMO PODRIA HACER LO SIGUIENTE EN ML ?? > > 1 2 3 4 -> 4 2 3 1 Sorry, I do not speak Spanish but this will do what you want. It is quit a good example for ML, I think. I reverses the stack order of any number of stack elements ( -> ) ( ob1 ob2 ... obn -> obn ... ob2 ob1) CODE SAVE CD1EX D1=C % point D1 and D0 to the first stack level D0=C A=DAT0 A ?A=0 A -> EXIT % if 0 then no objects on stack *TOP D1+5 % point to next stack level A=DAT1 A ?A#0 A -> TOP % do until top of stack D1-5 % point to top stack level *MAIN A=DAT1 A % read highest object (level n) C=DAT0 A % read lowest object (level 1) DAT1=C A % swich them DAT0=A A D1-5 % point to level (n-1) D0+5 % point to level 2 AD0EX D0=A CD1EX D1=C ?A MAIN % check if middle of stack is reached *EXIT LOADRPL % return to rpl ENDCODE @ -- This message was written with 100% recycled electrons Pivo ==== > I reverses the stack order of any number of stack elements Wouldn't it be simpler to do: << ->LIST REVLIST OBJ-> DROP >> -- Ralf Kleineisel - Regionales Rechenzentrum Erlangen Kommunikationssysteme ==== > Wouldn't it be simpler to do: > << ->LIST REVLIST OBJ-> DROP >> This is very slow because all three involved UsrRPL commands are particularly slow if the size of stack reversion is high. It nearly never pays to program this in ML since the following SysRPL program with 3 commands is much shorter, really fast and error protected, in addition. :: CKN (check for sufficiently many stack objects) reversym (reverse stack order of meta-object) UNCOERCE (regain the real or zint in Level 1) ; The stack diagram of this program is ob1 ... obn %n -> obn ... ob1 %n Briefly speaking, it reverses a user-meta-object. - Wolfgang PS. reversym is itself a SysRPL-program and uses the meta-object commands pshzer and psh1&rev. ==== > > > I reverses the stack order of any number of stack elements > > Wouldn't it be simpler to do: > > << ->LIST REVLIST OBJ-> DROP >> Yep but that wouldn't be in ASM now, would it? -- This message was written with 100% recycled electrons Pivo ==== Can someone tell me if: 1. There was ever a rechargeable battery pack for the HP41 series ? 2. If, so, where can I get one? Mark. ==== There is even a small detachable recharger plug cover on the side of the HP 41-series calculator. If you take out the batteries you push it out to the left. > Can someone tell me if: > > 1. There was ever a rechargeable battery pack for the HP41 series ? > > 2. If, so, where can I get one? > > > Mark. > > ==== please look there: http://www.internationalcalculator.com/ they have all you need for your HP 41 CX. Please excuse me for my bad english. Wolfgang Arhelger MR schrieb im Newsbeitrag > Can someone tell me if: > > 1. There was ever a rechargeable battery pack for the HP41 series ? > > 2. If, so, where can I get one? > > > Mark. > > ==== > Can someone tell me if: > > 1. There was ever a rechargeable battery pack for the HP41 series ? > > 2. If, so, where can I get one? You might want to check at www.hpmuseum.org. Note that it has classified ads, sections on Battery Packs & Chargers and Repairs & Batteries, and a searchable Forum with archive. -- James ==== I'm not a 41 user, so I don't know if you could use AA rechargable batteries with an external charger... ==== R Lion schrieb im Newsbeitrag > I'm not a 41 user, so I don't know if you could use AA rechargable batteries > with an external charger... > Yes, this works. Back in 1981, I made my own recharger for this. Raymond ==== >Can someone tell me if: > >1. There was ever a rechargeable battery pack for the HP41 series ? > >2. If, so, where can I get one? > > >Mark. > 1. Yes 2. I bought mine at the Penn State Book Store on Campus. (20 years ago) Bill alternate E-dress wtstorey@ieee.org.no.spam.please (Use the obvious) ==== 1. yes 2. good luck be sure to understand http://www.anti-matrix.net ==== Baboo schrieb im Newsbeitrag > 1. yes > > 2. good luck > Nowadays the're often offered on eBay;-) Raymond ==== Help (please) On Sunday my HP41CX stopped working - the display no longer comes on when I press the ON key. I have tested the batteries and battery holder from the non-working calculator in my other, working 41CX, so I know that they are OK. The things I have tried since Sunday, to no avail, are: 1. Installed new batteries 2. Checked voltage across batteries when in the battery holder to make sure 3. Gently scraped the contacts inside the battery compartment - there was some oxidisation on a couple of the contacts 4. Swapped battery holders with the working HP41CX The calculator was fine until I removed the battery pack on Sunday after I got a low battery level warning BAT on the (now non-working) HP-41CX. Since then nothing I have done will make the calculator turn on. Is there anything else that should be part of a routine check ? Mark. ==== MR meinte >On Sunday my HP41CX stopped working - the display no longer comes on when I >press the ON key. I have tested the batteries and battery holder from the >non-working calculator in my other, working 41CX, so I know that they are >OK. The things I have tried since Sunday, to no avail, are: > >1. Installed new batteries >2. Checked voltage across batteries when in the battery holder to make >sure >3. Gently scraped the contacts inside the battery compartment - there was >some oxidisation on a couple of the contacts >4. Swapped battery holders with the working HP41CX > >The calculator was fine until I removed the battery pack on Sunday after I >got a low battery level warning BAT on the (now non-working) HP-41CX. >Since then nothing I have done will make the calculator turn on. I recall that i had similar propblems with my hp41C on very rare occasion. At last I had always been successful with holding down backspace when switching on. Downside is Memory Loss. Sometimes it needed several attempts. HTH G.9fnter ==== leave batteries out for an extended period, say 24 hours. that way all the power is drained. be sure to understand http://www.anti-matrix.net ==== I'm new to the 49, but I've been reading a lot about it's history. I know that HP shut down it's calculator development division, and that 1.18 was the last official firmware. I've upgraded to 1.19-6, and so far it looks great. I'm wondering who now owns the 49 firmware code? Is this the original code base from HP (1.18), or is it a complete rewrite? Are the original 49 developers still out there (hpcalc.org, Steve ==== > I'm new to the 49, but I've been reading a lot about it's history. I > know that HP shut down it's calculator development division, and that > 1.18 was the last official firmware. I've upgraded to 1.19-6, and so > far it looks great. I'm wondering who now owns the 49 firmware code? > Is this the original code base from HP (1.18), or is it a complete > rewrite? Are the original 49 developers still out there (hpcalc.org, It's a bit of both. The HP49 firmware is own by HP and license some part of it (without owning it) like : The CAS (some is own by Bernard Parisse, and the rest by Mika Heiskanen and Claude-Nicolas Fechter) Christian Bourgeois ==== > > > I'm new to the 49, but I've been reading a lot about it's history. I > > know that HP shut down it's calculator development division, and that > > 1.18 was the last official firmware. I've upgraded to 1.19-6, and so > > far it looks great. I'm wondering who now owns the 49 firmware code? > > Is this the original code base from HP (1.18), or is it a complete > > rewrite? Are the original 49 developers still out there (hpcalc.org, > > It's a bit of both. > The HP49 firmware is own by HP and license some part of it (without owning > it) like : > The CAS (some is own by Bernard Parisse, and the rest by Mika Heiskanen and > Claude-Nicolas Fechter) > Christian Bourgeois > And what about the rest of the 'intellectual' guts of the machine? The ROM and micro-code which does the unit conversions, the multiplication/stack handling etc...? Just curious...and wondering whether there is sufficient material Geoff ==== Perhaps somebody can be interested in little programs for the 15c (I'm sure, easily portable to other models) Sure they aren't good programs from the point of view of a programmer, but they're small and do the work... Triangle solver (sides-> angles&area) - 22 lines Quadratic equation (real and complex solutions) - 25 lines Entering statistic data with frequencies (traditional lack in hp calculators) - 23 lines Z-Confidence interval for mean - 13 lines Z-Confidence interval for proportion - 23 lines (also, two little programs for sample size) Binomial distribution - 19 lines I've written two programs, Normal distribution and inverse Normal distribution, that actually I don't use because their memory and time consuming. smaller and/or quicker I'll be happy if you send them to me. ==== How to I view a whole number with out the calc(49G) showing it in scientific notation. For example I want to see the whole 15 digit number for 2^50. Jamie ==== I'm not sure what you want, but here we go: 1) Check that [MODE] |CAS| _ Approx is un-checked. The Header should show something like: RAD XYZ HEX R= instead of R~ or DEG R<< DEC C= instead of C~ depending on your other mode settings. Note that there is a keyboard shortcut to change between ~/= Hold down [Right-Shift] while pressing [ENTER] or shortly: [RS]&[->NUM] 2a) Do not use a decimal point in your integer calculations: RPN: 2 50 [Y^x] ALG: 2^50 [ENTER] EQW: 2^50 [Up-Arrow] [UA] |EVAL| (on key [F4] ) 2b) You could use #binary integer with multiplication... I hope this helped you. > How to I view a whole number with out the calc(49G) showing it in scientific > notation. For example I want to see the whole 15 digit number for 2^50. > > Jamie > > ==== I own both a HP49G and a TI83+. With the TI I can graph a function, turn on trace, and then enter a value for x and it tells me what y is. How is this done with the 49G? ==== > I own both a HP49G and a TI83+. With the TI I can graph a function, turn on > trace, and then enter a value for x and it tells me what y is. How is this > done with the 49G? > > What Michael ask is how to know the Y value for X. Once you have entered your equation, press VAR. Input you value for X and use F corresponding to your function (Y1, Y2 ..etc) and admire the result ! Matthias Lopez ==== When in graph mode press F3 trac and use right and left cursor to move point. ed > I own both a HP49G and a TI83+. With the TI I can graph a function, turn on > trace, and then enter a value for x and it tells me what y is. How is this > done with the 49G? > > ==== Back in 1980's there was an HP-41 module based on a book called Beat The Racetrack by Dr William Ziemba (Dr. Z). Does anyone have one that they want to sell (in North America), or know of an HP-41 or HP-48 program to predict winners of horse races? ==== http://www.watertightcase.com/3000series.html it shpuld work they are also sold in the UK ==== http://jewel.morgan.edu/~rcobo/cgg/hpcase.jpg it is very strong. it can be locked with a padlock too. > http://www.watertightcase.com/3000series.html > > it shpuld work > they are also sold in the UK > ==== Errk It's ugly. I prefer the real original HP48 one.. My 0.02? -- Julien (Sunhp) Meyer Lead Programmer of Jadeware (C) 1998/2002. 639cb51.0209032237.232588ce@posting.google.com... > http://www.watertightcase.com/3000series.html > > it shpuld work > they are also sold in the UK > ==== I use a metallic school children's pencil case to hold my HP's. They fit perfectly with a minimum of slack. Some foam and even the Finnish post-office can not destroy my HP. > Errk It's ugly. I prefer the real original HP48 one.. > > My 0.02? > -- > Julien (Sunhp) Meyer > Lead Programmer of Jadeware (C) 1998/2002. > > 639cb51.0209032237.232588ce@posting.google.com... > > http://www.watertightcase.com/3000series.html > > > > it shpuld work > > they are also sold in the UK > > > > ==== > I use a metallic school children's pencil case to hold my HP's. > They fit perfectly with a minimum of slack. > Some foam and even the Finnish post-office can not destroy my HP. yes, but it doesn't float! just kidding, he he. the real test is in my school backpack. if it survives there, then it is made of good stuff. ==== Well, I got them (from PowerOn, 800-673-6227) yesterday. The 39g is in the standard bubble pack. The 49g just comes with a User Guide in a plastic bag with no cable, warranty card, or anything else. The serial number is ID 94701476 and the rom version is 1.10. My next step is to try to install 19.6. BTW, tax was $12.14 and shipping was $8.00, for a total price for both of $128.13. Martin Cohen ==== http://news.com.com/2100-1040-956357.html?tag=fd_top The Greek government has banned all electronic games across the country, including those that run on home computers, on Game Boy-style portable consoles, and on mobile phones. Thousands of tourists in Greece are unknowingly facing heavy fines or long terms in prison for owning mobile phones or portable video games. club is here to stay. ==== hitted the submit key twice. (Wrath!!!) > http://news.com.com/2100-1040-956357.html?tag=fd_top > > The Greek government has banned all electronic games across the > country, including those that run on home computers, on Game Boy-style > portable consoles, and on mobile phones. Thousands of tourists in > Greece are unknowingly facing heavy fines or long terms in prison for > owning mobile phones or portable video games. I don't know if I should lough or cry...I'll do both. First the cry with wrath against the idiots called politicians in Greece. The word you in the following paragraphs is directly aimed to those idiots. - You, the higher ups politicians in Greece who continue ignoring human rights, decided to protect people by banning computer games this time, instead of banning the misery in education and corruption. Perhaps because the latter would mean that you would bann yourselfs. One could have understanding if you have decided banning games that deal with violence and killing, though this would be also very short sighted, because the reasons for playing such games are burried much much deeper than the surface that you, the ignorants, just scratch. Remember, when you decide against the will of people next time, you were (unfortunately) born in Greece, the land where direct democracy was also born. No Greek, including you the idiots, has the right to put such a dirt on the only things that we, greeks, have to rely on and be proud of. We don't possess the millions that you have eaten up in your political carrier, we don't have the luxury that you live in, thieving and lying all your lives. The only thing that we have is the knowledge of what Greece has given to the world. Exactly those ideals that you shamelessly f**cked up beyond recognition. In addition: Der Mensch spielt nur, wo er in voller Bedeutung des Wortes Mensch ist, und er ist nur da ganz Mensch, wo er spielt. ---------Friedrich von Schiller Trans: A human plays only there, where he/she is human in the whole sence of the word. And he/she is only there totally human, where he/she plays. You politicians ignored one more time the political/historical present that was given to the world by the Greeks without ever asking anything to return. But not only this. You also ignored the just this being human in the whole sence of the word. And you did this in a place where the dream of life was dreamed in one of its most beautiful version. Still in addition: -Playing computer games results in programming better ones, and to program better games is one of the things that push inovation to higher degrees. Only ignorants would want to prevent the people from thinking about new algorithms and new methods for programming. You, the ignorants who live permanently outside any development in our world, want to prevent inovation and thinking? Go on, you are not going to change anything for the better. Still, still in addition: -When next summer the number of tourists in Greece goes towards 0, you'll have to change your law again. Or have a small revolution of all people who earn for living from tourism. And greek revolutions are *not* that peaceful at all. ;-) And now the lough with sarcasm taken to the endth degree. You means again the political idiots in Greece. - You so called politicians in Greece, have totally lost the contact to your own people and the contact to everyday life. Do you really think that forbidding games will prevent anybody, especially the youngsters, playing games? Didn't you idiots notice that ignoring a Greek, just has the result of having him ignoring you ten times more? Do you want to have one more law that nobody cares about? Din't you notice that kids go their own ways, and if you push too hard, they do things they wouldn't do otherwise? Do you really think that anybody in Greece would just take that command of yours and act accordingly only because you can stand a couple of steps higher and shout about your political efforts? Hunderds of years in slavery were not enough to let the wish of Greeks for freedom vanish. Do you think that you are going to manage doing that in a few days? If you do, and it seems like you do, then you're going to get very very very bad news. We have withstanded much harder situations. We only have a tired smile for you, the wannabe patriarchs. You *will* dance to our rhythm, sooner or later. > club is here to stay. You bet it is. I never programmed games for the calcs but now perhaps I'll do and I'll send them to any friend in Greece that has an HP. Mwahahahahaaa, they want criminals? They're gonna get them! Gamings, Nick. P.S: Es ist, als ob unsere Zivilisation den Anblick des Spielenden nicht mehr ertragen k.9anne, weil sie in seinem zweckfreien Tun eine Form der Freiheit wittert, die ihr Konzept st.9art. -----Friedrich Sieburg Trans: It is as if our civilization can no more stand the sight of a playing human, because this civilization smells a form of freedom in the purposeless doing of a game, that disturbs the very concepts of the civilization. ==== > I don't know if I should lough or cry...I'll do both. he, he. i'll join you. > First the cry with wrath against the idiots called politicians in > Greece. The word you in the following paragraphs is directly aimed > to those idiots. wherever you go, you find more or less the same. sometimes (like here) they get away with stuff like this (but not for too long). > - You, the higher ups politicians in Greece who continue ignoring > human rights, decided to protect people by banning computer games this > time, instead of banning the misery in education and corruption. > Perhaps because the latter would mean that you would bann yourselfs. > One could have understanding if you have decided banning games that > deal with violence and killing, though this would be also very short > sighted, because the reasons for playing such games are burried much > much deeper than the surface that you, the ignorants, just scratch. > Remember, when you decide against the will of people next time, you > were (unfortunately) born in Greece, the land where direct democracy > was also born. No Greek, including you the idiots, has the right to > put such a dirt on the only things that we, greeks, have to rely on > and be proud of. We don't possess the millions that you have eaten up > in your political carrier, we don't have the luxury that you live in, > thieving and lying all your lives. The only thing that we have is the > knowledge of what Greece has given to the world. Exactly those ideals > that you shamelessly f**cked up beyond recognition. > > In addition: > Der Mensch spielt nur, wo er in voller Bedeutung des Wortes Mensch > ist, und er ist nur da ganz Mensch, wo er spielt. > ---------Friedrich von Schiller > Trans: A human plays only there, where he/she is human in the whole > sence of the word. And he/she is only there totally human, where > he/she plays. > You politicians ignored one more time the political/historical present > that was given to the world by the Greeks without ever asking anything > to return. But not only this. You also ignored the just this being > human in the whole sence of the word. And you did this in a place > where the dream of life was dreamed in one of its most beautiful > version. > > Still in addition: > -Playing computer games results in programming better ones, and to > program better games is one of the things that push inovation to > higher degrees. Only ignorants would want to prevent the people from > thinking about new algorithms and new methods for programming. You, > the ignorants who live permanently outside any development in our > world, want to prevent inovation and thinking? Go on, you are not > going to change anything for the better. > > Still, still in addition: > -When next summer the number of tourists in Greece goes towards 0, > you'll have to change your law again. Or have a small revolution of > all people who earn for living from tourism. And greek revolutions are > *not* that peaceful at all. ;-) > > > And now the lough with sarcasm taken to the endth degree. You means > again the political idiots in Greece. > > - You so called politicians in Greece, have totally lost the contact > to your own people and the contact to everyday life. Do you really > think that forbidding games will prevent anybody, especially the > youngsters, playing games? Didn't you idiots notice that ignoring a > Greek, just has the result of having him ignoring you ten times more? > Do you want to have one more law that nobody cares about? Din't you > notice that kids go their own ways, and if you push too hard, they do > things they wouldn't do otherwise? Do you really think that anybody in > Greece would just take that command of yours and act accordingly only > because you can stand a couple of steps higher and shout about your > political efforts? Hunderds of years in slavery were not enough to > let the wish of Greeks for freedom vanish. Do you think that you are > going to manage doing that in a few days? If you do, and it seems like > you do, then you're going to get very very very bad news. We have > withstanded much harder situations. We only have a tired smile for > you, the wannabe patriarchs. You *will* dance to our rhythm, sooner or > later. > > > club is here to stay. > > You bet it is. I never programmed games for the calcs but now perhaps > I'll do and I'll send them to any friend in Greece that has an HP. > Mwahahahahaaa, they want criminals? They're gonna get them! the NK revenge! ( add me too the team ) hey. one Greek student could make a security program in the HP49G so that only he could access the file system and the games (with password) :) if they get the HP49G, just play dummy (or make stealh games that do not show up on file system). if the Greek gov wants to find out they would have to post a message here to try to figure it out he, he. he could load it to hpcalc as a historical program (the 2002 Greek revolution). > Gamings, > Nick. > > P.S: > Es ist, als ob unsere Zivilisation den Anblick des Spielenden nicht > mehr ertragen k.9anne, weil sie in seinem zweckfreien Tun eine Form der > Freiheit wittert, die ihr Konzept st.9art. > > -----Friedrich Sieburg > > Trans: It is as if our civilization can no more stand the sight of a > playing human, because this civilization smells a form of freedom in > the purposeless doing of a game, that disturbs the very concepts of > the civilization. Greekings. ==== > > > I don't know if I should lough or cry...I'll do both. > > he, he. i'll join you. > > > > First the cry with wrath against the idiots called politicians in > > Greece. The word you in the following paragraphs is directly aimed > > to those idiots. > > wherever you go, you find more or less the same. sometimes (like here) > they get away with stuff like this (but not for too long). > But Newsweek has already rated it to be even dirter than the Belousconi-Government. I mean, can you imagine what could be even dirtier? I thought that he and his team were the top of all possible corruption, as they have all power in their hands. (They even sell out old Roman culture.) But no! The Greek government proved me wrong. It is possible to be even more corrupted. How much corruption is necessary to outperfome Belousconi? For heaven's sake! > > > club is here to stay. > > > > You bet it is. I never programmed games for the calcs but now perhaps > > I'll do and I'll send them to any friend in Greece that has an HP. > > Mwahahahahaaa, they want criminals? They're gonna get them! > > the NK revenge! ( add me too the team ) OK! The highly explosive kernel of the team has just taken form. :-) > hey. one Greek student could make a security program in the HP49G so > that only he could access the file system and the games (with > password) :) Yes, but a password with greek letters. Or perhaps chinese? ;-) >if they get the HP49G, just play dummy (or make stealh > games that do not show up on file system). if the Greek gov wants to > find out they would have to post a message here to try to figure it > out he, he. he could load it to hpcalc as a historical program (the > 2002 Greek revolution). Yeah, and then make a program that detects the presence of greek gov members and sends the Trabakoulas-Virus to their calcs. For those about to play, I salute you, Nick. ==== I think you might have missed the point. Grece has a huge problem with gambeling and money machines (ie: these casino electronic games stuff), and they declared that 1: they are not able to distinguish between video game and gambeling games and 2) that peoples are using normal video games for gambeling purposes... This is why they descided to ban every game... a little like the prohibition in the US, because peoples could get drunk with any type of alcohol, they even banned wine! how shamefull! > hitted the submit key twice. (Wrath!!!) > > > http://news.com.com/2100-1040-956357.html?tag=fd_top > > > > The Greek government has banned all electronic games across the > > country, including those that run on home computers, on Game Boy-style > > portable consoles, and on mobile phones. Thousands of tourists in > > Greece are unknowingly facing heavy fines or long terms in prison for > > owning mobile phones or portable video games. > > I don't know if I should lough or cry...I'll do both. > > First the cry with wrath against the idiots called politicians in > Greece. The word you in the following paragraphs is directly aimed > to those idiots. > > - You, the higher ups politicians in Greece who continue ignoring > human rights, decided to protect people by banning computer games this > time, instead of banning the misery in education and corruption. > Perhaps because the latter would mean that you would bann yourselfs. > One could have understanding if you have decided banning games that > deal with violence and killing, though this would be also very short > sighted, because the reasons for playing such games are burried much > much deeper than the surface that you, the ignorants, just scratch. > Remember, when you decide against the will of people next time, you > were (unfortunately) born in Greece, the land where direct democracy > was also born. No Greek, including you the idiots, has the right to > put such a dirt on the only things that we, greeks, have to rely on > and be proud of. We don't possess the millions that you have eaten up > in your political carrier, we don't have the luxury that you live in, > thieving and lying all your lives. The only thing that we have is the > knowledge of what Greece has given to the world. Exactly those ideals > that you shamelessly f**cked up beyond recognition. > > In addition: > Der Mensch spielt nur, wo er in voller Bedeutung des Wortes Mensch > ist, und er ist nur da ganz Mensch, wo er spielt. > ---------Friedrich von Schiller > Trans: A human plays only there, where he/she is human in the whole > sence of the word. And he/she is only there totally human, where > he/she plays. > You politicians ignored one more time the political/historical present > that was given to the world by the Greeks without ever asking anything > to return. But not only this. You also ignored the just this being > human in the whole sence of the word. And you did this in a place > where the dream of life was dreamed in one of its most beautiful > version. > > Still in addition: > -Playing computer games results in programming better ones, and to > program better games is one of the things that push inovation to > higher degrees. Only ignorants would want to prevent the people from > thinking about new algorithms and new methods for programming. You, > the ignorants who live permanently outside any development in our > world, want to prevent inovation and thinking? Go on, you are not > going to change anything for the better. > > Still, still in addition: > -When next summer the number of tourists in Greece goes towards 0, > you'll have to change your law again. Or have a small revolution of > all people who earn for living from tourism. And greek revolutions are > *not* that peaceful at all. ;-) > > > And now the lough with sarcasm taken to the endth degree. You means > again the political idiots in Greece. > > - You so called politicians in Greece, have totally lost the contact > to your own people and the contact to everyday life. Do you really > think that forbidding games will prevent anybody, especially the > youngsters, playing games? Didn't you idiots notice that ignoring a > Greek, just has the result of having him ignoring you ten times more? > Do you want to have one more law that nobody cares about? Din't you > notice that kids go their own ways, and if you push too hard, they do > things they wouldn't do otherwise? Do you really think that anybody in > Greece would just take that command of yours and act accordingly only > because you can stand a couple of steps higher and shout about your > political efforts? Hunderds of years in slavery were not enough to > let the wish of Greeks for freedom vanish. Do you think that you are > going to manage doing that in a few days? If you do, and it seems like > you do, then you're going to get very very very bad news. We have > withstanded much harder situations. We only have a tired smile for > you, the wannabe patriarchs. You *will* dance to our rhythm, sooner or > later. > > > club is here to stay. > > You bet it is. I never programmed games for the calcs but now perhaps > I'll do and I'll send them to any friend in Greece that has an HP. > Mwahahahahaaa, they want criminals? They're gonna get them! > > Gamings, > Nick. > > P.S: > Es ist, als ob unsere Zivilisation den Anblick des Spielenden nicht > mehr ertragen k.9anne, weil sie in seinem zweckfreien Tun eine Form der > Freiheit wittert, die ihr Konzept st.9art. > > -----Friedrich Sieburg > > Trans: It is as if our civilization can no more stand the sight of a > playing human, because this civilization smells a form of freedom in > the purposeless doing of a game, that disturbs the very concepts of > the civilization. ==== > > I think you might have missed the point. Grece has a huge problem with > gambeling and money machines (ie: these casino electronic games stuff), and > they declared that 1: they are not able to distinguish between video game > and gambeling games and 2) that peoples are using normal video games for > gambeling purposes... This is why they descided to ban every game... a > little like the prohibition in the US, because peoples could get drunk with > any type of alcohol, they even banned wine! how shamefull! > > and for the Greek Government. But, on the one hand even if the amount of money being spent for games is so huge, hey! It's *the people's* money. If they want, they'll should be able to throw that out of the window. And on the other hand, nobody in the government seems to care that an even bigger amount of money gets lost in the pockets of our politicians. And as you say, such prohibitions have always done exactly the opposite than that that was intended. Our politicians should have sufficient knowledge of history to know that. But what can you expect when the highest positions in Greek government are occupied by the least educated? Greetings, Nick. ==== > and for the Greek Government. But, on the one hand even if the amount > of money being spent for games is so huge, hey! It's *the people's* > money. If they want, they'll should be able to throw that out of the > window. Well, I have to disegree with that.. You have your normal gambelers, and these ones should be allow to keep doing so, but you have also the 'drugged' ones, the ones that can not stop, and they are throwing their familly money away, resulting in devastation of the familly, lake of education, food and all the rest, and you also have even worst cases of lost of responsability, a couple of years ago in australia, a women went for a 'quiky' and left out the one handed bandit a couple of hours later, handcuffed! she had just 'forgot' her 1 year old daughter to bake in the car with an outside temperature of over 40¡! and this should not be allowed! ==== > they are throwing their familly money away, resulting in devastation of the > familly, lake of education, food and all the rest, and you also have even > worst cases of lost of responsability, a couple of years ago in australia, a > women went for a 'quiky' and left out the one handed bandit a couple of > hours later, handcuffed! she had just 'forgot' her 1 year old daughter to > bake in the car with an outside temperature of over 40¡! and this should not > be allowed! but this is not allowed already, why do you think she ended-up handcuffed ? You have to stop thinking that the government should act as the ultimate authority and the father of all, showing the guidance to its people. There are limits that must be followed. If you always assume that what the government is doing is for your own good and that you should follow him blindly, you end-up like in pre-WW2 and Nazi Germany with a whole population following blindly because some highly placed morons said so. Banning has NEVER been a solution and has never solved a problem (and there are hundreds of examples). There are many ways to stop this kind of extreme examples to happen. For example, gambling companies could be held liable if anybody becomes addicted to their services and commit a crime by negligence. You may dislike gambling (and I do too), but banning it will just make need of people to gamble. And remember also that no laws can prevent human stupidity. You also seem to give too much credit to the Greek government. The fact that they passed a law to ban any games as little to do with their will to help people and make them stop gambling. All they wanted to achieve was to stop secure and reliable way for a government to make money easily (like legal gambling) and you will see if this (supposed to be) so kind government will ban it. ==== There are always idiots in any society and people who should have been sterilised rather than allowing them to have children. Just because she happened to choose this particular method to abuse her children is a condemnation of her not of the method. Should we ban alcohol because a few people become alcoholics? > > >>they are throwing their familly money away, resulting in devastation of >> > the > >>familly, lake of education, food and all the rest, and you also have even >>worst cases of lost of responsability, a couple of years ago in australia, >> > a > >>women went for a 'quiky' and left out the one handed bandit a couple of >>hours later, handcuffed! she had just 'forgot' her 1 year old daughter to >>bake in the car with an outside temperature of over 40¡! and this should >> > not > >>be allowed! >> > > but this is not allowed already, why do you think she ended-up handcuffed ? > > You have to stop thinking that the government should act as the ultimate > authority and the father of all, showing the guidance to its people. There > are limits that must be followed. > If you always assume that what the government is doing is for your own good > and that you should follow him blindly, you end-up like in pre-WW2 and Nazi > Germany with a whole population following blindly because some highly placed > morons said so. > > Banning has NEVER been a solution and has never solved a problem (and there > are hundreds of examples). > There are many ways to stop this kind of extreme examples to happen. For > example, gambling companies could be held liable if anybody becomes addicted > to their services and commit a crime by negligence. > You may dislike gambling (and I do too), but banning it will just make > need of people to gamble. > > And remember also that no laws can prevent human stupidity. > > You also seem to give too much credit to the Greek government. The fact that > they passed a law to ban any games as little to do with their will to help > people and make them stop gambling. All they wanted to achieve was to stop > secure and reliable way for a government to make money easily (like legal > gambling) and you will see if this (supposed to be) so kind government will > ban it. > > > > ==== > Should we ban alcohol because a > few people become alcoholics? Or ban cars, because they unfortunately quite often are in the hands of irresponsible people, who are a huge danger, not only to themselves, but also to other people and their property - not to talk about the economical strain they put on a society. No, banning is rarely the right choice... ==== > Or ban cars, because they unfortunately quite often are in the hands of > irresponsible people, who are a huge danger, not only to themselves, but As of today, I would vote that we ban doors as well after one nastily tried to crunch my hand. Obviously, if doors (and probably windows too) didn't exist such accident wouldn't happen. It would also drop the break-in robbery counts by a significant factor as there would be nothing to break anymore to get in. Plastic bags should also be ban, you can suffocate if you put one on top of your head. Sure you usually see signs and notes saying that a plastic bag is not a toy, but how is a 4 years old child going to read the warnings if he can't read ? Baseball bat should be ban, it seems that in the US more and more people (including 13 and 14 year old kids) are using them to beat to death their abusing father. The world is a huge playground for idiots ==== > > Should we ban alcohol because a > > few people become alcoholics? > > Or ban cars, because they unfortunately quite often are in the hands of > irresponsible people, who are a huge danger, not only to themselves, but > also to other people and their property - not to talk about the economical > strain they put on a society. > > No, banning is rarely the right choice... > I think smoking should be banned... This way, people who smoke will pay a lot for bad quality cigarettes, so they will die poorer and younger and at last I'll be able to enjoy a walk without losing a lung. Hey, I'm in superb form, tonight! Seriously, now, and more on topic, what's the status of HP48 in 49 in Greece, since there's heaps of games for them? Gerald. ==== >>>Should we ban alcohol because a >>>few people become alcoholics? >>> >> >>No, banning is rarely the right choice... >> > I think smoking should be banned... > This way, people who smoke will pay a lot for bad quality cigarettes, so they will > die poorer and younger and at last I'll be able to enjoy a walk without losing a > lung. I don't think we're going to have to ban cigarettes. There was a (by someone who's opinion counts) that a case could be made for the companies to be charged with multiple counts of murder. The premise being that they are now being legally judged responsible and they didn't have any less information 20 years ago and so, legally, they've been continuing to supply a substance that they knew was deadly. Considering there have been 800,000 deaths in Australia alone since 1950 and continue at 50/day, that makes a lot of murder indictments. ==== > >>>Should we ban alcohol because a > >>>few people become alcoholics? Yes, because *I* don't drink > > I think smoking should be banned... Yes, because, _I_ don't smoke Games? Yes, because I don't play (that often) Cars? Yes, because I don't own one BUT seriously folks: that is put in to the users upper lip. You may still buy it from Sweden or from tax-free shops on air-ports or on ships They should have done the opposite! Why? Cigar/Cigarette smoke goes to other persons lungs, too. That's the only thing that I would ban and with a reason! Veli-Pekka ==== > > I think you might have missed the point. Grece has a huge problem with > gambeling and money machines (ie: these casino electronic games stuff), and > they declared that 1: they are not able to distinguish between video game > and gambeling games and 2) that peoples are using normal video games for > gambeling purposes... This is why they descided to ban every game... a > little like the prohibition in the US, because peoples could get drunk with > any type of alcohol, they even banned wine! how shamefull! How come on!... How can it be ever possible to justify such a dumb law. Did the prohibition achieved anything ? It was a period of crime at its peak. This is not just gaming, it's part of education. Are you telling me that all Game is part of education, it's the best way to learn and it probably the way people have been learning from the beginning of human kind. Why do you think teachers are always trying to make what they are teaching FUN? because that's the only way a kid will ever learn. I doubt this law will stay forever, it's the most stupid thing I have EVER heard (except maybe each time Mr G. W. Bush open its mouth) ==== > How come on!... How can it be ever possible to justify such a dumb law. Did > the prohibition achieved anything ? It was a period of crime at its peak. I wonder why!? But actually, prohibition *did* reduce the overall consumption of alcohol in the US by a LOT. It did what it was designed to do.. but it also had some undesired side effects.. which I'm guessing is a big part of why they got rid of it! > This is not just gaming, it's part of education. Are you telling me that all > Game is part of education, it's the best way to learn and it probably the > way people have been learning from the beginning of human kind. > Why do you think teachers are always trying to make what they are teaching > FUN? because that's the only way a kid will ever learn. You'd have to imagine what they were trying to accomplish was something different than what it ended up being. It seems like one of those punish all for the crimes of a few. It was the same thing that happened in the United States with prohibition.. of course it was also part of a religous movement at the time that ended up taking things to an extreme. I think this falls in the category: ideas that have good intent but dont turn out that way because they are simlpy impractical. > I doubt this law will stay forever, it's the most stupid thing I have EVER > heard I've heard more stupid things, but I'd tend to agree with you. I wonder if games also includes competitions such as the Olympic games. Imagine if Greece no longer participated in the Olympics.. wouldn't that be the ultimate irony!? Aaron ==== > > > > > I think you might have missed the point. Grece has a huge problem with > > gambeling and money machines (ie: these casino electronic games stuff), > and > > they declared that 1: they are not able to distinguish between video game > > and gambeling games and 2) that peoples are using normal video games for > > gambeling purposes... This is why they descided to ban every game... a > > little like the prohibition in the US, because peoples could get drunk > with > > any type of alcohol, they even banned wine! how shamefull! > > How come on!... How can it be ever possible to justify such a dumb law. Did > the prohibition achieved anything ? It was a period of crime at its peak. Yep! > This is not just gaming, it's part of education. Are you telling me that all > Game is part of education, it's the best way to learn and it probably the > way people have been learning from the beginning of human kind. > Why do you think teachers are always trying to make what they are teaching > FUN? because that's the only way a kid will ever learn. Exactly! > I doubt this law will stay forever, it's the most stupid thing I have EVER > heard (except maybe each time Mr G. W. Bush open its mouth) Mon capitaine! With all my respect I may disagree with you about Mr. Bush being able to outperform the stupidity of our government. After all we must have something in Greece that keeps the world record. Even if this something is the most dumb laws in the whole universe! ;-) (Believe me there are much more laws of this kind in Greece) Greetings, Nick. ==== I've many Greek customers who bought me our computer games at Jadeware, what about if they can't play it anymore ? Totally stupid law, I hate about this.. -- Julien (Sunhp) Meyer Lead Programmer of Jadeware (C) 1998/2002. 639cb51.0209041204.f6b77a5@posting.google.com... > http://news.com.com/2100-1040-956357.html?tag=fd_top > > The Greek government has banned all electronic games across the > country, including those that run on home computers, on Game Boy-style > portable consoles, and on mobile phones. Thousands of tourists in > Greece are unknowingly facing heavy fines or long terms in prison for > owning mobile phones or portable video games. > > club is here to stay. ==== > I've many Greek customers who bought me our computer games at Jadeware, what > about if they can't play it anymore ? > Totally stupid law, I hate about this.. Stupid politicians just can't make any intelligent laws. Gamings, Nick. ==== I hate games on a business computer and I always remove them from my employers Windows system with one exception: Eiffel Oy bought me a Philips Velo (I asked for a HP 320) and the Solitaire was in ROM ! I'm glad that I'm not in any country with stupid laws possessing my current HP Jornada 720 (which also comes with Solitaire in ROM) OR with a HP 48GX with a MINEHUNT in ROM.... BUT I guess I would be safe if I don't play it publicly ;-) Wanna bet on which one of us is the better in Solitaire/MINEHUNT, Nick ?? PS: The Greeks are incompatible even with Greeks ;-) > http://news.com.com/2100-1040-956357.html?tag=fd_top > > The Greek government has banned all electronic games across the > country, including those that run on home computers, on Game Boy-style > portable consoles, and on mobile phones. Thousands of tourists in > Greece are unknowingly facing heavy fines or long terms in prison for > owning mobile phones or portable video games. > > club is here to stay. ==== >> I hate games on a business computer and I always >> remove them from my employers Windows system >> with one exception: Eiffel Oy bought me a Philips Velo >> (I asked for a HP 320) and the Solitaire was in ROM ! You poor guy! Greek laws made a criminal out of you ;-) >> I'm glad that I'm not in any country with stupid laws >> possessing my current HP Jornada 720 >> (which also comes with Solitaire in ROM) >> OR >> with a HP 48GX with a MINEHUNT in ROM.... >> BUT Oh no! I also have the 48GX. And the 49G with its tetris. What am I gonna do? Help! I'm scared to death ;-) >> I guess I would be safe if I don't play it publicly >> ;-) Perhaps they already wired each and every house and they are watching us, while we play? Let me see. What's that under the phone? Oh no, a micro camera and a transmitter. They caught me! ;-) > Wanna bet on which one of us is the better in > Solitaire/MINEHUNT, Nick ?? Hahaha! I don't have half a chance. I play so incompatible that the programs crash. But let's go for a competition. How can we do that? And how can many many others participate? And of course, you let me win and I send the (signed) tetris diploma to every politician in Greece along with many greekkings, this time I hope from everyone out there. > PS: The Greeks are incompatible even with Greeks ;-) Now you understood us. That's why we have 10 millions Greeks and 20 millions political parties in Greece. Phenomenon also know as political inflation or, as Harry Klinn, a greek comedian said: How comes that so few people, in such a small country, in such a short time, have managed to do so big stupidities? Each Greek seems to be most incompatible with his/herself, though the degree of incompatibility to anything else except the own self is already in unbelievable high degrees. (Trabakoulas does math, in order to forget about the steady contradiction with anything.) ;-) > > http://news.com.com/2100-1040-956357.html?tag=fd_top > > > > The Greek government has banned all electronic games across the > > country, including those that run on home computers, on Game Boy-style > > portable consoles, and on mobile phones. Thousands of tourists in > > Greece are unknowingly facing heavy fines or long terms in prison for > > owning mobile phones or portable video games. > > > > club is here to stay. Gamings, Nick. P.S: Come on people, play more! Let the machines fume and smoke! ==== > > >> I hate games on a business computer and I always > >> remove them from my employers Windows system > >> with one exception: Eiffel Oy bought me a Philips Velo > >> (I asked for a HP 320) and the Solitaire was in ROM ! > > You poor guy! Greek laws made a criminal out of you ;-) Are the new greek laws in accordance with European laws? I bet one could argue something like that at a European court -- This message was written with 100% recycled electrons Pivo ==== >... >Are the new greek laws in accordance with >European laws? I bet one could argue something >like that at a European court >... That's exactly the point I have discussed with a colleague yesterday. integrated in its firmware. So, many mobile phone manufacturers are handicapped with Greece, since they either can't sell anymore their phones, or they are forced to rewrite the firmware especially for Greece. Sooner or later some European Court will outlaw this law fur sure. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ralf Fritzsch Bundesanstalt fuer Wasserbau Federal Waterways Engineering and Research Dienststelle Kueste Institute - Department Hamburg ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ==== > >... > >Are the new greek laws in accordance with > >European laws? I bet one could argue something > >like that at a European court > >... > > That's exactly the point I have discussed with a colleague yesterday. > integrated in its firmware. So, many mobile phone manufacturers are > handicapped with Greece, since they either can't sell anymore their > phones, or they are forced to rewrite the firmware especially for Greece. > > Sooner or later some European Court will outlaw this law fur sure. If you knew how many such laws exist in Greece that should have been outlawed since decades, you wouldn't be so optimistic. But, anyway thanks for your optimism, it encourages me that perhaps some time in the future we, Greeks, will have modern laws. Greetings, err still gamings, Nick. ==== I was walking past an electronics store and saw an HP32SII in the window. Apparently they're discontinued and this was a leftover -- it was down to $39 Canadian, and given the pathetic value of the Canadian dollar, that's practically free. So I added it to my other HP calculators (45, 48, 49). My first impression is that it's just amazing how much they could cram into it. Really comprehensive. It doesn't look as if it has softkey menus, but it does, and there sure are a lot of commands buried in there. And the manual is first-rate, even better than the HP48 book. I had a bit of trouble at first (it wouldn't behave the way the manual said) until I realized that the stack entry is the old classic style, more like the HP45 than the HP48. And of course, there are only four levels (I've been spoiled by the 48). Oddity: I couldn't find any command to clear the stack. All the other calcs have that. At least it's no problem writing a short program to do it. The programming is a bit awkward compared to UserRPL, but it's very concise. It has to be, since there are only 384 bytes of user RAM. I know it was designed in the 80s, but I thought they'd have expanded it by now. Oh well, lots of memory encourages sloppy programming (see Gates, Bill). The speed: for short calculations there isn't much difference from the 48, but for long ones (a hefty integral, say) it takes 6-7 times as long. But then that's why it can run on three button cells. In short, I think it's just great and a first-class backup for my bigger calcs. Grab one if you can find one. Bill ==== > My first impression is that it's just amazing how much they > could cram into it. Really comprehensive. It doesn't look > as if it has softkey menus, but it does, and there sure are > a lot of commands buried in there. And the manual is > first-rate, even better than the HP48 book. > I agree- none of the 28/48/49 manuals have stacked up. And yeah- there's a ton of good functionality in there. If you don't mind the memory issues it will easily get you through most courses in school, and is my favorite pocket calc (my 42s is just to pricey to put in a pocket)for daily use. > The programming is a bit awkward compared to UserRPL, but > it's very concise. It has to be, since there are only 384 > bytes of user RAM. I know it was designed in the 80s, but I > thought they'd have expanded it by now. Oh well, lots of > memory encourages sloppy programming (see Gates, Bill). I find the programming much easier and more task-useable than UserRPL, actually. The RAM is a bit of an issue- and it's just life in HP land- the 20S has 99 steps, when it would have dominated in its price range (under $40US) to this day if it had 384. The 32SII would have sold a lot longer and better, perhaps, if they'd managed to cram in 3-4KB more without raising the price more than $15. > In short, I think it's just great and a first-class backup > for my bigger calcs. Grab one if you can find one. It is that- and more than a backup, as long as you don't have needs that max the memory it is a fine primary calculator. It's drastically more useful than any of the other non graphing (IE pocket) calcs out there. (barring the possible exceptions of the 20S for algebraic entry, the 42S for people who can afford $250 pocket breakages).... -- while E <> ==== Apparently others share your feelings about the 32sii. Check out the selling/buying frenzy on Ebay. Bob > I was walking past an electronics store and saw an HP32SII > in the window. Apparently they're discontinued and this was > a leftover -- it was down to $39 Canadian, and given the > pathetic value of the Canadian dollar, that's practically free. > > So I added it to my other HP calculators (45, 48, 49). > > My first impression is that it's just amazing how much they > could cram into it. Really comprehensive. It doesn't look > as if it has softkey menus, but it does, and there sure are > a lot of commands buried in there. And the manual is > first-rate, even better than the HP48 book. > > I had a bit of trouble at first (it wouldn't behave the way > the manual said) until I realized that the stack entry is > the old classic style, more like the HP45 than the HP48. > And of course, there are only four levels (I've been spoiled > by the 48). > > Oddity: I couldn't find any command to clear the stack. All > the other calcs have that. At least it's no problem writing > a short program to do it. > > The programming is a bit awkward compared to UserRPL, but > it's very concise. It has to be, since there are only 384 > bytes of user RAM. I know it was designed in the 80s, but I > thought they'd have expanded it by now. Oh well, lots of > memory encourages sloppy programming (see Gates, Bill). > > The speed: for short calculations there isn't much > difference from the 48, but for long ones (a hefty integral, > say) it takes 6-7 times as long. But then that's why it can > run on three button cells. > > In short, I think it's just great and a first-class backup > for my bigger calcs. Grab one if you can find one. > > Bill > ==== I bought a 32SII as a backup and have to disagree. The miserly 384 bytes memory effectively renders any of the other advanced features useless. Just one equation for the built in Solver used a third of the memory. Would have been a lovely calc with even 8k of memory. Nice display, keyboard etc. It's a good scientific calculator but thats all. I guess I just wish it was a HP42. > I was walking past an electronics store and saw an HP32SII > in the window. Apparently they're discontinued and this was > a leftover -- it was down to $39 Canadian, and given the > pathetic value of the Canadian dollar, that's practically free. > > So I added it to my other HP calculators (45, 48, 49). > > My first impression is that it's just amazing how much they > could cram into it. Really comprehensive. It doesn't look > as if it has softkey menus, but it does, and there sure are > a lot of commands buried in there. And the manual is > first-rate, even better than the HP48 book. > > I had a bit of trouble at first (it wouldn't behave the way > the manual said) until I realized that the stack entry is > the old classic style, more like the HP45 than the HP48. > And of course, there are only four levels (I've been spoiled > by the 48). > > Oddity: I couldn't find any command to clear the stack. All > the other calcs have that. At least it's no problem writing > a short program to do it. > > The programming is a bit awkward compared to UserRPL, but > it's very concise. It has to be, since there are only 384 > bytes of user RAM. I know it was designed in the 80s, but I > thought they'd have expanded it by now. Oh well, lots of > memory encourages sloppy programming (see Gates, Bill). > > The speed: for short calculations there isn't much > difference from the 48, but for long ones (a hefty integral, > say) it takes 6-7 times as long. But then that's why it can > run on three button cells. > > In short, I think it's just great and a first-class backup > for my bigger calcs. Grab one if you can find one. > > Bill ==== Bill Markwick escribi.97 en el mensaje > > Oddity: I couldn't find any command to clear the stack. All > the other calcs have that. At least it's no problem writing > a short program to do it. > I think that clear stack usually is not needed, but I guess (as I don't use that model) there is a command like CLEAR sigma of the 15c... This clears stack and statistic registers. Hope this helps. PS: Also you can do: 0 ENTER ENTER ENTER... ==== The 32sII is an excellent calc. be sure to understand http://www.anti-matrix.net ==== My junior year of high school I won a 48gx and tried to use it at first, but I was really clumsy with it and used my ti86 for the remainder of high school (mainly because all the teachers at my school require the use of a ti83+ or 86 and offer no help with any other calulators). So here I am in college and just getting around to really using it, and I was wondering how to symbolically expand something like (a+b)^3 to the full form. Any help? ~joe ==== Jotux escribi.97 en el mensaje > My junior year of high school I won a 48gx and tried to use it at first, but > I was really clumsy with it and used my ti86 for the remainder of high > school (mainly because all the teachers at my school require the use of a > ti83+ or 86 and offer no help with any other calulators). So here I am in > college and just getting around to really using it, and I was wondering how > to symbolically expand something like (a+b)^3 to the full form. Any help? > ~joe > If really you want use your 48, I recommend you ordering two RAM cards (128kb and 1Mb) from http://uuhome.de/oklotz/index_e.html . Installing the most powerfull calculators for 65 euros. You'll need some time for reading the documentation, but it is worth. Also, download the AUR. ==== EVAL works. I find playing with the EVAL FACTOR and SIMP in the EQW are my first quickest steps to manipulatiing an equation. If they don't do what I want then I pull out the manual. > My junior year of high school I won a 48gx and tried to use it at first, but > I was really clumsy with it and used my ti86 for the remainder of high > school (mainly because all the teachers at my school require the use of a > ti83+ or 86 and offer no help with any other calulators). So here I am in > college and just getting around to really using it, and I was wondering how > to symbolically expand something like (a+b)^3 to the full form. Any help? > ~joe > > ==== Original question [re HP48GX]: > how to symbolically expand something like '(a+b)^3' to the full form. On 48GX, try this program, found in the Advanced User's Reference (AUR): << DO DUP EXPAN UNTIL DUP ROT SAME END DO DUP COLCT UNTIL DUP ROT SAME END >> 'EXCO' STO > EVAL works. Not on HP48G[X] > EVAL FACTOR and SIMP in the EQW Not on HP48G[X] > pull out the manual The AUR didn't come with the HP48G[X] (and is no longer available, although you can still order a photocopy for as little as US $75 :) [r->] [OFF] . ==== Sorry, didn't even cross my mind that the behaviour would be different between the 48 and 49 for such a basic command. Guess this is an example where the extra functionality of the 49 is worth the slight speed drop due to the processing and handling of the extra types. Stephen.N > Original question [re HP48GX]: > > > how to symbolically expand something like '(a+b)^3' to the full form. > > On 48GX, try this program, > found in the Advanced User's Reference (AUR): > > << DO DUP EXPAN UNTIL DUP ROT SAME END > DO DUP COLCT UNTIL DUP ROT SAME END >> 'EXCO' STO > > > EVAL works. > > Not on HP48G[X] > > > EVAL FACTOR and SIMP in the EQW > > Not on HP48G[X] > > > pull out the manual > > The AUR didn't come with the HP48G[X] > (and is no longer available, although you can > still order a photocopy for as little as US $75 :) > > [r->] [OFF] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > . > > ==== > the extra functionality of the 49 is worth the slight speed drop > due to the processing and handling of the extra types. Although the example I'm about to cite is atypical, here is a case where an old HP48 [S/G] command takes *15*times* as long to execute on the 49G (and so does a program of mine which needs to use that command): http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=2953da04.0201290432.23a461f8%40posti ng.google.com Why was that old 48[S/G] command even altered at all (it is incompatible on the 49G with the way it worked on the 48S/48G, when the new 49G CAS SOLVE command replaces it completely in the CAS? So that's why my old 48[S/G] triangle solver program isn't 49G certified (and never will be :) http://www.mum.edu . ==== reporting that a friend's web site was entirely invisible on the google system (was not listed at all) despite being happily picked up by many others, including msn, hotbot, lycos, web crawler, excite... I told them that I'd had the site checked out by experienced programmers who confirmed it has all the necessary keywords, correct source coding, etc and that the fault is probably with google's procedures. again on Aug 6 (3 months later!) to get another automated response [#721242] and here we are today, another month on with still no response despite many reminders in between. Maybe google is working so hard on the problem of this invisible site that it is just too busy to reply. Or maybe google are just a bunch of hippie chancers who don't give two flying fucks about the people who use their system. ==== > was entirely invisible on the google system (was not listed at all) > despite being happily picked up by many others, including msn, > hotbot, lycos, web crawler, excite... > I told them that I'd had the site checked out by experienced > programmers who confirmed it has all the necessary keywords, > correct source coding, etc and that the fault > is probably with google's procedures. None of the above matters to Google; that's essentially what makes Google different (and usually more valuable for the seeker of information). Here is what matters; also note what B2 says: http://www.google.com/webmasters/1.html http://www.google.com/webmasters/1.html#B2 <=== http://www.google.com/webmasters/2.html http://www.google.com/webmasters/4.html http://www.google.com/webmasters/dos.html <=== Other venues for feedback to Google: http://www.google.com/contact/index.html http://www.google.com/quality_form And, of course, you have also pursued the following already, where you posted the same complaint, but no one supplied the direct links above, which you could have found for yourself. http://groups.google.com/groups?q=google.public.support.general Good luck. . ==== Not through this newsgroup :) An interesting thing about our written communications, however, is that we can even see and feel the expression of frustration and the shouting response that is conveyed by the all-caps subject, as well as its phrasing, and I'd like to address that. During the development of the Google Groups system, through which you have posted, I sent several suggestions and surprisingly, I usually got a personal response; all the particular things that I suggested have also eventually been implemented in Google's current system, although this may be the result of the very same suggestions having been made by very many people, or to have been obvious to Google's developers anyway (or sometimes not, who knows?) There was also once a time when Google cut off our access to all search queries, returning instead a terms of service notice; at first, I thought that perhaps Google was turning into a paid-only service rather quickly, reply explaining what had led them to think that our IP address was hosting a robot, forwarding another search engine's automated queries through Google, and also explaining how to test what IP address Google thinks we are at. I replied to them that our IP address was actually the ISP's cache server address, the same for the entire geographical area which that ISP covers, that we were not likely responsible for the kind of queries they had monitored, and that by blocking this one IP address, they were also hiding themselves from a large population all over southeast Iowa; I also gave them a contact at the ISP, and very shortly thereafter, Google removed the blocks. I do not know what contact address(es) Google now maintains, nor who, if anyone, now reads what is probably a vastly larger like anyone, they might respond more to cordiality than to cursing. The only comparable site where I had ever before found so much staff who always personally replied -- perhaps that's why they folded :) [and were bought by Google, which is the good fortune that has preserved the ability to now access 20 years of postings archives, I can sympathize with what happens when a company does and find that the general public is often just the sort of unappreciative bleep-heads that you accuse Google of being, in which case it is not surprising that they might want to better insulate themselves from having to directly talk to anyone, for reasons more than merely economic. The general quality of life arises from all the interactions between all the individual people, and the quality of all those interactions arises in turn from the consciousness of that same society of individual people, which together forms a collective consciousness of the society. That collective consciousness can be influenced, at a very deep level, by human beings who deeply experience the total field of consciousness within themselves, but every individual person in society can also do his or her part in being the sort of person you would yourself like other people to be to you, as much as you can. Project more appreciation and good to others; it is never wasted. Even if you never get a reply, your own calmness and positive attitude will still directly benefit you, yourself, because the quality of our own self-interaction is a major part of our own well-being. ---------------------------------------- With best wishes from http://www.mum.edu . ==== I have rarely read such complacent blather and indolent psychobabble in a supposedly serious newsgroup. You are obviously a dunce who judging from your prose style has read too many corporate handouts, PR mantras & celebrity biographies. You are therefore scared of a) shouting and b) thinking. Maybe your lickass brown nosing strategy will get you brownie (nose) points from the corporate hippies at google who may even give you a new job as ball boy #40043 on their virtual tennis court. More likely you will fret and puff your life away in some dingy academic office festooned with timetables and blotchy snapshots of students. Meanwhile, consider the style of google automated responses: keep on googlin' Indeed - I mean, why don't we also all just OD on Disney Warner Google acid and just die slowly & surely in the Disney Google Warner desert sands with our pricks up a stiffie Warner Disney Google Deadhead's ass while mouthing dimly remembered words to a Pink Floyd track... Meanwhile, these businessmen have not replied to a simple and legitimate question. And who - except you, cares about how many questions such pretentious millionaires get? And who cares about high stepping along the tripwire of decorum you have strung to protect your fragile ego from people like me? > That collective consciousness can be influenced, > at a very deep level, There are no levels at all, please try to understand this. Your brain has been addled by psychoanalytic-Romantic fantasies about levels only surfaces, only your words. Nothing else. Scary, huh? >by human beings who deeply experience Now you are sounding like a Christmas card... > the total field of consciousness within themselves, Totality went out with Hegel, grow up! > but every individual person in society Cliches, or what? >can also do > his or her part in being the sort of person you would yourself > like other people to be to you, as much as you can. Amen, spit and polish, lick the floors clean, & let's just DANCE the night away, yeah yeah yeah... > > Project more appreciation and good to others; >it is never wasted. Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat? > Even if you never get a reply, your own calmness and positive attitude > will still directly benefit you, yourself, because the quality of > our own self-interaction is a major part of our own well-being. > You are definitely insane. > An interesting thing about our written communications, however, > is that we can even see and feel the expression of frustration > and the shouting response that is conveyed by the all-caps subject, > as well as its phrasing, and I'd like to address that. > Meanwhile, we will NOT address the bizarre contortions, cute prose rythms, and the abjectness that goes into being you... ==== Fred [sounded off like a braying animal, which is probably why he commands so much respect in professional circles] The Coming of Wisdom with Time Though leaves are many, the root is one; Through all the lying days of my youth I swayed my leaves and flowers in the sun; Now I may wither into the truth. http://www.lit.kobe-u.ac.jp/~hishika/yeats.htm http://www.bartleby.com/people/Yeats-Wi.html http://www.nobel.se/literature/laureates/1923/ Go placidly amid the noise and haste, and remember what peace there may be in silence. As far as possible, without surrender, be on good terms with all persons. Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others, even the dull and the ignorant; they too have their story. Avoid loud and aggressive persons; they are vexations to the spirit. http://colleenscorner.com/Poetry3.html I do not know what I may appear to the world; but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me. Just as small mistakes in programming may incapacitate the operation of a computer or calculator, small mistranslations or misunderstandings can bury the knowledge which could otherwise be inherited by us from the long trail of human wisdom, e.g.: Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the Earth The general error is to reverse cause and effect in the above. You do not achieve what you desire by suppressing yourself, but when you are really on the right track with what you are doing, it communicates itself effectively to others, and you can organize the means to accomplish things without floundering in your own chaos, or trying to compensate with bluster. The greater the quality of leadership, the less screaming or violence of any kind is required to have the same influence, and that is how a quiet man like Gandhi, with weapons only of his own spirit, finally sent an armed and vicious colonial power packing; he did not appear to be winning at every step of his path, but what he did resonated with and unified an entire nation, and even an entire world was influenced. A bullet from a lone assassin's gun can silence the one leader, but can not halt the progress of all humanity, which it was his gift to recognize and be an agent for. Muhammad, Moses, Buddha, Christ -- there is no fundamental difference in what they all recognized, experienced, and taught, although subsequent interpreters can lose all sense of it, if they do not have the same quality of their own consciousness and consequent experience to keep them on the right track. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. [John 1:1] Beauty, old yet ever new, eternal voice and inward word During this period of his life Muhammad traveled widely. Then, in his forties he began to retire to meditate Muhammad recited the words of what are now the first five verses of the 96th surah or chapter of the Quran, words which proclaim God the Creator of man and the Source of all knowledge. They all do the same -- they meditate, they experience the totality of all consciousness within themselves, then they come out to teach it. If their disciples follow the same steps, including the critical step of also experiencing the source of pure consciousness within themselves, then they continue to embody the same original knowledge and pass it down; if they neglect to have the personal experience, however, then they drift off into distortion, and their descendants turn ever more violent, trying to compensate for the living effectiveness which they lost. That's a brief history of humanity, in a couple of paragraphs. If you want to put down mankind's spiritual history, however, at least do it with some humor and style: http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/meek.html A teacher affects eternity; he can never tell where his influence stops. http://www.mum.edu ==== > > Go placidly amid the noise and haste, > and remember what peace there may be in silence. > > As far as possible, without surrender, > be on good terms with all persons. > > Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others, > even the dull and the ignorant; they too have their story. > > Avoid loud and aggressive persons; they are vexations to the spirit. apropos): Go placidly amid the noise and waste. and remember what comfort there may be in owning a piece thereof. Avoid quiet and passive persons unless you are in need of sleep. [..] Be comforted that in the face of all aridity and disillusionment, and despite the changing fortunes of time, there is always a big future in computer maintenance. ==== [shit removed] I would surely prefer to read John H. Meyer posts rather than yours. Have you ever published anything of interest in this newsgroup? Not that I can remember. John has been posting here for as far as I can remember and is a valued member of this community. So keep your flaming away. ==== > Not through this newsgroup :) > An interesting thing about our written communications, however, > is that we can even see and feel the expression of frustration > and the shouting response that is conveyed by the all-caps subject, > as well as its phrasing, and I'd like to address that. Well (though it is terribly offtopic). How many requests do you expect that google get a day to `please list our website'. I'd vote for thousands. How many do you think are legitimate? Are *any* legitimate? In particular, for the person who is complaining here (why here?), if the web site isn't in whatever google's root set is (and they aren't very likely to put it in the root set for you, and if no-one links to it, then as I understand google's algorithm it's not going to show up. And that's *right*: google works by links to a site, so if you want to get them to list it, you need to get people to link to it, not complain at google, who are just doing their job as a search engine. --tim ==== >... [Fred shows his anger about a website not found by google] ... The website is hosted on a HP48? Holger ==== > The website is hosted on a HP48? No no. *Google* runs on a large farm of HP48s. They've been trying to port to HP49s (in fact, Google largely funded the HP49 effort at HP), but the extreme load causes the keycaps to flake off and the screens to go a funny colour. Only HP48s will do for this environment. I regret to say that they are now considering a port to some TI abomination, although I've been hearing recent rumours that they are also considering the 32SII. --tim ====