A449

I have a data stream of know length, which I wish to store in a
variable. (I think it has got odd parity).
Does anyone have a program I can look at, or know where I can find
some more info. (the HP I/O guide was not much help.
Rupert
Well, which calculator? What is the length of the data stream? You're
probably looking for the SRECV command, and if you're not quite sure of
just when the data might be arriving, you might want to use the BUFLEN
command in a DO loop. Note that both of these commands leave it up to
you to determine what (if anything) to do about any I/O error.
Also see the PARITY command.
If you're using a 48 and the data stream is more than 255 bytes long,
then you might want to edit the reserved variable IOPAR to use receive
pacing, as long as the data doesn't contain characters 19 or 17 decimal,
which would be treated as XOFF or XON signals. Otherwise, you'll
probably either have to have the data broken up into blocks that the
calculator can handle, or use one of the built-in file transfer
protocols.
-- 
James
Look at Joe Horn's archives
I haven't found anything in the cheesy manuals, but it seems to be true, 
at
least for my machine. If the 49g is in RPN mode, pressing on any of the 

plot
keys (Y= to TABLE) just makes it beep. Putting it into algebraic lets 
me
plot. Am I brain dead, is my 49g, or is this the way it's supposed to be?
Doesn't seem like it should work that way.
BTW, the calc is at 1.19-6, but it did the same thing with 1.18.
If you look back over this list, you will find that the answer is there. 
I'll save you the trouble of looking as this caused me some trouble also.
You must hold down the shift key while hitting the F-keys.
Hope this helps,
Matt
Additionally, it sounds like you have not gotten the Advanced users 
guide. Check out Hpcalc.org(hp49 section, documentation). They have it 
all.
at
plot
Can HP solve this diff. equation numerically?
y'=-100y+id(-y+10sin(2 pi 50 t))/1e-4
and where
id(vd)=1E-14*(e^(1.609E-19*vd/(1.381E-23*298))-1)
with the initial condition y(t=0)=0 .
Run t from 0 to about 0.04 to 0.1, with steps of dt=.0005 to .002 max.
My TI-89 can do this using Rk, producing a graph after several painful 
minutes.  Ouch!  Euler fails miserably.
This is the sort of problem that I had mentioned at times about 
wondering if the calculators can do it.  Unfortunately, this is the 
simplest possible case of the general class of problems which interest 
me, which usually involve systems of two or three (or more) first order 
non-linears like this one.
These are electrical engineering problems.  The equation above generates 
the waveform of a half-wave rectifier with capacitor filter and 
resistive load.  Generally the calculations are done by SPICE, which is 
optimized for stiff equations. (I noticed Runga-Kutte really bogs down 
on the corners of the solution.)  SPICE uses trapezoidal or Gear 
integration, and I do it in Mathematica as well using whatever it wants 
(I think an adaptive Adams-Gear algorithm).  And of course using much 
more computing horsepower than a little calculator.
It will be interesting to hear how the HP fares with this.
Comments appreciated.
-- 
_____________________
Christopher R. Carlen
crobc@earthlink.net
I don't understand your syntax. If you tell me what you punched into 
the
TI89, I can identify your arguments.
I get this:
y'=-100*y+(1E-14*(e^(1.609E-19*(-y+10*sin(2*pi*50*t))/(1.381E-23*298))-1))
/1
E-4
y(0)=0 initial
dt=.0005
Vertical view: [-2,12]
I don't really get:
Run t from 0 to about 0.04 to 0.1, with steps of dt=.0005 to .002 
max.
y'=-100*y+(1E-14*(e^(1.609E-19*(-y+10*sin(2*pi*50*t))/(1.381E-23*298))-1))/1

max.
Very well then, here is the more direct approach:
FLDOFF
t0=0
tmax=.1
tstep=.001
tplot=0
xmin=0
xmax=.1
xscl=0
ymin=-12
ymax=12
yscl=0
ncurves=0
diftol=.001 to .05 and various other tries.
I suppose I should have said *Step* t from 0 to 0.04 or to 0.1, with a 
step size of delta_t of 0.0005 to 0.002.
Good luck!
-- 
_____________________
Christopher R. Carlen
crobc@earthlink.net
I used a delta_t of 0.0005 (200 steps).
I thought at first that I could expect a 6-7 hours calculation time, but 

the
graph was complete in only 100 minutes.
Pretty violent differential equation, for a calculator, it seems. MathCad 
7
(yeah, I know, but it was all I had the patience to fire up ;-) solves 
and
graphs 50000 points (delta_t of 2*10^-6) in around 2.4 seconds. The 
HP49G
should be able to do this (200 points) in maybe 1-3 minutes tops. There's 
a
little challenge for a '49-programmer ;-)
the
Wow.
7
and
a
Yes, and since this is the simplest possible case of the typical EE 
circuit simulation, it looks like I'll just have to wait until I get a 
high end PDA running some good math software or the real SPICE to be 
able to do this sort of thing in the palm of my hand.  On the PC, EEs 
run these sorts of simulations, change parameters, run again, etc., in 
several second turnaround times.  Can't wait for a bunch of minutes, 
that's for sure.
Maybe we can try to get some quantitative benchmarks out now.
Can you accurately time say, the 200 point case from t=0 to t=0.1, ie. a 
delta_t of 0.0005?  And mention exactly what hardware and software 
you're using.
I'll post my times:
For the equation:
y'=-100*y+id(-y+10*sin(314.159*t))/1e-4,
y[0]=0
and with the function id(vd)=1E-14*(e^(38.9411*vd)-1)
and the TI-89 parameters:
FLDOFF
t0=0
tmax=.1
tstep=.0005
tplot=0
xmin=0
xmax=.1
xscl=0
ymin=-4
ymax=12
yscl=0
ncurves=0
diftol=.001
I get 370.5 seconds on a TI-89 with 2.08 OS.
380 seconds with diftol=0.0001
Fails to complete with diftol=0.05
it in <= 0.01 seconds using Gear integration and a lot of fussing with 
accuracy parameters to get it to not overflow/underflow.
Good day!
-- 
_____________________
Christopher R. Carlen
crobc@earthlink.net
How could I use Solve in case like this, in a 48G?
 Eq: A = B + C 
 A = 8
 B = 15*sin(377*Y)
 C = I would solve it
There can be ANY number of solutions to this.
No, there is an infinite number of solutions - not any number.
There's only one symbolic solution though: 'C=8-15*SIN(377*Y)'. In a 
sense
we were lucky 'Y' wasn't defined - what a mess to solve it it was ;-)
I sit COWrected!
8 'A' STO '15*sin(377*Y)' 'B' STO 'A=B+C' EVAL 'C' ISOL
You will find interesting things in RS SOLVE and RS SYMBOLIC
Arnaud
If you dont have Erable or Alg48 installed, do this:
'C=8-15*SIN(377*Y)'
optionally
{A B} PURGE
afterwards.
Do I miss something or do I see TWO unknowns? (C & Y)
Can anybody tell me how to convert from decimal degrees to degrees 
minutes
seconds? Also if anyone knows sysrpl I would like to know the command 
there
too.
AND maybe using something like Nosy you can peek into the inner code
and maybe find the SysRPL pointers. Extable has GETNEAR function for 
finding
SysRPL commands by name.
I hope this helped!
minutes
there
I sold my 49G some months ago and now regret it. Before I go off and
spend $160 for a new one, perhaps someone else here has one they wish
to part with for a reasonable price?
-Al Arduengo
-- 
Place your hand on a hot stove for a  minute and it seems like
an hour. Sit with a pretty girl for an hour and it seems like a
minute. That's relativity.  -Albert Einstein
Does this mean that you will coming out with a spreadsheet for the 49?
Oh, BTW, 'good to see you back.
relatively inactive in the calc programming area. When I sold my 49,
it was to the son of another Engineer where I work. He asked and I
figured since I hadn't used it in some time, why keep it? It contained
a 49 version of exAL spreadsheet in the flash :-(
I will probably restart the project using ideas from the 48 version of
code. My goal for exAL was always speed over looks so it doesn't look
as pretty as XCELL. I hope to get one for $100 or less because I am
putting most of my free cash into my meager astronomical hobby. Man,
is *that* ever expensive. I have also been writing a set of utilities
for observation session planning, etc primarily in the beginning to
assist me in getting my Messier Certificate.
Rgds,
-Al
-- 
Place your hand on a hot stove for a  minute and it seems like
an hour. Sit with a pretty girl for an hour and it seems like a
minute. That's relativity.  -Albert Einstein
I see a bunch on Ebay, starting at around USD 50.
Regard
HP48 software download page is here:
I like it, however being able to use [ON] key to abort would be nice
if not too much work.
When the screen is turned of having the indicators blink BZ-style
would be good to reassure that the calc hasn't stalled
In polar mode, being able to set the theta range would be good when
studying functions that are not 2pi periodic
And the biggest comment is that I can't have the parametric plotting
working. Maybe I don't use it correctly so I am going to go back to
the manuals but I guess there is some problem there.
Arnaud
When I enter the expression INTVX(SQRT(SQR(sin(x)+1)+ SQR(cos(x))) I 
cannot
get an answer.  I there a way to integrate?  I have heard of EXPLN and 
some
other functions.  How would I approach this with the HP49G?
GN
Check www.integrals.com. 
If Mathematica cannot solve this, most likely  it has no solution.
cannot
some
Mathematica can do it, I've just check it out.The solution provided by
www.integrals.com  lacks some simplification though.
cannot
  I've seen that HP doesn't sell the HP32sii on the internet (there is
just the HP20s).
  Is the 20s better than the 32sii ?
 I've got to find a programmable calculator but NOT graphical, don't
you think that the CASIO fx-5500LA is the best ?
No, I don't.
hp 15c or hp 32sII.
If you want more: hp 42s.
Unfortunately, none of them is still in production and you must go to
ebay...
It seems as I convinced you... but I feel that my answer was hard.
I've programmed Casio's and Hp's since 1981 and I really think that RPN 
is
much better than algebraic and formula programming.
Good luck in your bids
New WinHP v3.7  Now supports HP49 native file editor format
http://winhp.sourceforge.net
http://winhp.sourceforge.net/download.htm
Jaime Meza
I have a small question for those of you that code extensively in SysRPL.
It's a problem I had a long time ago, but I never found a clear solution 
-
not even by asking here.
If I have a simple SysRPL program, say
::
CK1&Dispatch
#1
%2 %+
;
#0
SomethingElse
;
;
The above program adds 2 to its argument, if that argument is a real,
otherwise it does something else. That something else I won't to be 
return
its own program name, with the argument unevaluated. If I call the 
program
P, the examples below will illustrate what I mean:
Along the same lines it should be possible to use the program in an
algebraic contents, like this:
No command in any library I've programmed thus far, will accept such
algebraic containment - for example will 'NINT(1,2,X^2,X)' [ENTER] result 

in
an Invalid Syntax error, instead of.'NINT(1,2,X^2,X)' on the stack, 

which
then could be EVALuated to 2.33333333334.
How does one go about making library commands act both like commands, 
but
accept being treated like a function? Exactly like the bulit-in ABS does 
-
you can enter 'ABS(-X)' in the command line, and return it to the stack 

with
[ENTER], or you could have -2 on the stack, and merely run ABS (either 
type
it in or push the left-shifted division-key) and get 2.
Does anyone know what I'm rambling on about?
looking for. Taking your small program as an example, here is the
modified version that accepts symbolic input (Jazz syntax) :
ASSEMBLE
        CON(3)  0
RPL
::
CK1&Dispatch
#1
::
%2 %+
;
10
:: 
CODE
        
LASTROMWDOB     EQU     #807D9  * #80829 for the 49.
        GOSBVL  =SAVPTR
        D0=(5)  LASTROMWDOB
        A=DAT0  A
        D0=A
        D0=D0-  6
        A=0     A
        A=DAT0  X
        R0=A
        D0=D0+  3
        A=0     A
        A=DAT0  B
        R1=A
        GOVLNG  =Push2#Loop
ENDCODE
;
;
If the argument is a real then everything works as usual. If it's in
specially. For the symbolic case an explanation of the cknumdsptch1
word is in order.  If numeric mode (for functions) is enabled it
the second object after cknumdsptch1 . Otherwise, if symbolic mode is
xSYMfcn and xfcn respectively, explodes the object on level 1 (if it's
a symbolic), evaluates the object bound to xSYMfcn and then rebuilds
the symbolic with CKSYMBN. If the object on level 1 is an equation
then this process is repeated for both sides.
        With this knowledge you can probably see how the program
works. One detail that might be confusing is the code object. I use
this to get the ROMPTR associated with the currently executing library
routine so that changes to the order of the library routines or the
library ID will be transparent to the program. You can hard code the
ROMPTR if you want though. 
Note: About code that gets bound to xSYMfcn. This creates a symbolic
according to the standard representation of a non built-in function
application ie. 
SYMBOL arguments SYMBOL ID function ; numberOfArguments xFCNAPPLY ;
One last detail that still needs explaining is the small bit of
assembly before the library routine name declaration. This is a
property list that defines various attributes of the object that
follows it such as if it's allowable in algebraics and many other
properties that need not concern us here. All you need to know is that
3 zero nibbles preceding a named library routine is the magic formula
for making it allowable in symbolics.
in
which
The above also takes care of this.
with
type
Hope this helps...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

---
before replying.
I'm not that good at Jazz syntax, but I translate the above to 
something
along the lines of (MASD):
CODE
CON(3) 0
ENDCODE
!RPL
::
...
This won't assemble, though.....I must be daft as a brick. Well, I'll 
look
You don't need this.
The 3 nibbles before are used only to specify that this command (here P) 
is
in fact a function. This is used by the compiler to know if doing 
something
like 'P(value)' will be accepted or will yield a Invalid Syntax 
error.
Unfortunately, I don't think CRLIB or MASD allow you to do such thing, 
only
MAKEROM on the PC will. (I do not know about Jazz)
only
Arghh!! Nooo!
But I want to do it? This is one of the first real limitations I've run 

into
with the HP49G - who can and will fix it? ;-)
How about if I change or add those three nibbles after compilation? Can't 

be
done either?
into
be
You have to write your library yourself, so that it can be compiled
with ASM, instead of just writing the commands and invoking CRLIB.  I
have a template somewhere - but I can't find it this instant.
Werner
be
adding the three nibbles is quite easy to do by hand
add the three nibbles
add three to the length of the lib
and recalculate the four checksum nibbles at the end
I'll write a hacking code that does this tonight in the train
so you can do it automatically
--
This message was written with 100% recycled electrons
Pivo
That won't be so easy.
By default MASD enters one nibble before the name definition (8) to say 

it's
a command.
You need to replace it whith 3 characters.
So not only you need to replace a 8 with 000, but then you will have to
recalculated all the offsets, plus the checksum. Recalculating the 
offsets
is definitely not a trivial task.
If I remember correctly, LIBMAKER v5.0 by Christian Bourgeois allows you 
to
create such library, I don't know if it has been ported to the HP49 
(won't
be difficult, I did the port for the HP48GX from the HP48SX).
Otherwise, you have to build your library *by hand*.
In fact, using 000 to say it's a function is only one of the aspect of 
it.
Every single bit of this value has a meaning.
If it was a command, the bits are as followed:
ASSEMBLE
        CON(1)  (nonALG)+0*(hasHELP)+0*(hasALIAS)+0*(hasPDATA)
RPL
::
hasHELP is not used anymore.
Here is the source code of NEG:
ASSEMBLE
**miscdoc+******************************************************************

***
** prop_list defining field for an algebraic function
**+miscdoc******************************************************************

***
        CON(1)  0*(hasFORM)+0*(hasINTG)+0*(hasWHERE)+0*(hasVUNS)
        CON(1)  0*(hasDER)+0*(hasINV)+0*(hasCOLCT)+0*(hasEXPND)
        CON(1)  0*(hasHELP)+(hasPDATA)
RPL
:: CK1&Dispatch     ONE ( % ) %CHS
                    zint QNeg   ( FLASHPTR )
                    TWO ( C% ) C%CHS
                    FOUR ( arry ) MATCHS
                    TEN ( sym ) SYMCHS
                    EXT    UMCHS
                    hxs bitneg
                    grob NEGgrob
                    seco NEGPICTgrob
;
RPL
**miscdoc+******************************************************************

***
** algebraic function property list elements
**+miscdoc******************************************************************

***
** help data (if present)   ( Textbook data )
*       GDATACHS
* parse data (if present)
        ASSEMBLE
=CHSpdata
        CON(5)  =DOHSTR
        REL(5)  end2
        CON(1)  0
        CON(1)  pdOP
        CON(1)  pdEX
        CON(1)  8               (same as * /)
end2
RPL
* derivative (if present)
*        D/DCHS
* inverse (if present)
*        INVCHS
* COLCT data (if present)
* EXPND data (if present)
* FORM menu (if present)
*        MANMENUCSIV
* Integral Data (if present)
* WHERE Building Data (if present)
* very-unsyminner Data (if present)
----
going to work on it.
Most of the fields however have no meaning on the HP49 as the CAS and 
the
decompiler now use static table.
it's
I added 000 after the name and before the body
and it works!!!
so from
87B4000D9D20...
I made
87B4000000D9D20...
Why does this also work?
I will change my code to do the things you mentioned
but for now you can use this.
recalculating is quite easy, I admit that I forgot to mention that in 
my
previous post.
you need to change the hash table and the offset to the config object
This code takes two arguments: the lib and a real/zint
the zint is the id of the rompointer that you want changed into a 
function
so:
2:        library 1207
1:                         0
changes the first rompointer into a function.
the code is sparsely commented but you should be able to read it
::
CK1&Dispatch
#8F1
::
COERCE
CODE
GOSBVL POP# % get romptr
CLRST
R4=A A
GOSBVL PopASavptr % get lib
R3=A A
D0=A
D0+5
C=DAT0 A % length of lib
C+8 A  % add prologue and nullnibs
GOSBVL CREATETEMP
GONC MEMOK
GOVLNG GPMEMERR
*MEMOK
A=R3 A
AD0EX  % D0= old lib
D1=A   % D1= new lib
R0=A A
A=DAT0 A % copy prologue
DAT1=A A
D1+5
D0+5
A=DAT0 A
A+3 A    % add 3 to length
DAT1=A A
D0+5
D1+5
C=0 A
C=DAT0 B % title length
C+1 A % add second length field
*NOTITLE
C+C A
C+20 A % copy offsets
COPYDN
C=DAT0 A
C+3 A    % config offset
DAT1=C A
D0+5
D1+5
A=DAT0 A % link prologue
DAT1=A A
D1+5
D0+5
C=DAT0 A % link length
C+5 A   % add hash prologue
COPYDN
C=DAT0 A % hash length
DAT1=C A
D0+5
D1+5
GOSBVL DIV5 % # of romptrs +1
C-2 A
B=C A
R1=C A % # of romptrs -1
C=R4 A % func romptr
B-C A % numer of romps to be moved -1
A=C A
C+C A
C+C A
C+A A
COPYDN % copy offsets
*HASH
A=DAT0 A
A+3 A % add 3 to offset
DAT1=A A
D0+5
D1+5
B-1 A
GONC HASH
*OUT
LC 00007
COPYDN  % copy nibble libid romptr id
D0-3
A=DAT0 X % romptr id
D0+3
C=R4 A % func romptr
C=0 A
DAT1=C X % add the zeros
D1+3
*NULL
C=R1 A % last romptr
ST=1 9
*LAST
CD0EX
D0=C
D=C A
GOSBVL SKIPOB
C=D A
CD0EX
C-D A
COPYDN % copy romptr body
C=R3 A
CD0EX
D0+5
A=DAT0 A
D=C A
D0=C
C=R3 A
C+A A
C-D A
C+1 A
COPYDN % copy rest of lib
A=R0 A
D0=A
D0+5
A=DAT0 A
A-4 A
GOSBVL DoCRC % new crc
P=3
DAT0=A WP
P=0
GOVLNG GPPushR0Lp
ENDCODE
;
;
@
--
This message was written with 100% recycled electrons
Pivo
WOW!
there is a bug in the code when the function rompointer is the last one in 

the
lib
please use this code instead, it has the bugfix and changes the 8 into 
three
zero's
like JYA said.
It now also checks if the rompointer id is valid
CHECKSUM: #D624h, 272.5 bytes
::
CK1&Dispatch
#8F1
::
COERCE
CODE
GOSBVL POP# % get romptr
CLRST
R4=A A
GOSBVL PopASavptr % get lib
R3=A A
D0=A
D0+5
C=DAT0 A % length of lib
C+7 A  % add prologue and nullnibs
GOSBVL CREATETEMP
GONC MEMOK
GOVLNG GPMEMERR
*MEMOK
A=R3 A
AD0EX  % D0= old lib
D1=A   % D1= new lib
R0=A A
A=DAT0 A % copy prologue
DAT1=A A
D1+5
D0+5
A=DAT0 A
A+2 A    % add 2 to length
DAT1=A A
D0+5
D1+5
C=0 A
C=DAT0 B % title length
C+1 A % add second length field
*NOTITLE
C+C A
C+20 A % copy offsets
COPYDN
C=DAT0 A
C+2 A    % config offset
DAT1=C A
D0+5
D1+5
A=DAT0 A % link prologue
DAT1=A A
D1+5
D0+5
C=DAT0 A % link length
C+5 A   % add hash prologue
COPYDN
C=DAT0 A % hash length
DAT1=C A
D0+5
D1+5
GOSBVL DIV5 % # of romptrs +1
C-2 A
B=C A
R1=C A % # of romptrs -1
A=R4 A
LC 00203
GOVLNG GPErrjmpC
*ERR
C=R4 A % func romptr
B-C A % numer of romps to be moved -1
A=C A
C+C A
C+C A
C+A A
COPYDN % copy offsets
*HASH
A=DAT0 A
A+2 A % add 2 to offset
DAT1=A A
D0+5
D1+5
B-1 A
GONC HASH
*OUT
LC 00007
COPYDN  % copy nibble libid romptr id
D0-3
A=DAT0 X % romptr id
D0+3
C=R4 A % func romptr
D1-7
C=0 A
DAT1=C X % add the zeros
D1+3
D0-6
LC 00006
COPYDN
*NULL
D0-3
A=DAT0 X % romptr id
D0+3
C=R1 A % last romptr
ST=1 9
*LAST
CD0EX
D0=C
D=C A
GOSBVL SKIPOB
C=D A
CD0EX
C-D A
COPYDN % copy romptr body
C=R3 A
CD0EX
D0+5
A=DAT0 A
D=C A
D0=C
C=R3 A
C+A A
C-D A
C+1 A
COPYDN % copy rest of lib
A=R0 A
D0=A
D0+5
A=DAT0 A
A-4 A
GOSBVL DoCRC % new crc
P=3
DAT0=A WP
P=0
GOVLNG GPPushR0Lp
ENDCODE
;
;
@
--
This message was written with 100% recycled electrons
Pivo
three
I forgot to mention that the code only works for libs created with 
CRLIB
because it assumes that the config object is at the end of the lib (and 

present)
and it will also fail when there is a $extprg
If you want I can fix it.
I knew that it seemed too easy :-)
--
This message was written with 100% recycled electrons
Pivo
and I found another bug, with hidden rompointers
this version fixes it all (hidden rompointers, $extprg, $message)
the lib still needs to be build with CRLIB because of the order of
the various parts
sorry if I caused any TTRM's
::
CK2&Dispatch
#8F1
::
COERCE
CODE
GOSBVL POP# % get romptr
CLRST
R4=A A
GOSBVL PopASavptr % get lib
R3=A A
D0=A
D0+5
C=DAT0 A % length of lib
C+7 A  % add prologue and nullnibs
GOSBVL CREATETEMP
GONC MEMOK
GOVLNG GPMEMERR
*MEMOK
A=R3 A
AD0EX  % D0= old lib
D1=A   % D1= new lib
R0=A A
A=DAT0 A % copy prologue
DAT1=A A
D1+5
D0+5
A=DAT0 A
A+2 A    % add 3 to length
DAT1=A A
D0+5
D1+5
C=0 A
C=DAT0 B % title length
C+1 A % add second length field
*NOTITLE
C+C A
C+10 A
COPYDN
C=DAT0 A
ST=1 10
*MESS
LC 0000A
COPYDN
C=DAT0 A
C+2 A    % config offset
*NOCONF
DAT1=C A
D0+5
D1+5
A=DAT0 A
LC 0C5D0
LC 00010
COPYDN
*EXT
C=DAT0 A
DAT1=C A
D0+5
D1+5
C=DAT0 A
COPYDN
*NOMESS
A=DAT0 A % link prologue
DAT1=A A
D1+5
D0+5
CD0EX
D=C A
D0=C
C=DAT0 A % link length
COPYDN
CD0EX
B=C A
C=D A
D0=C
D0+85
C=DAT0 A
AD0EX
C+A A
BCEX A
D0=C
C-B A
GOSBVL DIV5
C-1 A
R2=C A % # of romptrs -1
C=DAT0 A % hash prologue
DAT1=C A
D0+5
D1+5
C=DAT0 A % hash length
DAT1=C A
D0+5
D1+5
GOSBVL DIV5
C-2 A
B=C A
A=R4 A
LC 00203
GOVLNG GPErrjmpC
*ERR
C=R4 A % func romptr
B-C A % numer of romps to be moved -1
A=C A
C+C A
C+C A
C+A A
COPYDN % copy offsets
*HASH
A=DAT0 A 
A+2 A % add 3 to offset
DAT1=A A
D0+5
D1+5
B-1 A
GONC HASH
*OUT
LC 00007
COPYDN  % copy nibble libid romptr id
D0-3
A=DAT0 X % romptr id
D0+3
C=R4 A % func romptr
D1-7
C=0 A
DAT1=C X % add the zeros
D1+3
D0-6
LC 00006
COPYDN
*NULL
D0-3
A=DAT0 X % romptr id
D0+3
C=R2 A % last romptr
ST=1 9
*LAST
CD0EX
D0=C 
D=C A
GOSBVL SKIPOB
C=D A
CD0EX
C-D A
COPYDN % copy romptr body
C=R3 A
CD0EX
D0+5
A=DAT0 A
D=C A
D0=C
C=R3 A
C+A A
C-D A
C+1 A
COPYDN % copy rest of lib
A=R0 A
D0=A
D0+5
A=DAT0 A
A-4 A
GOSBVL DoCRC % new crc
P=3
DAT0=A WP
P=0
GOVLNG GPPushR0Lp
ENDCODE
; ;
@
-- 
This message was written with 100% recycled electrons
Pivo
Hmm, I thought the three nibbles belonged to the function, not the 
library?
Do you mean I should search for the proper function in the library
Hex-string?
library?
you might be right, I'll look into it
--
This message was written with 100% recycled electrons
Pivo
On Sat, 07 Sep 2002 22:45:53 -0500, Jonathan Busby
Get rid of the ID in SYMBOL ID function ; above . ;)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

---
before replying.
Does anybody have an example of how to code the input from in sysrpl 
please?
MC
Yesterday I ordered a HP 49G.  It will be here Tuesday the 10th.  Did
I do a dumb thing ordering a calculator that has been discontinued? If
so don't tell me ;)
honors class and will hopefully be able to use it well into college,
even if there are better calcs out by then.
Everyone else and their dog is using a Ti 83-Plus but I've used the
49G emulator a lot and the 83s just drive me nuts! (Does it bug
anybody else that you have to hit second and then mode to quit
something?  Don't you quit a lot more often than you change
calculator settings?)
ANYWAY...what do I need to do as soon as it gets here and what should
I know about it up front?
Ryan
Heck, no! Lots of old timers still think their 67 or 41 or (insert your
particular favorite here) was the BEST calcualtor EVER made....just 
because
it might be discontinued doesn't mean that it will stop working!
It should be quite usable for the foreseeable future....and it's not
overkill if you really use it as a tool to learn your math better and 
not
just as an appliance to to the math for you...
The TI 83 and 89 etc are ok, but I think you will find you will be able 
to
make the 49 do things the TIs can't
Get thee to www.hpcalc.org !!  (get a cable, update the ROM and then 
check
to see what programs will be useful for your classes....and always, 
always,
Good luck,
Roger Metcalf
Arlington, Texas, USA
It has not been discontinued - yet.
Eventually every calculator will be.
I'm still using my HP-41CX.
X
[ON] cancels in the HP 49G and I think ergonomically you have
chosen the best of the best.
X
Get yourself at least the Vol.I of the Urroz's HP 49G books
http://www.engineering.usu.edu/cee/faculty/gurro/myBooks.htm
Read this news group regularly and remember to use Google:
There are a lot of useful programs and documents in the
www.hpcalc.org
Oh! So that's why...
I never used that translucent slide-in cover...
Do you know that you have to press from the center
in order to let it slide out easily.
I took off the batteries for 3 minutes, the time the condensator would 
go empty and my libraries deleted...
However when i put the batteries back in, the calculator wont start :(:(
I dont know whats wrong :(
Lopez
You could use the pinhole reset.
For this you have to remove the upper right rubber foot,
when looking at the back side of your calc.
There's a small hole with a letter 'R' nearby.
Take a needle and put it *carefully* into the hole for a short moment.
Raymond
  Sorry it does not work...
Lopez
leave the batteries out for an extended period, say even 24 hours. short 
the 
+
and - together to help drain the charge.
It will come back to life ...
 
be sure to understand http://www.anti-matrix.net
the +
But be sure NOT to reverse the polarity of the batteries when putting 
them
in.
This will damage your calc.
For further info on this topic, check out www.hpcalc.org
Raymond
them
Finally got it working.
My hands were sweaty so i guess that might have been the problem :)
I truly appreciate the help you folks gave me
Matthias Lopez
Filer1 and Filer2 (all in Filer1.zip) on my site below
with an option Zoom on the Z-key for scanning a file
whose name starts with a letter to be typed in. The
essentials of the Zoom option have been created by
really useful if a directory or port has many files.
It got the name Zoom for mnemotic reason.
I would prefer Filer2 with its 2-page appl menu. The
2nd page contains the Transfer-options, in particular
a toggling menu key for ASCII/BINARY. As a matter of
fact, one should find a balance between the number of
active hardkeys and the number of menu pages. I hope
that Filer2 realizes the right balance.
Have fun,  Wolfgang
ftp://ftp.math.fu-berlin.de/pub/usr/raut/HP49/tools   
PS. Since I have got no working 49 at present, I used
the MASD PC-tools. This took me 3x more time than I'd
have needed on the HP49 :-) I felt like Beethoven when
he - already completely deaf - composed his famous string
quartet op. 135 Muss es sein? (Must it be?). The only
way to get satisfaction from a creation in such a situation
is to *imagine* how other people might be pleased. I'm in a
better situation than was Beethoven since I may still read
whether you're please or not; the mentioned opus 135 was
published only in 1827, after Beethoven's death ...
  Best wishes,
    Walter
work.
Filer1/2 have been updated to v. 12.2002, probably the
final version before ROM 19-7 (in which several features
of Filer1/2 will be built-in). Filer2 has on menu-page 2
a new transfer option. The ASCII/BINARY toggler has
been replaced by the option IOP? (are IO-parameters OK?)  
which sets a menu for toggling all relevant IO-parameters
- what is normally done with 106 MENU or by the 49-TRANSFER
screen. But the IOP?-menu makes this setting much faster.
Ideal for people who like fast data transfer and seldom use
the time-consuming Connectivity Kit. Ideal also for data
exchange between two calculators.
ftp://ftp.math.fu-berlin.de/pub/usr/raut/HP49/tools
PS. What I'm particularly interested in is JHM's opinion
on Filer2. All of what he was dreaming of is realized ...
permission?
Nothing forbidden, should run !
PS. There is a new OT49-version on my site. The only
change is that the BZ-toggler ~ got still more power.
It looks whether a code object is already compressed
and decodes it appropriately. For instance, ACC can
now be decoded by everybody. Jurjen Bos and I agreed
that's time now to reveal the secret :-)
For people that want LibEx 4.2;
you can download it at:
http://www.ahd.tudelft.nl/~peter
It converts directly from port memory, and has 
the option not to rename rompointers to variables.
-- 
This message was written with 100% recycled electrons
Pivo
work.
Filer1 has been updated again, to include also XRECV
as an option. This waits for input of one or several
new names for receiving via XMODEM. More convenient
than doing it on the time-devouring TRANSFER screen.
The V-key displays besides ROM and CAS version also
the current filer version which is 11.2002 meanwhile.
Note that the filers have still 1.2 KB only :-) 
Have fun
Wolfgang
PS. In ROM 19-7, the ability of Filer1/2 of directly
driving into the ports by pressing 0,1,2 will be built
in. Searching for a name will be realized by setting
a special SEARCH environement with active alpha key.
This has its advantages but also disadvantages, compared 
with the simple search-management in Filer1/2 - one may
forget to hit the alpha key for leaving this environement
in time and has to start the search again ...
I have one question:
How can I become a member of this newsgroup?
As I have no experience with the use of newsgroups it would be nice if
somebody helped me with some information !
Best wishes
Bernd Bernsteiner
Welcome!  You've found your way to the newsgroup and that's the hardest
part!  This group is not a private list where you must request to be 

put
on it--just come on back from time to time to see what's going on.  The 

list
is populated by a bunch of very nice and very helpful folks...
Roger Metcalf
Arlington, Texas, USA
(in the shadow of the giant TI world headquarters)
I hope, your HP-Calculator helps you bringing some light over the shadow 
of
the TI-Headquarter building !
;-))
Bernd
put
list
put
list
Hey just curious, what do you use your hp49 for?  Calculating amounts
of enamel to apply to teeth?  Nitrous oxide mixing ratios?  I use mine
for calculus, but i am sure you don't use yours to scrape calculus
from teeth?  No wonder your screen is all scratched up!!;)
I have an HP48G+.
How do I make custom units? Can't find anything informative.
Example:
1_p = 1 x 10^-12 (pico) or .000000000001
ohms.
~Chris
....and if you want create your own units menus, use Unitman from 
Wolfgang
Rautenberg.
www.hpcalc.org
ftp://ftp.math.fu-berlin.de/pub/usr/raut/hp48/tools/
pico [p] is a built-in unit prefix,
which can be applied to any other unit.
You can directly convert to any desired particular output units
using CONVERT, e.g. (note that GW represents the ohms symbol):
32.4_GW 1_pGW CONVERT
You can also put desired units into a custom menu; e.g.:
{ 1_GW 1_kGW 1_MGW 1_pGW } MENU
This menu allows you to create a value using one of the
unit prefixes, then convert it to use one of the other prefixes
(unshifted unit menu keys perform multiplication,
left-shifted unit menu keys perform conversion,
right-shifted unit menu keys perform division).
If you want a general program to adjust *any* unit expression,
so as to vary the unit prefix over all possible values,
much like the ENG key on some Casio calculators, try these:
HP48 versions:
http://hpcalc.org/hp48/math/misc/casioeng.zip
http://hpcalc.org/hp48/math/misc/unitscal.zip
HP49 versions:
------------------
http://www.mum.edu
.
also take a look at UTOOL 2.8
http://www.hpcalc.org/details.php?id=4612
The best thing for units IMHO.
from the docs:
This library provides tools to deal with units.  It contains
- A tool for fast interactive access to your favorite units, without 
having
  to dig through the multi-page unit menu.  I don't think there is a more
  efficient way to work with UNITS on the HP49G or any other calculator.
- USIMP, a configurable inverse UBASE command.
- Commands to compute with non-SI base units (Planck, cgs,...)
Also included are re-implementations of the most useful HP48 utilities:
- Jack Levy's MUC.
- Matt Austern's unit converter for high-energy physics.
--
This message was written with 100% recycled electrons
Pivo
3.24E19_pOhm.
The HP4x series of calculators support these prefixes (page 10-5 in 
your
manual):
Prefix / Name / Exponent:
Y / yotta / +24
Z / zetta / +21
E / exa / +18
P / peta / +15
T / tera / +12
G / giga / +9
M / mega / +6
k or K / kilo / +3
h or H / hecto / +2
D / deka / +1
d / deci / -1
c / centi / -2
m / milli / -3
u (the greek letter) / micro / -6
n / nano / -9
p / pico / -12
f / femto / -15
a / atto / -18
z / zepto / -21
y / yocto / -24
You cannot use prefixes if the resulting unit matches another built-in 
unit.
Matches: min, Pa, da, cd, ph, flam, nmi, mph, kph, ct, pt, ft, au, cu, yd 
&
yr.
If you run into making custom units (like _yd^3/cm*W or _bytes), or the
above prefixes aren't enough, write again. Before writing, look into 
the
unit 1_?. Also see if you can find these units somewhere in the 
calculator:
_rpm, _dB, _gmol & _lbmol ;-)).
BTW, I am meaning specifically SI units kinda like how it is done here
http://www.ex.ac.uk/cimt/dictunit/ccprefix.htm
I was wondering what mathematical meaning non-integer limits in 
summations
(and product functions for that matter) have?
In the next paragraph, S is the (Sigma) summation function, and P is 
the
(capital Pi) Product function:
calcs merely calculate the symbolic formula for the summation and
multiplication with arbitrary limits, and then simply plop in the given
limits. What mathematical meaning does this have?
I would have to say it makes absolutely no mathematical sense to have
non-integer limits in a summation.  Summations are discrete functions and 

it
only makes sense (at least to me) to use discrete or integer limits.
Aaron
summations
Aaron said:
But we are all familiar with other things which were introduced
to us as discrete definitions, yet which, with a little expansion
of perspective, we can also understand as continuous.
Exponents, for example -- when first we define an exponent
as how many times we repeat a factor, it seems to make
no sense to ask what x^(3/4) might mean,
but we all know that it does represent something
which is quite well defined, which we now accept
just as much as the more primitive concept with which
we began our earlier understanding.
Similarly, the initial, simple definition of factorials
is discrete, but the very same thing, relabeled as
Gamma function, has a precise meaning for non-integers as well.
The sum of the first N integers is known to be N*(N+1)/2;
now, this formula has a defined value for any N,
so why not then define the sum Sigma(N), limits A to B,
as the difference between two values of that formula,
evaluated at A-1 and at B, for any values of A and B?
And how about the idea of number, which, when we can only
imagine a one-dimensional meaning, leads to many difficult
or insoluble problems, yet when we expand our understanding
to admit two dimensions (complex numbers), it becomes
extraordinarily powerful and complete.
In much the same way, other concepts which at first may be summarily
rejected by those who have not yet expanded their awareness
and gained more experience and perspective are completely
clear and obvious to those who have learned more
and actually experienced them.
Knowledge is structured in consciousness
[our university motto]
http://www.mum.edu
.
I'm going to have to disagree with you here.  It still makes no
mathematical sense to use non-integer limits on a summation whose only
purpose in life is to sum discrete elements with discrete indicies.  If
there is a way that you can expand the meaning of a summation by using
non-integer limits, then you dont have a summation anymore but an 
entirely
different function.  In the example of an exponent, that is different
because we can use algebra to prove how non-integers in the exponent 
work
and make mathematical sense.  It makes mathematical sense to have a 
real
or imaginary number in the exponent.  It does not make mathematical 
sense
to reference the i_th object in a sequence for instance when i=3.2.  I
understand that you can make unique results with only using the index as 
a
direct argument in the sum, but as I just mentioned, what sense does it
make to reference a
fractional element in a sequence whose elements are only (sensibly)
defined by integers?  If I gave someone 2 sequences and asked them to
perform a discrete-time convolution from N=0 to N=11.5, they would look 
at
me like I had lost my senses!
Aaron
As the Churkendoose said, It depends on how you look at things.
http://www.humanistsofutah.org/1994/AnnaHoagland_Journey-8-94.html
http://www.oiquarterly.org/vol02/num3/vol02-3-01.htm
http://home.bluemarble.net/~fumcb/sermons/010826.htm
In the MTH PROB menu (13 MENU), you'll find a ! [factorial] menu key.
Enter 3 and press it, and you'll get a result of 6;
enter 4 and press it, and you'll get a result of 24;
enter 5 and press it, and you'll get a result of 120.
Well, is that the factorial function, or not?
Now enter 0.5 and press it, and you'll get a result
equal to the square root of pi/4.
Hmm... Does the fact that it delivers results for
values *between* integers mean that it isn't the factorial
function at all, but an entirely different function?
For every positive integer argument, the result is identical
to the value of that integer's factorial, so in this light,
you can not distinguish it from the factorial function,
even though its internal method of calculation
may or may not be to walk through the literal original
definition.  It *is* the factorial function, regardless
of what algorithm it uses to get its result, much the same
as the COS trig function is the cosine function, even though
it does not actually construct a right triangle inside the calculator
and go measure it (if that was your original definition);
there are many equivalent definitions, some more general than others,
which work equally well for computing cosines, and if
the calculator contains an algorithm which accepts input
angles which are greater than any possible angle in
a right triangle, does that mean that it isn't really the
cosine function, after all, but an entirely different function?
If it's a different function, its only difference is that its
domain is expanded, by the realization that what we had intially
thought of as a definition of such a function is really only
a special case of something more general, which in turn
includes every original special case, with exactly the same value.
Bucky Fuller used to lecture that what we call square numbers
really have nothing to do with squares; he'd say that you could
just as well call them triangular numbers, because if you
make a row of one object, then a second row of three objects,
then a row of five, then seven, etc., building up larger
and larger triangles from these increasingly longer rows,
you'll get exactly the same numbers of objects in this sequence
of *triangles* as what you'd been calling squares.
It's a kind of prejudice to say that the first thing we think of
is the only way to think, or that our first experiences or learning
of anything are the only reality, but that's the sort of prejudice
which holds society back from expanding and developing
its consciousness.
Bucky said that the mind was that aspect of ourselves
which generalizes our particular special-case experiences,
and that this non-material, abstract factor of intelligence
is what organizes the material aspect of the entire universe
(including the material of our own brain).
So did Einstein, I would say, from all the quotations I've read of him.
And so did many others of the most visionary people in history.
I suggest to you that the only difference is that
you have had more experience developing your awareness
of how this one aspect of a mathematical pattern can be generalized,
while the other aspect is merely new to you and unexplored,
but that each is equally valid (or invalid) in the end,
and will make complete sense once experience catches up.
But people tend to reject things based solely on
lack of experience, rather than to be open to exploring
and acquiring the more comprehensive experience.
In 30-40 years of experience of teaching here,
we all experience how we can in fact have our mind order both the
mental and physical world within and around us, just as Bucky said,
projecting a peaceful, productive, happy and supportive world,
both in our own personal awareness and also to others,
within the radius of its effect, depending on how many people
experience a coherent state at one time.
People who've never had the experience argue against it;
people who have simply know that it is so.
I hope that everyone finally makes it into the latter category,
in time for most of the world to still remain undestroyed.
http://www.mum.edu
.
Ahh, John - you walked right into it ;-)
Let me quote the HP 48G Series Advanced User's Reference Manual, 
page
3-412:
!, Factorial (Gamma) Function: Returns the factorial n! of a positive
integer argument n, or the gamma function G(x+1) of a non-integer 
argument
x. With G I of course mean the greek letter capital gamma.
Well, John. The ! function on the HP calculators is the factorial 
function
for integer arguments ONLY, and the gamma function for everything else -
hence it is indeed two different functions, merely with that 
interesting
property, that they combined make a continous function.
I do, however, understand the arguments made of continuity regarding
summation, but the ! function was probably not the best example ;-))
No more different than if I say that *this* man is George W Bush,
while *that* man is the President of the United States,
so they are really two different people,
so long as I use two different descriptions or definitions.
The function in fact returns G(x+1) for *all* arguments,
since n! and G(n+1) are identically equal.
Or, if we care to simply generalize our perception of n! so that we
recognize its domain as all reals instead of only positive integers,
then the function returns the generalized x! for all x.
This argument seems to hinge on you and Aaron considering
that functions are different if they use different algorithms,
or even different definitions, while I consider that
they are the same if they produce the same results.
Under the first idea, there are even multiple SIN and COS functions,
(or EXP[M] LN[P1]), because the internal algorithms themselves change,
according to both the type and range of the input argument, and
further, since none of the internal CORDIC algorithms even 
resembles
a fundamental definition of these mathematical functions, 
not
a one of these is actually the real McCoy, but all are imposters!
The second approach is in the direction of generalizing what we know
as our experience and perspective broadens, creating a deeper unity
in our consciousness, a general theme of Bucky Fuller and others,
indeed a hallmark of our educational process,
of which I sought to use this as an example.
I call upon Shakespeare as my final witness:
A Rose by any other name would smell as sweet.  ;-)
Best wishes from http://www.mum.edu
.
No; wasn't I explicit about this?
This would be true, if you characterize a calculator function by
how it gets the answer, rather than by what answers it produces,
the way that satirist and math professor Tom Lehrer once said that
an educational program called New Math meant that we wanted to
understand what we're doing, rather than get the right answer
http://members.aol.com/quentncree/lehrer/newmath.htm
It was said that Johann Karl Friedrich Gauss' teacher once asked him
to add up the first 100 positive integers, but instead, Gauss
recognized a shortcut, and got the answer in a few moments:
http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Gauss.html
Would Gauss' teacher have been correct to claim that this was wrong,
because Gauss was using an entirely different function
than direct summation?
Or was Gauss correct, because he generalized and got the formula
for the sum, using his mind to discover a more generalized function,
which even covers a wider domain?
The algorithms in the calculator very frequently bear no resemblance
to any textbook's mathematical definition of the functions, anyway,
particularly the CORDIC algorithms which produce answers for
numeric trig and logarithm functions and their inverses;
it could hardly be otherwise, because some theoretical definitions
of trig functions (as ratios of sides in triangles having given
angles) provide no means at all for direct computation,
while other definitions (such as the sum of infinite sequences)
could take infinitely long to evaluate; therefore, practical
and fast numerical recipes are used, their only goal being
to get the right answers fast, rather than to have anything
to do with mathematical definitions.
The results, however, are those which should be produced,
hence we could well regard those buttons labeled COS, ALOG etc.
as being the functions that they claim to be,
because they deliver the answers that those functions should.
When a student first plays around with these functions,
after learning his first definitions of them, however, he might try,
e.g., FACT(1.5) and notice that an unexpected answer appears.
Should he then say hey, this must be an entirely different
function, or can we say instead that it is really the same
function, just generalized to have a more complete meaning,
over a greater domain, based on deeper insight?
To get to the bottom line, if there are actually several
alternate ways to define a function, all of which turn out
to give the same results, are we not at liberty to use these
definitions interchangeably, as long as the results are equivalent?
If, among these alternatives, one provides a meaning for
a domain of inputs which includes more inputs which the others
leave out, can we not regard it as a generalization of
all the more special-case instances?
Our calculator is evidently as wily as was Gauss, for it would appear
that it also knows some formulas for the sums of some particular
sequences, just as it might know the formulas for some particular
integrals, and thus be able to save itself some work,
as well as at the same time creating an automatic generalization
of the summation function (I never did try fashioning a 
definition
to match these outputs, but surely someone else's imaginative mind
may be able do so).
My real goal, in any event, was to try to give examples for
the great insight of Bucky Fuller, whose theme is always that
our special-case experiences can be generalized by our mind
(consciousness) to encompass deeper and more complete knowledge.
This goes further than merely finding formulas for sums;
in the case of our educational system, all streams of knowledge
are related to the fundamental consciousness of the student,
and the student experiences everything he learns as being
expressions of the pure creative lively intelligence
which (s)he directly experiences when (s)he meditates.
The meaning of this may not be clear, but the more years a student
is in these programs, the more they excel in comparison with others,
to the extent that our high school senior classes regularly
find themselves in the 99th percentile (top 1 percent)
of all the students who take state-wide standard examinations.
So, G. W. Bush, great educator that you are, if you recognize
such exams as indicating which schools are the best,
isn't it time to start funding those that are just like ours?
With best wishes from http://www.mum.edu
.
John - this is maybe just a discussion over words or definitions - I 
never
contested that the summation function shouldn't handle non-integer limits. 

I
merely asking for some mathematical need for this - and continuity was 
given
as a reason (an obvious one). I can go for that, as I myself 
occasionally
use the gamma functions, and of course also the factorial and the like.
Continuity is a Good Thing in many respects.
How forcible are right words! Job 6:25
Best Wishes to you too, John.
-
I understand the power: Y^x to be a multiplication
yet one can use also non-integer exponents.
Are they two different functions?
What about the Complex domain of the functions in the HP 48?
Take eg. ACOS at the beginning of the Reference Manual
which is a relation, not a function.
The first system flag sets Principal Value / General Solution.
I just want your opinions about domains - educate me!
I want to learn more math  :-D
X
argument
function
I'll agree with John on this one - expanding the working
domain of symbolic expressions is by far not a novel thing.
Although I don't see any real use in this case, I don't
see why there should be a ban on this, someone smarter will
always come up with a use for whyt first looks like a
mathematical whim or game.
IIRC results like Sum(n=1..infinity) 1/n = -1/12  do
seem to be useful at times in theoretical physics, although 
you'd first think this is complete Schprewntz. And think of
the evaluation of the first terms of diverging perturbation
series which yield correct results up to 12 digits...
Wild, but useful... Just as Dirac functions were first
seen as heresy before they were formalised into
distributions...(don't remember by whom...)
Gerard
it
I agree, therefore it confused me slightly that such summations could 
be
evaluated (I had expected an error message) - hence this post.
and
It is standard mathematical procedure to require the lower limit of 
such a summation to be integral, but not the upper limit, with the 
summation going to the floor of the upper limit.
This would be similar to the 
  FOR X := A TO B DO....
structure in PASCAL, where A must be an integer, but B need not be 
one.
I think Nick has explained sothing in one of his marathon. The
calculator knows the theoriccal formula for the summation of the n
first square, S(x,1,n,xÓ)=n*(2*n+1)*(n+1)/6.
To compute your summation, you just have to make a difference and
replace the limit with your numbers (which do not have to be integer
in this formula) to find the result given by the hp.
Alban.
and
be
I know this, but I was looking for the mathematical meaning behind it?
He, he! Seems that tiny little indecent questions give more life to a
group like this.
Mathematical meaning, you ask? Well it has already been said that a
summation is dicrete, therefor the summation limits have to be
integers. This is not ablolutely true. Discrete (or indiscrete ;-))
has to do with something else. The formula for the summation just
gives index, low, high and summand. These things in the formal
representation of a sum still don't say if the summation is discret.
It is the step, that means the change of index from one value to 
the
next that makes the summation discrete. Now, nobody can say that it
shopuld be not allowed to carry out a summation, like for example
sum(n,0,5,n) in steps of, say 0.5, instead of 1 for n. But it is
always (?) possible to change the summand in such a way, that a
summation with step of 1 gives the same result. In our example 
the
sum sum(n,0,5,n) would give the same result as sum(n,0,10,n/2) with
steps of 1. Both summations are still very discrete.
The situation gets indiscrete when the width of the step gets
infinitesimal small. Carrying that to the extrem case of the tiniest
steps that you could imagine, you get the integration.
About such things, like summations of complex numbers: The problem is
here not discretion or indiscretion ;-). The problem is that you must
specify a path aling which you add. In function theory we learn that
there are functions which are indifferent to the way that we choose to
integrate them in complex. The integral of such functions over a
closed curve (circle, ellipse etc) is always nada, nema, zero. But
there are other, quite unhealthy functions that behave exatly the
opposite way. Same with sums. There are some summands that give
different sums if summed over one way or the other.
Now, about the mathematical meaning, well on the one side you have
summations that accumulate some values using a finite step for 
the
index, on the other side you have integrations that use infinitite
small step dx. The width of the step for summations is not particulary
interesting, since you can always change the sum, so that you get the
same results using a step of 1. And since indices that go like
1,2,3,.... are somehow easy to grasp (integers, natural numbers) we
use them. Or is there any other reason, Professor?
Indiscrete greetings,
Nick.
This is what I was referring to by sensible.  You can achieve the 

desired effect by making changes to the
summand instead of making the limits of the sum non-integers.  I'm not 
sure 
enough to say that it will *always*
work, but at first glance I dont see why not.
To make something that is inherently simple appear more complex? ;-)
Aaron
desired
sure 
 
Sorry, I didn't understand that you mean the same.
Yeah, that might be a real reason. Or else, what complex marathons
should I write? Keep me from unemployment, so to speak ;-)
Nick.
Try out 'EXP(X+2)+EXP(X)' FACTOR. It returns 'EXP(X+2)+EXP(X)'. Now try
'EXP(X+2)+EXP(X)' TSIMP FACTOR, and you get 'EXP(X)*(EXP(2)+1)'. Well,
FACTOR doesn't work too good with non-rational expressions, huh? It 
needs
help, with for example TSIMP.
Another interesting question - how do we get from 'EXP(X)*(EXP(2)+1)' to 

the
original expression 'EXP(X+2)+EXP(X)'? I haven't succeded in finding a way 

-
maybe you can do it?
That's the way it is implemented. FACTOR does polynomial factorization
not rewriting.
the
-
LIN
Ok - an interesting limitation (TI-users will love this ;-).
I still get '(EXP(2)+1)*EXP(X)' with LIN?
??? Nice to know precisely what the calc does.
It seems to work on my hp49, in exact and approx mode, with or without 'X' 

in 'VX'.
My version is 1.19-5.
Camille
Use DISTRIB, then LIN.
Nick.
I am trying to compile a input form program with debug 2, it is from 
the
examples file for sysrpl document. I am getting the following errors which 

I
have been trying to work out for the last few days:
sasm.exe:
error opening_head.a for reading
sasm.exe:
error opening_table.a for reading
sasm.exe:
error opening_end.a for reading
Unexisting entry FPTR2
Help would be appreciated
MC
My guess is that you are trying to compile a library, and that the 
library
creation (namely makerom) failed for some reason. For example, if you do 

not
have a library number put in (did you do an include of your project 
name.H
in
your program...
which
I
the following problem:
When I type xroot(3, 8), the answer 2 is showed (as expected)
But, when I type xroot(3, -8) the complex mode is requested and my 
expected
answer isn't shown (that would be -2).
Is there some configuration I could do to solve the problem ?
Thanx.
expected
Your CAS has to be in aproximate mode.
expected
That's strange. As long as I'm in approximate mode, I get the expected
-2. whether I use 'XROOT(3,-8)' EVAL or -8 3 XROOT. But in exact mode, I
get '2*((1+i*v/3)/2)' (where v/ is the radical character), and 
EVAL on
that gives me '1+i*v/3'. Well, if I cube that I do get -8, but it's
certainly not the answer that I would've expected.
Use approximate mode. But I don't have any idea why, other than try not
to get the CAS involved in anything that doesn't need it; it seems to
have a habit of making things more complicated than they need to be.
-- 
James
expected
on
when on the unit circle you start at an angle of 0 and go counter
clockwise. The first 3rd root of -8 that you meet is then
'2*((1+i*v/3)/2). (Seen in complex numbers marathon ;-))
Nick.
expected
-2 is the answer with my 48GX. For the first complex result, I must use 
x^y
expected answer isn't shown
XROOT always returns only one answer.
Try to use SOLVE:
Hmm, there are three answers, but there is no X=-2. ;)
Piotr Kowalewski.
Once I initiate the RECV or KGET commands putting the calculator
in server mode how do I get out of it from within a program.
Help would be appreciated
Martin
Neither RECV nor KGET put the calculator in server mode.
The RECV command tells the calculator to receive a file (using the
Kermit protocol) from another device. The KGET tells the calculator to
get a file (again using the Kermit protocol) from another device which
is in Kermit server mode. If the other device doesn't send a file (or
respond to the KGET), the calculator will eventually (after about 50
seconds) error out with a Timeout error.
To put the calculator into server mode, use the SERVER command to put 
it
in Kermit server mode, or in the case of the 49G, XSERV to put it in
XModem server mode. While in Kermit server mode, the client device can
terminate server mode by sending either a FINISH or LOGOUT command to
the calculator. I don't know that there's any way for an XModem client
to terminate server mode. So far as terminating server mode from the
calculator, the only ways that I know of is to cause an error by
pressing the CANCEL (or ATTN, on a 48S series), or by having a control
alarm come due.
Which calculator are you using?
-- 
James
James,
My problem is I am communicating with a SDL30
digital level and the only way to prompt the instrument to
start reading is to initiate the program
Ç CLEAR LM XMIT
RECV
È and then press the cancel button on the calculator which
then starts the machine to read. Without the RECV command
for some reason the instrument will not initiate. Could it
just have something to do with my IOPAR { 1200 0 0 0 1 2}.
Martin
I'm not familiar with the SDL30 digital level other than that it's made
by Sokkia. I certainly don't know which communication parameters and
protocols it uses. Do you have any documentation for it? Are you sure
that it uses the Kermit file transfer protocol?
Am I correct in guessing that you're using a 48G series calculator?
I can only guess that the SDL30 is trying to send a file, so it waits
for the calculator to finish receiving it, but for some reason a
connection isn't established, and then the error packet from the
calculator tells it to give up. What happens on the calculator when it
gets to the RECV command? Do you get a Connecting message? Do you 
get
Retry #1 through Retry #9 messages? If you don't press CANCEL, 
Do
you eventually get a Timeout error? Does a new variable appear? Is 
an
existing variable overwritten?
Certainly IOPAR can cause communication problems. But what the 
correct
values are depends at leat partly on the device that the calculator is
connected to.
  The default IOPAR is { 9600 0 0 0 3 1 }.
  The first value is the speed in bits per second; 1200, 2400, 4800, and
  9600 are your choices.
  The second value is for parity; your choices are 0 for none, 1 for
  odd, 2 for even, 3 for mark, and 4 for space.
  The third value is for receive pacing and the fourth is for transmit
  pacing. The choices for pacing are 0 for disable or 1 (actually, any
  non-zero real number) for enable. Pacing is XON/XOFF software flow
  control, and it's neither needed nor used with Kermit.
  The fifth parameter is for the packet error detection method; the
  choices are 1, 2, and 3. If the devices disagree on the method, they
  should both fall back to using 1, so it *should* work regardless of
  this. Used for Kermit only.
  The sixth value is the Kermit ASCII transfer character translation
  code; the choices are 0, 1, 2, and 3. A proper File header from the
  sending device will override this, but I suppose that if the header
  doesn't say otherwise, the current translation mode would be used.
  Used for Kermit ASCII transfers and print (over wire) commands only.
You might also want to look at the system flags. The ones that might be
particularly relevant are -33, -35, -36, -39, and maybe -51.
James
it
James,
was looking for in:-
Ç CLEAR LM XMIT DROP CR È
It is rare, but if the level has a hardware (DTR/DSR) or software 
(XON/XOFF)
flow control setting, turn it off.
While coding the library function mentioned in the thread
SysRPL and unevaluated algebraic function
I stumbled upon a bug in CRLIB
When you add a rompointer that contains only a string
the rompointer doesn't appear in the menu but you can
access it by its name.
$ROMID 1207
$CONFIG 1
$TITLE TEST
$VISIBLE {STRING P}
$HIDDEN {}
STRING  THIS IS A TEST
Now build the lib with CRLIB store it in a port
and warmstart
after 1207 TMENU you see an empty label and then P
the empty label beeps if you press it but if you type in STRING
you get THIS IS A TEST
I seem to remember a 48 libbuilder that could make
hidden commands but I don't remember which one
--
This message was written with 100% recycled electrons
Pivo
I am not sure, but if I remember well, we have introduced a mod in the 49
that allowed us to win quite a bit of space in the rom (it's something 
for
managing /displaying menus) and it has this draw back as a side effect.
You can 'fix' the problem by embedding your string in a program...
for
Not quite.
The last object of a library can't be a string, or if it is a string it 

will
be used to display the title in a choosebox menu.
You can put a string anywhere, but the last object can't be one.
I had to find a way to display a title in a choosebox menu without 
breaking
the existing format, so that's the solution I've used
will
Which choose menu do you mean?
when I turn of the softmenu flag (-117) I still get softmenus for
libraries
But when it isn't the last object it still doesn't appear in the
libmenu,
a bug maybe?
 
breaking
You can put anything after the hash table and nobody will know :-0
I used this as a to make a hackproof library since library 
extractors
do not see this area. I ran a program directly from the library 
itself
by pointing the PC to this area
Unfortunately Thomas Rast cracked it in less than a day :-)
-- 
This message was written with 100% recycled electrons
Pivo
will
If you clear the flag -117 (for choose box menu) you will see that each 

menu
as a title. The way a title is defined is by using a string in the 
library.
When creating the menu list, each time a string is found it will be used 
as
the title for the menu. The last string found will be the active menu 
title.
Give it a try, you will see (easy to experiment).
The downside, is that strings can't be used in a library directly, you 
must
put them in a program if you want to achieve the same result
menu
library.
as
title.
Are the strings written directly into the library or can messagenumber be 

used?
I«m just asking because of translation.
Andreas
for
I gathered that it must have been a menu 'problem' since the lib was
fine
Fix? I was planning on using it for some hidden commands!
Are only strings affected? I tried some other types but 
they all worked as they should.
-- 
This message was written with 100% recycled electrons
Pivo
Well, I think only string are affected... But did you try a program with 
a
TakeOver ?
like:
:: TakeOver foo and the rest of your program there? ;
49
for
I would like to column reduce rather than row reduce a matrix to 
echelon
form.  MATH MATRIX ROW RCIJ is the row reduction utility that HP supplies 

on
the 48GX.  Does anyone know how to look at the HP commands for RCIJ so 
I
could modify it to work with columns?  Or if not that how would I 
program
mmstat@erols.com
on
Could you use TRN, then row reduction, and finally TRN again?
I have programmed rcij and ccij commands for working with 
numeric 
and
symbolic matrices, but they need MK and Erable instaled for working...
I am wondering if it is possible to stop 
this kind of loop while there are not a 
RS232 reception.
     0 STIME
     .
     .
     .
     DO
       WHILE
         KEY NOT
       REPEAT
         1 SRECV
         DROP2
         'j' INCR DROP
       END
     UNTIL
       13 ==              @ c key to stop after a RS232 reception.
     END
I tried this one:
     0 STIME
     .
     .
     .
     IFERR                @ for [ON] key.
       WHILE 
         1 REPEAT
         1 SRECV
         DROP2
         'j' INCR DROP
       END 
       THEN
     END  
But because of an unpredicted stopping, sometime I 
lose some data.
Tal
Sure, as long as you press the C key very quickly after the last byte
arrives at the port.  ;-)
Pressing CANCEL ought to stop it too, but I suppose not usually quite
the way that you want.
The problem is that with 0 STIME, 1 SRECV will wait indefinitely for
something to arrive. So why not go back to using some other value for
STIME, and proceed depending on whether an I/O error (presumably # C02h,
Timeout) occurs from SRECV. You could do some additional checking 
to
make sure that the error was really from a timeout. Yes, there will be 
a
slight additional delay before executing TICKS if a byte comes in after
SRECV times out and before the program loops back to SRECV again, and
with 25.4 for STIME, the delay before the program actually gets around
to checking the key is likely to be very noticeable, but perhaps
acceptable. You could try the following:
     25.4 STIME
     .
     .
     .
     DO
       WHILE
         KEY NOT
       REPEAT
         1 SRECV
         IF
           SWAP DROP                @ Replace with NIP for 49G
         THEN
           'j' INCR DROP
         END
       END
     UNTIL
       13 ==              @ c key to stop after a RS232 reception.
     END
-- 
James
Hey I saw this on comp.sys.handhelds I thought you guys would get a kick 

out
of it. I have no tried it yet.
JIM
---------------------------------------------
Waterloo, Canada - September 9, 2002 - Poliplus Software is
thrilled to announce the much anticipated release of Formulae 1
for PocketPC (Compaq iPaq series devices).
Formulae 1 (F1) is a powerful and easy to use Computer Algebra
System designed specially for the teaching and exploration of
mathematics. F1 gives the user the ability to see intermediate
steps of calculations as well as final answers. The step feature
has tremendous pedagogical value that users will come to appreciate
over and over again.
While there are several different numerical based calculator
programs for PDAs, there is nothing really that comes close to
the mathematical capabilites of F1. Transform your PDA into the
next generation handheld Mathematics system designed to get
answers and see steps. If you are a student, this is a must
have application.
F1's User Interface was custom designed to optimize the use of
the small screen area of the device. Most of the screen area is
available to view and manipulate math expressions, unlike other
calculators where most of the screen is populated by buttons.
For a complete list of features (with lots of screen shots) and
some more information go to :
http://www.poliplus.com/handheldproducts.htm
Formulae 1 for PocketPC requires Insignia's Jeode (Java Virtual
Machine) which comes on the CD of every Compaq iPaq machine. Jeode
allowed Formulae 1 to run unchanged and exactly on Sharp Zaurus
we have been getting lots of positive feedback from Sharp Zaurus
users. Formulae 1 quickly climbed to the 8th overall bestselling
software list at Handango. The excitment has been overwhelming. What
follows are some verbatim quotes from users and we hope these
testimonials will attest to not only our software capabilities
by also Jeode's.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I would like to congratulate to your marvellous program called F1!
I couldn't believe when I saw the advertisement on the Zaurus portal.
At least I found a real CAS for my Zaurus! I was very happy indeed.
And I am very content with F1 - it's a cool piece of software
regarding footprint and functionality.
Compared to my CAS I'm using on my notebook computer, I must say
that F1 solves most of my maths problems. It's most astounding how
well F1 performs on the Zaurus. The graphical input method is
ingenious; I don't have to bother with complicated text definitions
of my formulae like those found in other editors. It's much more
like the state-of-the-art CAS Mathematica, if you allow the
comparison. I have to express my deepest respect to the programmers.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Formulae 1 is a java based symbolic/numerical math engine. It has
a very nice equation editor which can handle matricies, integrals,
derivatives, and polynomials. The graphing functionality is primitive
but very useful. The program appears to have very few if any
bugs. FOr students it is nice to have the step feature. I
recommend this to any science or mathematics students learning
or having to use basic calculus or linear algebra. An additional nice
feature is the help system which is very very useful.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Formulae 1 is the software application that I have been looking for
on a handheld device. What is nice about the product other than
the rich features is that it is usable on various handhelds because
it is written in Java. The feature list is extensive and covers most
areas of mathematics found in calculus I and II class material.
Features lacking in this version are limits, 3D plotting, linear and
non-linear regression.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
It seems there is no limit instructions, which means that the CAS
is not that much advanced. I did not see any mention of a programming
language. On the Zaurus you can run xcas, it has much more features
and is free. And since the device where you run this prog is around 400$
or more, I wonder how a 30$ basic CAS could have some success:
for that price you can have both a TI89 and a HP49:-).
I prefer having my HP200LX with Derive for DOS... The same software can
then be used on my home PC, if I need a little more speed... ;)
-- 
-----
Je viens d'adopter une limace (elle s'appele Chompie), et j'ai 
trouve
des infos sur un site qui n'a pas ete mis a jour depuis des siecles!
Meme si l'auteur ne s'y interesse plus, le site garde tout son interet.
-+- P in : Guide du Neuneu d'Usenet - L'.90re des limaces m.8edia -+-
I tested it once, and even if I own and use a lot of HP calcs 
(including
my 9 months-old HP49), I weren't able to do anything useful with xcas...
But since it must be my dumbness, I promise I'll read the doc, and try
again later ;)
In the meantime, I'm still reading the Derive's manual.
-- 
-----
Je crois que le meilleur moyen, c'est une signature qui contient
toutes les signatures et de virer les mauvaises avant envoi.
-+- Ivan in : Guide du Neuneu d'Usenet : Je signe donc je suis -+-
It would be a good idea since xcas is evolving at a fast rate.
As explained in a previous post, you can for example read the TI
Maple or Mupad instructions that are implemented (but TI compatibility
is much better). HP compatibility is currently the syntax and RPN
mode, not for the instructions.
Bernard,
It seems to me that you are neglecting people who already have that
$400 device. I am a huge fan of the 48/49 (and sysRPL programming) but
I also have an Ipaq 3835, and so I just purchased Formulae 1.
This is not an indication that I don't like the CAS in the 49, simply
the reality that the 49 is now an obsolete device, no longer produced
or supported. Reality dictates that I move on and I find that when I
want to pack one device with me, it's the Ipaq. It's current,
supported, has an ever-increasing software base and allows me do do a
multitude of tasks.
Simon
 
Most of xcas interface and development has been done thinking about
handheld users, and you should know that Prof. Parisse uses ipaq with
Familiar distro to test (so do I).
I am agree with the idea, but not with the cost of such device..
that's the reason I have started a project to create a low cost
gnu/linux platform. It is already in early stages.
J.Manrique
Users Club from Gij.97n
#1077 HPCC Member
Carlos.
There is a misunderstanding here: I develop and run xcas on my ipaq. So
you can't say I'm neglecting the ipaq, to the contrary. I did choose
to develop a native application, which I think is mandatory
when you want to solve real-world problem. This means that xcas
is not a java, but a true C++ application. It is compiled with
but it does not ship a complete ANSI-C++ compiler).
Either replace wince or install it on a flashcard. Then you will
need around 1.5M of flash to store the app.
More info
http://www-fourier.ujf-grenoble.fr/~parisse/giac.html
xcas is not completely ready for prime-time release but it has
today around 95% of the HP49 and TI89 functionnality. If you have
a TI-Basic program, you can run it with xcas except if it uses
some of the pixel graphic or stats instructions (see below).
If you prefer RPN, just check the mode. Or you can program
it using C like syntax. Other features are interactive debugger,
dynamic geometry, pretty-print, on-line help etc. And since it
   /* TI89 compatibility Notes
      Use maple_mode(3) in your config file (~/.xcasrc or xcas.rc) or
      begin your session with cas configuration (or type maple_mode(3))
      1/ Instructions implemented
      Algebra: all
      Calculus: all except product
      Strings: all
      Graphics: pixel instructions are not implemented except 
PxlOn/PxlOff
        And/Xor/Pixel tests are not implemented
        Zoom instructions not implemented except ZoomSto/ZoomRcl
        BldData/RclGDB/StoGDB not implemented
        Graph currently points to drawFunc
      Lists: all, note that SortA/SortD are implemented for 1 arg only
      Maths: all except conversions and units
      Matrices: all except statistics.
        LU/QR work with numeric matrices and tolerance argument is 
ignored
      Program: all except
        mode handling, units,
        getKeys, the Custom and Toolbar instructions
        Lock/Unlock
      Stats: !, rand, RandSeed, nCr, nPr
      2/ Be sure to use correct case. archive (native) is not like 
Archive (TI)
      conversion sign translated to to
      i=sqrt(-1): use the i button of xcas
      transpose sign not translated (use transpose())
    */
This is completely irrelevant for users. The software is pretty fast
and in the case of Zaurus, the user doesn't even know it is running
Java. As long as the software runs fast enough you could as well 
have programmed it in logo :)
Carlos.
PxlOn/PxlOff
ignored
I don't think users want to have one program when for example a 10*
faster with the same capabilities exists (I don't know the speed
decrease when you use java instead of C++ but I would guess some
factor around 10).
Then I'm curious what you describe as fast enough. Could you give
us some benchmarks, like
int(1/(x^4-1)^10,x)
invert a 15x15 matrix with random coefficients in -99..99
factor(x^100+1)
If you are solving a math problem that takes 1 second to solve, a
program that solves the same in 100 milliseconds is irrelevant.
1 second is close enough to being instantaneous.
Jeode compiles the Java code on demand and most operations are
almost instantaneous.
Could you provide the steps xcas provides when solving the 
following problems step by step :
int(x^2*exp(2*x),x)
int(ln(x^2+a^2),x)
int((-4*x-88)/(x^2+2*x+5),x)
solve(sqrt(ln(x))=ln(sqrt(x)),x)
sin(acos(sqrt(5)/5))
I want to see the steps !!! not just the final answer.
Once again, our intended audience is different and what you seem
interested in doing is not what we view our customers doing.
You said that the speed was not important to the user where
I disagree and I asked about some benchmarks, I note that
you don't answer which is in itself an answer.
I never said that steb by step was not important, to the contrary,
I just did not have time to implement it right now. But don't
worry it will be added. And it's not only feasible but rather
easy, on the other side, if you can not solve the kind of problems
I gave, it will be much harder for you to implement.
You haven't answered my questions either.
Really... Let me know when you have properly implemented 
step-by-step integration for example and let's compare
implementations !!! 
Yeah right, don't forget I have access to lots of source
code including YOURS !!! Not that I would use any since 
everything we do must fit nicely with the step-by-step 
framework (i.e. the steps must be the same as the ones 
students would produce by hand. Steps that are illustrated
in typical high school/college/university textbooks.
You can not use my source unless you release your application
under the GPL. You can use the same algorithms as I use of
course.
The fact that almost every CAS use algorithms that are not
teached shows that if you refuse to use them, your CAS will
only remain a pedagogical tool. I claim that it is possible
to have both.
So lack of limits, to you, means not advanced... interesting.
Limits are trivial to implement !!!
I beleive the press release was for PocketPC but you just
have to promote your own offering for the Zaurus... interesting.
I'd love to see what Formulae 1 users have to say about your
system once they have access to our simple to use and yet
uniquely powerful and automatic CAS.
Carlos.
Of course. Limits are used in many areas like derivation (theory)
or integration with bounds and is teached during highschool, if
your system does not solve limit then it is not of much use compared
e.g. to the TI89 or HP49/40.
That shows you didn't really try to implement them, maybe
you just think of L'Hopital's rule, but a correct limit
implementation is much more complex than that. xcas can
solve the following limits (using the mrv algorithm
which is unfortunately not implemented on the 49)
limit( exp(x)*(exp(1/x-exp(-x))-exp(1/x)), x=+infinity);
limit( exp(x)*(exp(1/x+exp(-x)+exp(-x^2))-exp(1/x-exp(-exp(x)))), 
x=+infinity);
limit( exp(exp(x-exp(-x))/(1-1/x))-exp(exp(x)), x=+infinity);
limit( exp(exp(exp(x)/(1-1/x)))-exp(exp(exp(x)/(1-1/x-ln(x)^(-ln(x))))), 
x=+infinity);
limit( exp(exp(exp(x+exp(-x))))/exp(exp(exp(x))), x=+infinity);
limit(exp(exp(exp(x)))/exp(exp(exp(x-exp(-x)))),x=+infinity);
limit(exp(exp(exp(x)))/exp(exp(exp(x-exp(-exp(exp(x)))))),x=+infinity);
limit(exp(exp(x))/exp(exp(x-exp(-exp(exp(x))))),x=+infinity);
limit(x*ln(x)*ln(x*exp(x)-x^2)^2/ln(ln(x^2+2*exp(exp(3*x^3*ln(x))))),x=+in
fi
nity);
limit((exp(x*exp(-x)/(exp(-x)+exp(-2*x^2/(x+1))))-exp(x))/x,x=+infinity);
limit((3^x+5^x)^(1/x),x=+infinity);
limit(x/ln(x^(ln(x)^(ln(2)/ln(x)))),x=+infinity);
limit(exp(exp(2*ln(x^5+x)*ln(ln(x))))/exp(exp(10*ln(x)*ln(ln(x)))),x=+infi
ni
ty);
limit((exp(4*x*exp(-x)/(1/exp(x)+1/exp(2*x^2/(x+1))))-exp(x))/exp(x)^4,x=+
in
finity);
limit(exp(x*exp(-x)/(exp(-x)+exp(-2*x^2/(x+1))))/exp(x),x=+infinity);
limit( 
exp(exp(-x/(1+exp(-x))))*exp(-x/(1+exp(-x/(1+exp(-x)))))*exp(exp(-x+exp(-x
/(
1+exp(-x)))))/exp(-x/(1+exp(-x)))^2-exp(x)+x, 
x=+infinity);
limit( (ln(ln(x)+ln(ln(x)))-ln(ln(x)))*ln(x)/ln(ln(x)+ln(ln(ln(x)))), 
x=+infinity);
limit(exp(ln(ln(x+exp(ln(x)*ln(ln(x)))))/ln(ln(ln(exp(x)+x+ln(x))))),x=+in
fi
nity);
limit(exp(x)*(sin(1/x+exp(-x))-sin(1/x+exp(-x^2))),x=+infinity);
limit(exp(exp(x))*(exp(sin(1/x+exp(-exp(x))))-exp(sin(1/x))),x=+infinity);

limit( 
(exp(x*exp(-x)/(exp(-x)+exp(-2*x^2/(x+1))))-exp(x))/x,x=+infinity);
limit( ln(ln(x*exp(x*exp(x))+1))-exp(exp(ln(ln(x))+1/x)), x=+infinity);
limit(sqrt(x+sqrt(x))-sqrt(x),x=+infinity);
limit(sqrt(x+sqrt(x+sqrt(x)))-sqrt(x+sqrt(x)),x=+infinity);
limit(4/9*exp(exp(5/2*x^(-5/7)+21/8*x^(6/11)+2*x^(-8)+54/17*x^(49/45)))^8/
ln
(ln(-ln(4/3*x^(-5/14))))^(7/6),x=+infinity);
limit(ln(x)^2*exp(sqrt(ln(x))*ln(ln(x))^2*exp(sqrt(ln(ln(x)))*ln(ln(ln(x))
)^
3))/sqrt(x),x=+infinity);
Form your post
<<Jeode allowed Formulae 1 to run unchanged and exactly on Sharp Zaurus
of the Zaurus, where xcas runs also (once you install X11).
And what you call an offering
is not a $$-software, xcas is GPL-ed soft, I won't gain any money,
it's just I don't want people owning an HP to spend 30$ without knowing
there are more powerful free alternatives.
Yes, please tell your customers about xcas if they have a
They might discover that maybe the don't have step by step now
but in exchange they have a much more complete CAS with dynamic
geometry, programmation, RPN mode and soon able to run many TI89/92
Basic programs.
<<For the purposes of providing background for my comments:
  1) I own multiple HP-49G calculators, a HP-48GM calculators and
     several other HP calculators.  I own a TI-89 calculator.
  2) I worked with Dr. B. Parisse's, who is the equivalent of an
     American university professor in mathematics, software when
     it was in development on the HP-48GX and HP-49SX platforms.
     At least one of my suggestions was incorporated into that software.
  3) If I understand your term ``techo-lord'' correctly, then I am
        That is good to heard.
        Do not ignore the ``techo-lords.''
        It is very likely that they will be part of your customer base
        also.  I looked at your WWW accessible material.  Unfortunately
        for me, I neither have a platform on which to execute it nor
        have a way of ordering if I did own an appropriate platform.
        The TI-89 is hard to use and requires much system learning just
        because it was ``dumbed down'' for the ``general public'' and the
        teaching community.  I stipulate that there are many excellent
        teachers.  Unfortunately, the excellent teachers can work with
        even bad tools or a log (large wooden object that is the 
immediate
        result of harvesting trees).  Therefore, TI designed the machine
        for the remaining teachers that need support systems to be able
        to teach.  TI recognizes that fact and provides prepared syllabi,
        lesson plans, lessons, presentation material, special manuals
        for the equipment that explain what problems with the machine
        the students may encounter and how to solve those problem on the
        machine.  (I wish that I had one of those manuals---it has to
        be better than the manual that came with the machine.)
        I learned calculus, linear algebra and differential equations (at
        the college level) on the HP-48 with B. Parisse's Erable.  It
        could assist solving the problems.  The TI-89 was almost useless.
        Follow the Einstein adage: make it as simple as possible; but
        no simpler.  I opine that HP did and TI did not.
                                  We are going after the general 
        ``The poor we will have with us always.''
        For much of the masses, a ``four function immediate operation
        calculator'' (which can be bought for US$2) presents a challenge.
provides means sells in this case.  I am told my my math 
professor
(Arizona State Univ) that is the primary reason the department has 
stopped
recommending TI calculators, that they have turned documentation into
more of a profit center than the hardware itself.
-- 
X
X
Well then you probably can program that to the 1.19-7
I'm sure JYA will help you. Will you do it?
I don't have time to program mrv on the 49. Programming
xcas takes too much time and since there is no hope
of having more memory and speed on the 49...
Non-sense. There is no colleration between a system having limits
and being advanced. Having limits does not make a system advanced
and vice-versa, as your original comment suggested. 
limit(x*ln(x)*ln(x*exp(x)-x^2)^2/ln(ln(x^2+2*exp(exp(3*x^3*ln(x))))),x=+infi
n
ity);
limit(exp(exp(2*ln(x^5+x)*ln(ln(x))))/exp(exp(10*ln(x)*ln(ln(x)))),x=+infini
t
y);
limit((exp(4*x*exp(-x)/(1/exp(x)+1/exp(2*x^2/(x+1))))-exp(x))/exp(x)^4,x=+in
f
inity);
exp(exp(-x/(1+exp(-x))))*exp(-x/(1+exp(-x/(1+exp(-x)))))*exp(exp(-x+exp(-x/(
1
+exp(-x)))))/exp(-x/(1+exp(-x)))^2-exp(x)+x,
limit(exp(ln(ln(x+exp(ln(x)*ln(ln(x)))))/ln(ln(ln(exp(x)+x+ln(x))))),x=+infi
n
ity);
limit(exp(exp(x))*(exp(sin(1/x+exp(-exp(x))))-exp(sin(1/x))),x=+infinity);
(exp(x*exp(-x)/(exp(-x)+exp(-2*x^2/(x+1))))-exp(x))/x,x=+infinity);
limit(4/9*exp(exp(5/2*x^(-5/7)+21/8*x^(6/11)+2*x^(-8)+54/17*x^(49/45)))^8/ln
(
ln(-ln(4/3*x^(-5/14))))^(7/6),x=+infinity);
limit(ln(x)^2*exp(sqrt(ln(x))*ln(ln(x))^2*exp(sqrt(ln(ln(x)))*ln(ln(ln(x)))^
3
))/sqrt(x),x=+infinity);
Wrong again. we have implemented limits on the previous WinCE version 
but took it out of this initial Zaurus/PocketPC release.
Irrelevant of cost, you concluded our stuff was crap (not advanced)
without even trying it, based only on the lack of limits and then
you went already to praise your own system. I won't bother trashing
your program but I am sure our software does a lot of things your
software doesn't and vice-versa. 
Also Powerful, like beauty, is on the eye of the beholder. When it 
comes to learning math and seeing how something was solved, Formulae 1 
is one of the most powerful programs of its kind out there. Definitively 
worth $30. 
Now you should compare your free xcas system with Maxima which is also
free and also runs on Zaurus. Now let's see how powerful xcas does
against Maxima. 
If our customers request such features, we will certainly implement
them. That's for sure. But keep in mind that we favour ease of use
and math learning to complicated systems when you have to learn the
system instead of learning math. We are going after the general 
public and not the technical-lords ;)
Carlos.
Studying Management Engineering I have learned that cost are never
irrelevant..
It would be better saying that he is giving info about alternatives..
Instead of trashing his arguments you should try his system and
compares it to yours.
Yes, it always happens.. but being open software lacks could be
completed by anyone, not waiting for a company decission to make it.
 
I am sure that it worth $30, it is your work.
 
Yes, let's see.. have you done it? Now, we have 3 CAS running in
handhelds, two open source and free, and one propietary.. and each
using:
- clisp (Maxima)
- c++ (Giac/Xcas)
- java (Formulae 1)
Oops.. sorry, I forget Yacas.. it runs in Familiar distro too and it
is c++ system too..
It would be nice a comparasion like to one in sci.math.symbolic about
CAS systems in PC.
I wouldn't call xcas a technical-lords apps, at least not more than a
hp calculator. Of course, being a technical-lord it could be possible
to make a lot of things with it without waiting for propietary company
update, just read the source and modify it to fit your needs.. but
this is for technical-lords ;)
J.Manrique
Users Club from Gij.97n
#1077 HPCC Member
Just irrelevant to the conversation of something being crap or not.
It should be the other way around (he should try our system and
compare with his) because he was the one commenting on our system.
I have no interest comparing systems or commenting on his system.
This is off topic. There are lots of benefits and problems with 
each model (open-source and proprietaty) and the discussion should
go somewhere else.
Definitively
Not only that, it does useful things for math/science/engineering 
students
that other similar programs can not do and that functionality is 
definitively
worth #30. 
It would be nice. I won't be doing the comparison that's for sure. 
Whoever
does it, just make sure to compare apples to apples.
On the PC, there are several open source and free systems, yet 
commercial
and proprietary Maple and Mathematica are doing pretty well. 
This is all good, just not the market we are going after. 
Carlos.
No, it is the right way because you can try xcas without spending
any $. I must pay 30$ to try your system.
Of course you have no interest comparing publicly systems, it's
much easier.
Whoever
I would certainly not describe maple or mathematica as not that 
advanced CAS.
So you are telling me that because you are cheap, it is ok for
you to comment on our system (and compare it to yours) without
actually trying it. and futhermore, because your system is free,
I should spend time and compare it to Formulae 1 for you. 
You don't have anything final. Why don't you just come up with
a final end user product, release it and then show rave reviews
from users.
Whoever
commercial
I can comment your system by the specs that are publicly available.
It is clear that you lack some fundemental instructions and
it seems also that you do not provide a programming language
and I don't remember seeing a geometry application.
xcas is perfectly usable. It has a complete French documentation.
It's not a commercial soft, I don't need to make a formal release.
It has always worked that way with Erable for the 48.
The main current advantage of formulae1 is that people can use it on
their zaurus without installing X, and you did more advertising so
that people know about it.
Why is this thread turning into flamewar?
-- 
-----
.82a fait 5 jours que je pose des questions, je n'ai aucune r.8eponse, 
.88
part des remontrances. Vous r.8epondez de bonne foi ou vous passez ! 
Ce
que vous pensez n'a pas d'int.8er.90t, r.8epondez-y seulement...
-+- Joe in: Guide du Neuneu d'Usenet - Ze veux z.8e z.8exige -+-
In American-English it's called: ego.
GS
I really wonder why you decided to remove the limit instruction
if you had it on wince. Is it a commercial decision to propose
buyers of the first version another version and get some $?
Not that advanced does not mean crap. Of course there are some
features that xcas does not do currently (like solve with abs,
sqrt and inequalities or step-by-step), but that will be much
easier to fix than it will be for formulae1 if you want to be on
par with xcas features.
I don't contest it might be good for learning maths. I contest your
denomination of advanced and pointed to xcas which has more advanced
CAS features.
Yes, let's compare with maxima. Maxima sure has some features xcas
does not have, because it's a 30 years old program. But it has been
almost idle during 20 years, hence does not use any of the advanced
algorithms found in CAS research during 20 years. For example, maxima
uses l'Hopital rules and series expansion only to solve limit, you
can check the message board and see that it fails on some not so
complicated exemples. Who will implement mrv? Did you have a look
at maxima source code to see how bright the future of maxima is?
Are you sure you are not offering a crippled CAS with an emphasis
on some points of the highschool curriculum (in the US)?
This was already covered on a previous post. Check it out, I won't
bother repeating it here.
Our policy is to provide free upgrades for minor version numbers 
(1.0.1, 1.2, 1.3) and only charge a small upgrade fee for major
version numbers (2.0, 3.0, etc).
The decision had nothing to do with trying to rip off current
customers. Our next feature release (aside from bug fixes) will 
be in 4/5 months and it will be for a minor version. 
Ease or not, every highschool textbook completely covers solving
simple equations with sqrt, abs and sometimes even inequalities
so we consider this a MUST have feature for high schools and
above. A solve without these is not a very complete solve.
The fact IS for me and you (CAS implementors) everything math 
related is EASY to implement !!! 
We are not competing with xcas. Our steps are phenomenal and will
continue to get better and you simpy don't have that functionality
in xcas since you are not going after the same people we are.
Definitively
Not when it comes to step-by-step features. We are very advanced here.
For example in Formulae 1 you can type :
int(1/(x-sqrt(x)),x) and press step to get
intVarSub(integral, u=sqrt(x)) which basically
says that this integral is solved by the substitution
u=sqrt(x). You can continue to press step to see all
of other techniques it used to solve this integrals.
You just don't get that from any other CAS (with the
exception of Mathpert). 
When learning integration, it is nice to see which 
one of the taught integration techniques is used to
solve a particular integral; and that is what we 
provide to users. Pretty advanced functionality,
if it was easy you would have already implemented 
in xcas.
This is not a comparison, this is just your excuse not to compare
it when it comes to solving problems in one step. Why don't you
grab a copy of Webster's Tests and see how xcas does against 
Maxima and the other one-shot big CASs. Now that's a comparison
of math capabilities. xcas implements mrv, maxima doesn't. What
about everything else Maxima implements that xcas doesn't. 
Cripped CAS ? You just admitted that your CAS is not able to 
solve simple high school equations with abs and sqrt. Now
that is a cripped solve command. 
Oh now our CAS is crippled because of the US curriculum. This
is getting pathetic. Math is math, we have more user's of
the Zaurus version in Europe than in the US. and most of the
enthusiasm is from Europe. Notice that we left user's comments
verbatim (non edited). Europeans are loving Formulae 1 too.
Sorry, I don't consider that advanced at all (after all the advanced
stuff that has already been implemented, step-by-step is easy to
implement, it's just that we don't have any motivation to implement
it). Besides, it is very likely to get your CAS banned from
examinations.
It can be useful when learning on your own, but:
1. All those silly integration tricks should be thrown out of the
curriculum anyway, and
2. If you're not sure how to solve a problem, just ask a teacher or
mentor (and practise, practise, practise!)
-- we have better things to do.
My $0.02,
Bhuvanesh.
X
X
But eventually you also are gonna implement it.
Right?!
I like the idea of a special SbS mode.
I wish that it could be turned on and off for only
    M) Matrix operations
    P) Polynomial operations
    D) Differential operations
    S) Solving
    O) Other operations
And if you have something to add be free to do so.
I'd like to see this in HP 49 CAS, xcas and F1.
Are you asking me? I'm certainly not going to implement it.
I still don't see it as useful enough to be worth spending time to
implement, but maybe I'm just abnormal. In my view, these CAS's should
be used once you have mastered the basic concepts and can solve
problems on paper.
Well, you might be able to implement it in the HP49G CAS once it
becomes open-source :) I think B.P. is planning to implement it in
XCas too, sometime in the future.
--
Bhuvanesh
Your opinion, I do.
Really. How did you figure that out ? Let's take for example
xcas partial risch integration algorithm implementation. Hard
to implement the full algorithm isn't it. but tell me how
implementing that makes step-by-step easy ? You just have to
use completely different algorithms here. One for one-shot
answers and another for steps. You don't have implemented 
any sort of decent step-by-step feature so how can you say
it is easy ? I might look easy, just like it seems easy to
implement the full risch algorithm but actually there isn't
one full implementation of it; Not even Maple or Mathematica.
My point is, it looks easy until you try to do a nice job
of it; The devil is in the detail.
Sure. We are not trying to develop software to help 
students cheat on examination. Our software is meant to
help students learn and strength their math skills.
Your opinion, I find them very important and apparently so every 
major Calculus textbook author.
So you can't use software to help the learning process. This is 
just another tool to use to improve a student's math skills.
That goes to show that we are targeting different markets. Step-by-step
is a priority for us and our main key differentiating factor.
Carlos.
When did I say it was easy to implement the full Risch algorithm?
I agree that it might help some students, but only when they are on
their own.
Yes, my opinion, of course. Well, all I want to say is that those
--
Bhuvanesh
[lot of anger post deleted]
Mr Bazzarella, it would be good instead of flaming all the other 
posters
that you answer the only questions that matters here, and which you 
have
carefully avoided:
That is: in the example Mr Parisse has given, how do you perform?
If your CAS is that advanced, I'm sure it will be easy for you to give
different examples that you would like other people to try and compare
because you believe that they can't solve it while your system can.
If you don't and you keep posting with a lot of anger and passion, you 
will
just make people fed-up with your posts and they will disregard your 
opinion
in every matters, which would be very sad.
So yes you can do step-by-step in a useful manner (unlike the HP49 
which
often shows step that are totally useless for a student), but what 
matters
at the end is what you can or can't do. Most of the CAS out-there have 
been
top-selling CAS without providing s-b-s features.
To summarize: stop acting like a politician, ignoring questions and
repeating always the same thing over and over
the one you mentioned. If you said Passion than I could easily
understand... must be all of that latino blood in me :)
I haven't flamed anybody, on the contrary, I've been very polite but
passionate. 
The only questions that matter here are the only questions that 
matter
to you, Parisse and the xcas team but these questions don't matter 
to me as I previously stated. I've put out several of the questions 
I view important and they weren't answered either. More evidence that
we are not doing the same thing.
will
opinion
No anger just passion... I am not a fighter, I am a lover :)
But you made a very good point and I believe this thread is over and
I won't post any more.
matters
been
This is another great point. You are so right and there are some many
different CASs that pretty much do the same thing one form or another.
Don't you think future CASs should evolve to do things that other 
previous CASs can't ? I do and then I ask myself, what else can we
do in a CAS nowadays with so much CPU cycles available for extra 
processing. What I came up with was step-by-step and then 
step-by-step
with complete written explanations and then step-by-step with 
dynamically
generated animations and explanations. 
If Formulae 1 and Mathpert do well, future CASs will need to 
have these features to sell well since users will be expecting them.
I promise to do so if you, Parisse and xcas team do the same.
Carlos.
matter
I have answered to your questions I believe. The fact that xcas has
currently no step by step means that your question about can xcas
show the steps to solve int(...) irrelevant. On the other hand
you did not answer to any benchmarks I proposed,despite the fact
you could, because the benchmarks I proposed were about factorization,
matrix inversion and integration of a rational fraction, all
instructions that are available in formulae 1 as I understand.
I'm afraid it means that formulae 1 does not solve them very fast
and that it might never be a priority for formulae1 to improve in
this area.
step-by-step
dynamically
I agree that CAS should provide new possibilities. Step by step is
one of them, but that should not be contrary to efficiency. I don't
want to have a learning CAS on a handheld, and another one on a
desktop. I want to have the same CAS on both, and I want to be able
to solve as many problems as possible on the PDA. Now if I had to
describe a difference between xcas and standard cas like maple or
mupad etc., then I would say that giac/xcas following GiNaC provides a
library that programmers can use inside their C++ program. With maple
or mupad you can only use external libraries *inside* the maple/mupad
interface. With giac, you don't need to learn another programming
language, you just need to learn the library functions names.
matter
Also the fact that we don't have limits would imply we can't
evaluate the huge list you submitted.
step-by-step
dynamically
Re-read my post. The point was not to get benchmarks about limits
which would of course be irrelevant for formulae 1. It was that
coding a complete limit instruction was not easy at all.
The benchmarks I was speaking are
factor(x^100+1)
inv(ranm(15,15))
int(1/(x^4-1)^10,x)
none require limit
Here are some timings with Derive on my single speed (7.91 MHz)
HP200LX, still an old DOS machine with a 16 bits CPU and no more than 
640k
2.2 seconds to get:
(x^4+1)(x^16-x^12+x^8-x^4+1)(x^80-x^60+x^40-x^20+1)
Not bad.
7.9 seconds to create the matrix(random(i+1)-random(j+1), i, 15, j,
15), and 63.3 seconds to inverse it. Some Garbage Collections have
occurred, and about 30% of the free memory have been eaten (and 
released
after).
Too long, and impractical, since the result cannot be displayed properly,
and there's no matrix editor.
19.6 seconds to get a long:
15646785.atan(x)/67108864 - 15646785.ln((x-1)/(x+1))/134217728 +
x(46940355.x^32-402345900.x^28+1521599040.x^24-3324596364.x^20+4608419886.
x^
16-4177677924.x^12+2449584536.x^8-874703844.x^4+161168823)/(301989888(1-x^4)
^
9)
Not bad, but the result seems useless.
-- 
-----
Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson on Bill Gates: He has a Napoleonic
concept of himself and his company, an arrogance that derives from
power
How about the Numeric/Approx Matrix Inversion Test?
RANM with float elements in the range -9. to +9.
4x4, 8x8, 16x16, 32x32, 64x64, how high can you go?
Is there a memory and/or (practical) time limit?
640k
4x4: 0.7s (creation), 0.4s (inversion)
8x8: 2.5s (creation), 2.6s-11.3s (inversion)
16x16: 9.0s-13s (creation), 82.7s-96.1s (inversion)
32x32: 38.3s (creation), aborted the test after a loooong time, when I 
saw
       that it was constantly doing GC operations, with 5% free memory.
The creation step consists of simplifying the expression:
matrix(random(i+1)-random(j+1),i,16,j,16) for a 16x16 matrix.
The time taken for an operation can vary depending on the free memory, 
as
Derive performs some Garbage Collection when needed. For example, 
during
the inversion of the 16x16 matrix, 7 to 9 GC occurred, each taking 4 to 5
seconds.
When necessary (and practical), I've performed the same test several
times, and taken the best and worst time for each. I won't do it again 
for
the 32x32 matrix.
I've performed the test with Exact and Approximate precision (except 
for
the 32x32). The timings were approximately the same in both settings, 
but
the memory taken in the Approximate setting is lower.
The memory taken by the 4x4 and 8x8 tests is negligible. The free 
memory
indicator after the 16x16 test is about 80%.
don't know if Derive 4.11 for DOS can use EMM, it would surely help.
The practical limit (time) is around the 16x16. Such matrices take some
time to create, manipulate, and display.
But the fact that you can use the same exact program on a more powerful 
PC
and make use of the extended memory is nice. For example, Here are the
4x4: 0.0s
8x8: 0.1s
16x16: 0.2s
32x32: 4.1s
64x64: 149.0s
Of course you can't have that kind of PC always with you, but slightly
less powerful ones are available (Toshiba Libretto for example).
-- 
-----
animation, mais le machin auromatique MAJORDOMO me renvoit toujours la
m.90me foutu page d'instruction de code. Comment ca marche ?
-+- W in Guide du Neuneu d'Usenet : Mauvais abonn.8e, changer d'abonn.8e 

-+-
saw
X
PC
X
So my best timings on a HP 49G shows that the HP 200LX Derive
is both slower and can't handle big matrices :-(
HP 49G
size elements bytes time
  4 x 4  ( 16) =128B : 0.7_s
  8 x 8  ( 64) =1/2 K :  3_s
 16 x16  (256) = 2 K :  16_s
 32 x32 (1024) = 8 K : 96_s =  '1_min+36_s'
 64 x64 (4096) =32 K : 655_s='10_min+55_s'
CONCLUSION: I think I need xcas on my HP Jornada 720
Can anybody deliver an executable for it ?!
Veli-Pekka
PS. TI 89 numbers were (surprisingly similar with the HP 200LX):
4x4: 1.1 s
8x8: 8.2 s
16x16: 81.7 s
32x32: Out of memory
64x64: Out of memory
saw
PC
For comparison, in Mathematica (running on a 500MHz Windows2000 machine):
In[1]:= mat = N[Table[Random[Integer,{-9,9}], {i,16}, {j,16}]];
In[2]:= Timing[Inverse[mat]][[1]]
Out[2]= 0. Second
In[3]:= mat = N[Table[Random[Integer,{-9,9}], {i,64}, {j,64}]];
In[4]:= Timing[Inverse[mat]][[1]]
Out[4]= 0. Second
In[5]:= mat = N[Table[Random[Integer,{-9,9}], {i,256}, {j,256}]];
In[6]:= Timing[Inverse[mat]][[1]]
Out[6]= 0.181 Second
In[7]:= mat = N[Table[Random[Integer,{-9,9}], {i,1000}, {j,1000}]];
In[8]:= Timing[Inverse[mat]][[1]]
Out[8]= 6.89 Second
--
Bhuvanesh
Do you know  what kind of algorithm is used? These timings
are very good. I would guess modular algorithms...
Xcas doesn't run in MS WindowsCE ... yet. There are some stuff needed
first, but maybe Ranier Keuchel is near to get them:
http://www.rainer-keuchel.de/software.html
As you will see there, he has a Maxima running in WindowsCE...
I can't promise you that it would be easy:
http://handhelds.org/~gberenfield/Jornada/index.html
Easier way would be getting a cheap iPAQ3100 unit (cheap: more or
less same price than hp49), and install Familiar on it and Xcas:
http://familiar.handhelds.org
Of course, after that you could join Scientific Digital Assistant
project..
J.Manrique
Users Club from Gij.97n
#1077 HPCC Member
http://www.asturlinux.org/~jsmanrique
X
X
Yes, I've tried it, but I couldn't find a direct link to the latest
executable.
I must be loosing my grip (did I ever have it?)
Maybe. There's no numeric matrix, everything is symbolic in Derive.
Maybe someone can achieve better results than I did. After all, 
There's
More Than One Way To Do It... ;)
My conclusion would be that the HP49 does a better job at number 
crunching
than Derive. I hoped so ;)
-- 
-----
Discuter tranquillement avec Michel Guillou???
.8ecoeurant.
-+- Rocou In GNU - T'as l'adresse des FFL, c'est pour .8ecrire -+-
Really? I haven't used my copy of Derive (for Windows) for a while,
but I seem to remember creating a numeric matrix.
--
Bhuvanesh
There's nothing in Derive for DOS to easily create a matrix (i.e. no
matrix editor). You either have to type in everything on the command 
line,
or use some formulas to create one. That's what I did.
You can change the precision between Exact or Approximate, but the 
timing
will be similar (tested with a 32x32 matrix on a dosemu running from my
-- 
-----
L'argument de poids qui dit que mes potes et moi on est d'accord
n'avance pas .88 grand chose. On va voter les th.8eoremes, .8da ira 
plus 
vite
que de les demontrer et elire les annees bisextiles, .8da sera rigolo.
-+- BjB in http://neuneu.mine.nu : Le texosaure (s)electif.
maybe there's a sense limit;-)
Raymond
Actually, dear Raymond, I'm try to figure out
what to use besides my HP 49G.
Maybe the iPaq is a good choise?
What I need is a faster CAS on a PDA - my HP 720.
Is there a link to a directly loadable executable?
Demo versions of the Windows version, only. The Derive for DOS is no 
more
sold by SoftWareHouse, but some distributors can eventually have some
old boxes around. That's what I did, with an english distributor.
-- 
-----
Je suis un nouvel abonn.8e d'internet et je cherche quelqu' un qui
m'explique comment je pourrais avoir l'image vid.8eo sur les sites
du web. Merci d'avance.
-+- TO in Guide du Nenuneu - Les chiens-guides d'aveugles du web -+-
Maybe you should really consider DERIVE.
Since the 720 is powerful enough to run something XT-CE or alike,
and above that DERIVE for DOS.
Memory isn't the problem here because DERIVE occupies only about 230k,
yes kilobytes, at least the version for the 95LX.
Raymond
If you have a keyboard, it's good. Derive without a keyboard is not
usable... :)
In fact, the 4.11 version that I have occupies about 800k, with all the
demo, help, and additional files. The binary alone is 430k in 3 files.
-- 
-----
Sur le NG freesbee.test pourtant, un representant de freesbee .88
annonc.8e l'arriv.8ee imminente des factures .
-+- ba in http://neuneu.ctw.cc - Neuneu teste Facture 1.0 §2 -+-
But even the up to 800k for the 4.11 version is not very much,
compared to nearly all other programs in this area;-)
Raymond
I was unable to factor X^100+1 in my HP 49G.
It actually crashed (and ate my batteries).
The integral was ok.
I already supplied the matrix data for the HP 49G.
It would be interesting to see TI 89 data and
F1 on Zaurus data inverting numerical matrices.
Are there limits (pun intended) to their performance?
my zaurus is a little slow :(
results in a zaurus:
factor(x^100+1)        16 seconds
inv(ranm(15,15))       9 seconds
int(1/(x^4-1)^10,x)    7 seconds
factor(x^100+x^50+1)   16 seconds
is there any other test you would like to see in the zaurus?
if so, please write the sintax.
i have installed the program in the SD card and not in pure ram. this
may make it slower.
The timings are really slow compared to my ipaq. To be precise
I give the computation timing (showed in the red line near the
full button). Maybe you don't run the CPU at full speed?
hi again!
i get :
 factor(x^100+1)       Time:  6.35
 inv(ranm(15,15))      Time:  1.44
 int(1/(x^4-1)^10,x)   Time:  1.4
 factor(x^100+x^50+1)  Time:  4.99
How about the Numeric/Approx Matrix Inversion Test?
RANM with float elements in the range -9. to +9.
4x4, 8x8, 16x16, 32x32, 64x64, how high can you go?
Is there a memory and/or (practical) time limit?
How about the Numeric/Approx Matrix Inversion Test?
RANM with float elements in the range -9. to +9.
4x4, 8x8, 16x16, 32x32, 64x64, how high can you go?
Is there a memory and/or (practical) time limit?
TI92+ does all three tasks.
factor(x^100+1) is almost instant, about 1s, and the answer is:
(x^4+1)*(x^16-x^12+x^8-x^4+1)*(x^80-x^60+x^40-x^20+1)
(randMat(15,15))^(-1) takes about 210 s. in integer math (fractional 
arithmetic, no loss
of accuracy)
prior
math.
Strange, but ENTER alone, despite the fact, that all entries in 'm' are 

floating point
entries (altough of the integer value) still takes about 200 s to complete 

and returns
fractions as elements. This is strange choice of the algorithm.
integral(1/(x^4-1)^10,x) takes about 600 s and returns the exact formula 
(no 
floating point)
Jack
Rectangular.
128 seconds for me (note: I'm counting only calculation time, not time
required to pretty-print and render the entry and result).
created
floating
65 seconds for me.
200 s
the
Weird... I still get 65 seconds and approximate results... are you in
EXACT mode?
(no
383.5 seconds for me.
For factor(x^100+x^50+1), I get the answer in about 82 seconds (maybe
the algorithm implemented on the TI-89/92+ is not as fast as the one
in Derive?)
4x4: 1.1 s
8x8: 8.2 s
16x16: 81.7 s
32x32: Out of memory
64x64: Out of memory
The matrix elements were numericalized integers in the range -9...9.
--
Bhuvanesh
X
What is the largest invertible matrix? And the timing?
Is there a 64K limit to prevent the bigger matrices?
PS: The Parisse timings are faaaaast !!!
I realized I did not give xcas timing on my ipaq which are respectively
6s, 1s, 1s
The TI92 timing for factor(x^100+1) is really fast, I wonder if there
is some specific algorithm involved here (I tried with mupad and
mupad factors it also very fast).
Could you tell us how much time is required for
factor(x^100+x^50+1)
(xcas is a little bit faster than 6s)
hi Proffesor!
how do i turn the processor to full speed (warp speed)?
do you mean giving a higher priority to xcas?
i put some pictures of how it looks in the zaurus. i am not planning
to keep them in my page for too long (maybe 1 week).
http://jewel.morgan.edu/~rcobo/xcas/
on monday i'll be in the NASA center and i am going to talk to the
creator of the software mathematica. i'll try to show him your
software and ask him what he thinks (hey, maybe i'll have a mini
interview with him).
The timings are really slow compared to my ipaq. To be precise
I give the computation timing (showed in the red line near the
full button). Maybe you don't run the CPU at full speed?
the zaurus is /.ed !
My HP200 took 2.2s to factor this expression with Derive, despite the 
slow
processor (80186 at 7.91 MHz). It seems the algorithm used in Derive is 
a
faster one. Isn't the Ipaq powered by a 206MHz ARM?
21.8 s on the same machine (HP200+Derive).
-- 
-----
Les newbies d' aujourd'hui seront l' .8elite de demain.
-+- NG in GNU : Tu seras un homme, mon neuneu -+-
Can you do (on a random float matrix) the inversion
for sizes: 4x4, 8x8, 16x16, 32x32, 64x64, please?
X
X
With a floating point I've got:
4x4        About 2.5 s
8x8        About 12.0 s
16x16    About 125.0 s
Sorry, but I don't have a time to run 32x32 or 64x64 at the moment.
Jack
That's wrong. Some instructions are fairly easy, some are
much harder because they require a deep understanding of
maths far beyond highschool maths. Solving for absolute
values for examples is mainly a programmation exercice
which does only require knowing |a|=a or -a on the math side.
Factoring a polynomial over the integers as a product of
irreducible factors is not comparable.
Then be prepared to compete with xcas. Because it will soon be
ready for the people you want to sell your CAS.
No, because I want first to have a CAS that is as complete
as the 49G or TI89 CAS.
I don't think xcas would be so bad compared to maxima. But that's
precisely my previous point, I want to be on par not with maxima
but with calculators CAS before doing sbs.
I wonder what would be their reactions after testing xcas.
No that's correct. You just assume I am not familiar with 
Factoring techniques such as module arithmetic, square free
factorization, chineses remainder algorithm, Hensel lifting,
Berlekamp Factorization algorithm, etc, etc and all of the
other CAS algorithms. You are wrong, it IS in fact easy for
me to implement those algorithms but by doing so one can 
not provide expected intermediate steps. Don't forget, 
proper steps is our main feature !!!
Just for your information I've learned CAS design from Keith 
Geddes (creator of Maple) so I am pretty familiar with a
lot of, as you called them, complicated algorithms.
If something seems so easy to implement like supporting
basic abs function, why don't you just do it and fill up
the huge whole in your solving capabilities. 
You better hurry 'cause our sells are growing quickly. and then
let's see if the quality of your released product is good
enough for students we are selling too. 
Besides Maxima runs on Zaurus too and it is free and yet we are
the top 8th best selling Zaurus app. Maybe our customers know
something you don't.
Ok so even after you release something final, people will
continue to purchase Formulae 1 for its amazing step-by-step
capabilities alone, not to mention ease of use.
You don't think... Prove it !!! So you have a specific target in 
mind; so do we and that's why we won't bother comparing on your
grounds.
We are not interested in inverting large matrices. We are interested
in inverting symbolic matrices students come across and then showing
every step taken. In the case of matrix inversion, we can show each
and every row operation being used. As far as students are concerned
the technique applies for 3x3, 4x4 or 50x50 and it is not important
for us to compare speeds of 50x50 but rather to provide these expected 
steps.
Release a final version and find out.
I never said *you* are not able to implement factorization
of polynomials over the integers because it is complicated.
But you can not deny that it requires much more elaborate
maths than solving with absolute values. And implementing
it is a hard task. It required me about
2 months to have a competitive polynomial factoring algorithm
(without the knapsack recombination of factors step)
and it takes a lot of source code lines. I did extend the solve
instruction of xcas today for abs, sqrt and inequalitite.
See above. The method I use is the following:
- for abs(f(x)), replace by f(x), solve for x, keep only values
- for sqrt(f(x)), add an auxiliary variable y=sqrt(f(x)), replace
sqrt(f(x)) by y in the original equation and add y^2-f(x), solve
for [x,y], keep only the x part of the solutions.
As you see it is rather easy to explain. Now compare to explain the
maths behind polynomial factorization.
I wonder how many people know also they could use maxima. But that's
not the question. You seem to compare xcas to maxima just because
both are GPL-ed. They are totally different. maxima has a very
primitive interface, not taylored to a small screen. xcas has
a GUI taylored for a PDA screen. This will be much more a
concurrent to your app than maxima. xcas has the CAS functionnality
compatible programming language, interactive geometry, a small
spreadsheet, etc. It just lacks a wince port and the zaurus port
requires you to install X11 (see rcobo post in this thread).
Don't be sure, xcas might improve also in this area faster than
you expect and then you will loose your last advantage.
That's something I provide from the earliest version of Erable.
When sbs will be available on xcas, people will realize they can
have sbs+real-world CAS (that can also invert large matrix for
example)+for free.
You seem not to underestimate the state of xcas.
People can test xcas when they want. They just need the info
where to download it, they don't need a formal release. I make
I don't give a 1.0 version name not because it is alpha quality,
but because I want to fulfill my completness objectives.
You are missing a huge logic system here that deals with
all you are doing is splitting the problem into more problems
but not combining the separate results into a concise final
answer. This logic system is also required for properly 
handling sqrt's in solves. 
So as you say you added quickly support for abs, sqrt, and 
inequalities but your solution still not very complete,
you are going to need a lot more programming to get there.
I can explain it as quickly as you did above without caring for
the details. The only difference is that most people can understand
what you said because they have to take it in school. So your 
explanation is familiar. Without proper background my explaination
might sound like something from the deep end. 
We are not standing still though. Just as you can improve so
can we. 
For some reason I am still not packing my bags and leaving,
nor am I decreasing the price of Formulae 1. There is a market
for it out there with paying customers and I don't see that
disappearing any time soon. Like I said before, on the PC
there are several great and free CASs yet Maple and Mathematica
up on your free system. Wish you all the best but be ready
to see students in your own university using Formulae 1 too !!!
--
Bhuvanesh
No no.. it's a very *advanced* CAS :)
Could you be more explicit and give some examples of solve
you have in mind and if they can be solved with formulae1?
You are not honest. The math background for understanding abs and sqrt
is very low compared to the math needed to understand the Berlekamp
algorithm or Cantor-Zassenhauss, or even Hensel lifting. It requires
understanding finite fields, then polynomial over finite fields,
etc. Approximately 3 years of maths after highschool. And probably
more to really understand.
CAS (not necessarily xcas but why not a combination of
xcas with other powerful GPL-ed CAS) will begin
very slowly against the entrenched duopoly but
the future belongs to them.
:-) It will not be version 1.0: don't underestimate
the math level of my students! And you underestimate
old models, new models cost around 600 euros. That's
really too much, hence Manrique's SDA project.
There is a big difference between the US and France
University: you pay very low teaching fee in France.
I can understand that the cost of a PDA or a laptop
is not that big wrt to the teaching fee in the US,
but that's not the case here.
Here are some examples but don't expect me to open my kymono ;)
(this problem is split into 2 problems and the other answer is discarted
by the logic system)
solve(x+abs(x)=12,x) returns x=6 
(here the logic system combined x<-12 and x<0 into x<0)
(another variation of the above)
(the other solution is discarted)
solve(sqrt(x)+x=12,x) return x=9
The key is you need a logic system that handles and's, or's 
and not's of all possible combinations of the 6 basic relations
xcas solve this problem with the method I described (you need
to quote the inequality if you want to test, since I discovered
a small bug). You do not require a logic system if you use
the following method: when solving for an inequality, find
the following sets: the equality solution, the singularities
of the function. Make a big set and order it, then check
if the inequality is fulfilled in each interval.
BTW, xcas can also solve this kind of problem with a range additional
condition like
OK, I have to leave now and fix the small bug.
HP 49G, to save memory LAST and UNDO where off and the clock, too.
Using TEVAL on the command INV with a RANM in stack level 2.
Approx. Mode and Large Matrices on.
size elems bytes time
  4 x 4  ( 16) =128B : 0.7_s
  8 x 8  ( 64) =1/2 K :  3_s
 16 x16  (256) = 2 K :  16_s
 32 x32 (1024) = 8 K : 96_s =  '1_min+36_s'
 64 x64 (4096) =32 K : 655_s='10_min+55_s'
128x128 (16384)=128K : INV Error: Insufficient memory
since it seems to 6x more time on 4x more elements.
The HP 49G is extremely fast in inverting numerical matrices.
Now let's try it symbolically or in exact mode (without Step/Step)
Notice that I run each test only once, but I'll do MEM DROP first.
size elems bytes time
  4 x 4  ( 16) = 128 : 4_s
  8 x 8  ( 64) = 512 :  22_s
 16 x16  (256) = 2 K : 192_s ='3_min+12_s'
 32 x32 (1024) = 8 K : 3036_s = '50_min+36_s'
OK - I don't want to kill the batteries, so I'll stop here.
The longer the fractions the longer the symbolic inversion time.
Impressive enough, but I'll guess TI 89 is faster in symbolics??
How is it Bhuv?
AND
Matrix 4*4   :  2_s
Matrix 8*8   : 14_s
Matrix 16*16 : 252_s(4 min 12 s)
Matrix 32*32 :Stopped with a memory error after 3120_s(52 min)
The matrix are created with randmat and the computations are done in 
Exact mode.
The TI89/TI92+ HW2 should be slighty faster but the V200 shouldn't as
Note that neither the TI89/TI92+(HW1 or HW2) nor the V200 can invert
symbolic 32*32 matrix.
Quite good!
How about the Approx Mode?
*symbolic* matrix with random integers coeff in [-99..99]
4: 0.03s
8: 0.21s
16: 1.78s
32: 16s
Note that I give the computation time, it requires more time to
actually see the answer on the screen because the exchange of
data between the computing process and the GUI process
+ pretty print requires more time (expect about 1 mn to see the
answer for the 32x32 matrix)
Note also that the coeff are not in [-9..9] but [-99..99] which
increases the size of the result. Despite this, xcas on the ipaq
is much faster than the 49.
There is also numeric matrix code from the GSL, and numeric matrix
inversion is faster than symbolic inversion (factor 10 for a 32x32
matrix)
Just a quick note. if you are doing symbolic matrix inversion
timing, shouldn't you use symbolic entries in the matrix 
instead of numeric ones !!!
I would like to see symbolic matrix inversion timing for 
matrices containing a's, b's, sqrt(c)'s, nroot(d,3)'s, etc. 
That's symbolic to me not numeric coefficients !!!
It is also important to provide a simplified answer where 
non important symbols get cancelled out. Also the timing
should be the timing for the whole operation; the timing
that an end user would experience.
The obvious conclusion here is that timings will vary a
lot depending on the original matrix due to simplification
and pretty printing. If the original matrix is sparse 
you could use recursive Laplace expansion on the column/row
with the greatest number of zeros for example. By the way this
is what we are using for our upcoming symbolic circuit analyser
and designed product.
The reason to use numeric random coefficients is that the test
is very easy to do on calculators and xcas since you use
built-in instructions ranm or randmat to built the matrix.
Moreover even with coefficients as random integers, the
running time is almost constant from one try to another.
It is therefore a good benchmark, somewhat comparable to
It is of course desirable to make benchmark with non numeric
coefficients. giac source code contains some examples from
the Lewis-Wester collection, but that's for comparison
with maple and mupad, they can not be run on a calc and
some of them can not be run on the ipaq because there is not
enough ram (for example tests lwN and lwN1 require around 100M
expand polynomial, gcd, etc. If you are curious enough to try
you will see that giac/xcas does a good job in many areas.
If you have some proposition that are easy to enter I can
give you timings, or we can guess them from PC timings
(my PC is about 15* faster than the ipaq).
Both timings are important, because if you do big operations
you will most certainly use batch mode or the text version
where the computing time only will appear. And I will certainly
optimize data exchange between processes using a binary format
now that it is quite obvious that text format is too slow.
xcas has a det_minor instruction that let's you choose this method
if your matrix is sparse. But on the benchmark proposed, it is
the default method (Bareiss) which is used.
Here you hit the proverbial nail on the head !!! If you can
not enter something big on such small machine, user's will
not be doing such calculations either right ? If you can
not conviniently enter this stuff on the handheld, you 
might as well use Maple/Mathematica on a PC. Our vision
of what users will be doing with our system takes this
into account.
Big calculations on a handheld machine could be donde using
client-server mode, even better when both machines have same
software..
I mean, imagine a Scientific Digital Assistant machine (let's call it
SDA), that could enable a Bluetooth or LAN conection with university
server, where Giac/Xcas is installed too. For basic tasks he SDA
could be useable alone, but when big calculations are needed, it could
send the data to the server and get the answer as client... We have
done some test in ipaq using its X server to run Xemacs,  Evolution or
even Mplayer from a PC.. as you know, this is one of the posibilities
one..
Don't forget SDA name, it sounds good ;-)
J.Manrique
Users Club from Gij.97n
#1077 HPCC Member
Here I must step in and disagree.  This statement only holds partly true 

for
educational exercises.  For professional and University use it's very 
easy
and often happens that the large matrices are generated from quite 
simple
problems.  A very simple frame analysis from a few simple geometrical 
inputs
can generate large matrices for solution.  FEM on the HP49 can handle 
these
quite well though the HP49's speed means I only use it for simple 
problems
or when I'm away from my PC.  On the PC I have one structural model 
that
generates a 1.8gB matrix even with the strong banding and efficient 
storage,
solution takes just under an hour.
If Formula 1 can't handle matrices it's not even worth my $35.
Interesting discussion though since I am considering a PDA solution if 
the
HP49 is discontinued.  I tried xCas some time back and found it arkward 
to
use and it was going to be expensive to set up on a PDA.  Since then 
PDA's
price have come down and xCas appears to have improved.
All I really want is a turbo for my HP :(
Stephen N.
for
easy
But these large matrices are not symbolic !!! so you don't need a 
CAS (Computer ALGEBRA System) to solve them. All you need is 
numerical processing capabilities right.
these
problems
storage,
Yes Formulae 1 can handle matrices (symbolic and numeric).
the
I am glad you are enjoying the discussion. I have to admit that I am too.
to
PDA's
These matrices have numeric coefficients but you must have a CAS
if you want to solve them because they are ill-conditionned and
matrix with a numeric method.
OK, now I hope you will eventually tell us if you can solve my
3 little benchmarks with formulae 1 or not...
You can have large problems with small inputs. I'm sure
you know that. For example solving systems of simple
polynomial equations can lead to fairly complex intermediate
computation. That's true in many areas of computer algebra.
If you don't program the right algorithms and don't use
the full speed of your PDA you will not be able to solve
these problems. Which makes me think to another point where
you claim formulae 1 is good: exploring maths. I'm convinced
that a student exploring maths should not limit himself
to the textbooks problems where the solutions are easily
obtained since the textbooks are assumed to be solvable by
hand. Therefore he most likely will try problems that
require this kind of intermediate computing power
(unlike the Lewis-Wester examples, these are research problems
which require big PC but much more than textbooks problems)
Not if your CAS (like Derive) uses math tricks that are
taught on textbooks and which can later be presented as
step-by-step solutions. 
I disagree. Not all answers are provided in a textbook (some
only provide odd answers, others even answers). Besides you can
easily try a problem that you know the solution and than change
a number and try to solve it by hand. If you can't Formulae 1
will get you the answer and point you to the right direction.
What matters to us are problems solved by hand because this is
what students do and that is how they are evaluated on exams.
Just because something can be solved by hand doesn't mean 
that students will not have any problems with. They will
certainly have lots of problems before they can master 
a subject and rest assured Formulae 1 will be there to 
guide students through.
Well, I was thinking to post something about this, but it is all said, I 

think..
Perhaps some screenshots from xcas running in different platforms:
http://www.asturlinux.org/~jsmanrique/xcasimg/
J.Manrique
Users Club from Gij.97n
#1077 HPCC Member
limit(x*ln(x)*ln(x*exp(x)-x^2)^2/ln(ln(x^2+2*exp(exp(3*x^3*ln(x))))),x=+infi
n
ity);
limit(exp(exp(2*ln(x^5+x)*ln(ln(x))))/exp(exp(10*ln(x)*ln(ln(x)))),x=+infini
t
y);
limit((exp(4*x*exp(-x)/(1/exp(x)+1/exp(2*x^2/(x+1))))-exp(x))/exp(x)^4,x=+in
f
inity);
exp(exp(-x/(1+exp(-x))))*exp(-x/(1+exp(-x/(1+exp(-x)))))*exp(exp(-x+exp(-x/(
1
+exp(-x)))))/exp(-x/(1+exp(-x)))^2-exp(x)+x, 
limit(exp(ln(ln(x+exp(ln(x)*ln(ln(x)))))/ln(ln(ln(exp(x)+x+ln(x))))),x=+infi
n
ity);
limit(exp(exp(x))*(exp(sin(1/x+exp(-exp(x))))-exp(sin(1/x))),x=+infinity);
(exp(x*exp(-x)/(exp(-x)+exp(-2*x^2/(x+1))))-exp(x))/x,x=+infinity);
limit(4/9*exp(exp(5/2*x^(-5/7)+21/8*x^(6/11)+2*x^(-8)+54/17*x^(49/45)))^8/ln
(
ln(-ln(4/3*x^(-5/14))))^(7/6),x=+infinity);
limit(ln(x)^2*exp(sqrt(ln(x))*ln(ln(x))^2*exp(sqrt(ln(ln(x)))*ln(ln(ln(x)))^
3
))/sqrt(x),x=+infinity);
if you want i can provide detailed instructions on how to install and
run XCAS and X11 on the zaurus for anybody new to linux.
the window manager for X11 on the zaurus is the 'Ice Window Manager'
iwm.
you can dual boot (not exactly) between Qtopia or X11.
In my current set-up i use all ram memory (64M)to run the zaurus. I
try to install all my sofware (/home, etc) in an SD card to get more
power. Basically the storage is unlimited (limited by the card size,
256M). I have merged the SD card to memory (hey, like the HP48GX!). i
use the other cf card slot for wireless stuff.
by looking at your pics and comparing, i see that in the zaurus, the
last menu on the top right corner has been shorted by one letter.
instead of 'pgr' i get 'pg'. It works fine nonetheless.
i am very impressed by XCAS so far. I think it is going to be well
acepted. i found real nice the posibility to very quickly drop
examples and modify them to your use. That is, you don't need to know
the sintax by hard! Also it has advanced commands like curl, etc.
which i use :)
also, since the zaurus has a built in keyboard, there is an option to
use more real state in the screen by configuring the dislay and
removing the screen keyboard. good thinking.
a little suggestion i have is about the letters on top of keys. they
could be made as a graphic image to give it a better look. just a
thought.
i put a pic of XCAS running on the zaurus here. 
http://www.geocities.com/zauborg/
think..
limit(x*ln(x)*ln(x*exp(x)-x^2)^2/ln(ln(x^2+2*exp(exp(3*x^3*ln(x))))),x=+infi
n
ity);
limit((exp(x*exp(-x)/(exp(-x)+exp(-2*x^2/(x+1))))-exp(x))/x,x=+infinity);
limit(exp(exp(2*ln(x^5+x)*ln(ln(x))))/exp(exp(10*ln(x)*ln(ln(x)))),x=+infini
t
y);
limit((exp(4*x*exp(-x)/(1/exp(x)+1/exp(2*x^2/(x+1))))-exp(x))/exp(x)^4,x=+in
f
inity);
exp(exp(-x/(1+exp(-x))))*exp(-x/(1+exp(-x/(1+exp(-x)))))*exp(exp(-x+exp(-x/(
1
+exp(-x)))))/exp(-x/(1+exp(-x)))^2-exp(x)+x, 
limit(exp(ln(ln(x+exp(ln(x)*ln(ln(x)))))/ln(ln(ln(exp(x)+x+ln(x))))),x=+infi
n
ity);
limit(exp(exp(x))*(exp(sin(1/x+exp(-exp(x))))-exp(sin(1/x))),x=+infinity);
(exp(x*exp(-x)/(exp(-x)+exp(-2*x^2/(x+1))))-exp(x))/x,x=+infinity);
limit(4/9*exp(exp(5/2*x^(-5/7)+21/8*x^(6/11)+2*x^(-8)+54/17*x^(49/45)))^8/ln
(
ln(-ln(4/3*x^(-5/14))))^(7/6),x=+infinity);
limit(ln(x)^2*exp(sqrt(ln(x))*ln(ln(x))^2*exp(sqrt(ln(ln(x)))*ln(ln(ln(x)))^
3
))/sqrt(x),x=+infinity);
400$
Well, then why weren't they?  Limits are pretty useful.....
The Zaurus was explicitly mentioned
They would probably think that B. Parisse has had a bit of experience 
with
CAS, too.....
Roger Metcalf
Arlington, Texas, USA
and
400$
Just because you can implement something doesn't mean you should.
This is a very good Palm lesson to learn. Besides if customers
request it, it will certainly be included in the next release.
Sure but Mr. Parisse had to trash our software and then went 
ahead to promote his own just because we also mention Zaurus !!!
It is interesting that he went on the attack and not some
users of his system that had the chance to try both systems.
with
That's fair to say. I am sure you are right but that doesn't give him 
the
right to be the authority of what makes a CAS advanced or not. 
Carlos.
And now you are becoming paranoid.. No wonder why wars start so easily.
I didn't see any attacks from Mr Parisse size, just you being 
over
defensive. Parisse just talked about a *free* alternative on a CAS.
I'm yet to see if your F1 software can solved the example given by 
Parisse
in some previous messages. Instead of focusing on the *attack* maybe 
you
should focus on the fun side: that is what your system can and can't do..
Nothing wrong with that
Parisse
All Parisse's examples are for Limits which should be clear by now that
we don't support on version 1.0. This is like me asking Parisse to show
all steps of a function like int just to see if his system can do 
it
as well as Formulae 1. The strength of Formulae 1 are on the steps 
produced. We are not out to create something to compete with Maple,
Mathematica or the several other open source/free CAS systems out 
there. xcas can solve limits better than f1 now and possibly in the
future but f1 will show steps and techniques to aid students in 
solving limits, just like it does for Integration for example and that
is were our focus is.
I did not trash anything, I just said that a CAS without a limit
instruction is not an advanced CAS, something that is rather
objective. It does not compete in the same league as the best
calculators available. And since you were speaking of the
Zaurus, I just mentionned that my own software work on this
platform. Then you reacted very hard saying that implementing
limit is straightforward, which I had to correct.
Re-read this. Then explain me how can a CAS be called advanced
if there is no decent limit instruction?
Formulae 1 is an advanced step-by-step CAS. That's right it
is advanced but at release 1.0, it lacks a limit function
which we can easily add for release 1.1. What makes it advanced 
is what it can do for users that very few other systems can; 
step-by-step heaven for students !!! Try some integrals, try
inverting a symbolic matrix by row operations step-by-step,
Try a tonne of other step-by-step things and tell me that 
the program is not advanced !!!
We don't have to follow your definition of advanced.
the
Ok we add another function and poof, the program is now advanced
everyone ;)
Carlos.
I don't think it's my definition, it's the definition people
expect. Step-by-step has a definitive pedagogical add-on value,
I won't contest this because that's precisely what I coded on the
49 (and some of the examples you cite are just there on the 49 and
40), but advanced describing a CAS means advanced CAS functionnalities
advertising is simply bad advertising. Since we are on the HP calc
newsgroup where someone followed your post, it is natural to compare
to the HP4x CAS. Note that I didn't crosspost on comp.sys.handhelds...
No, you are wrong. I don't speak of a specialized instruction.
The limit notion is fundemental in analysis. It is
a prerequisite to understand the mathematical concepts of derivative
and integration. For a pedagogical product, I think it is a very
bad idea to have integration and derivation if you don't have
limit. That means you reduce derivation and integration to an algebraic
process not caring about the maths behind.
X
Right on!
And naturally sequences (or are they series) and sums.
Agree?
What people ?
The step-by-step feature on the 49 doesn't come close to what 
Formulae 1 does. Not to trash your implementation of step-by-step
but just to say that we do a lot more than that. Its all on
the details and we spend a lot of time taking care of that.
Again this is YOUR definition of it and something we don't agree
with. It is just fine to call a CAS advanced if it has advanced
features whether or not these features are pedagogical or not.
We never said in our advertising anything about advanced. Maybe 
some of the verbatim quotes allude to that but regardless of that
we could have easily used the word advanced and it wouldn't be 
bad advertizing at all. Maybe just for you.
This is fair.
Again your opinion but the fact remainds that to implement integrals
and derivatives on a CAS, doesn't require the implementation of 
limits. A CAS is meant to do the so called algebraic processes and
Formulae 1 shows the intermediate steps of these calculations just
as it is done/taught in textbooks.
That's partially wrong. You need limits for definite integration
for example int(ln(x),x,0,1).
And I maintain and I think every math teacher will agree with me
that teaching derivatives or integration without limits is a
non-sense even if you can derive functions and integrate some functions
purely algebraically.
There's no need to become so defensive over your product.
If it was easy function (and rather important in my opinion) then why 
didn't
include them in the first place?
Mr Parisse had a valid point in mentionning his xcas program: it is free 

and
open source.
On other technical points noted by Mr Parisse, you could have answered
instead of being sarcastic and avoid the question
didn't
If you must know... We weren't fully satisfied by the current 
implementation
of Limit. You could say Limit had some limitations ;) and we didn't have 
time to meet the deadline of releasing software for back to school season. 

Our motto is, release something quite functional or don't release it at
all. Just a business decision.
and
in other words can someone post a dump of an SMI or Tripod hp48gx card
If I store [1 2] in variable V1 why I cannot evaluate '3*V1' in my
HP49?
Error: Non algebraic in expression
Is there any way to do this kind of operations with vectors, beside
doing it directly in the stack?
Marturo
UBI DUBIDUM IBI LIBERTAS
Try again, using EVAL for evaluate
Vectors can not appear explicitly in expressions,
however, nor can commands such as DOT or CROSS;
the vector result may also not be usable
as an argument to algebraic commands/functions.
.
I just received a 48GX that I bought on eBay.  It came with two
manuals, (HP 48G Series Quick Start Guide, and HP 48G Series User's
Guide).  The caluclator has ROM version R.
What I found interesting, is that it has a removable card inside
labled EQ Library.  I was under the impression that the equations
library was built-in on the 48GX?  I did not receive any other
documentation on this.
So what is the EQ Library card? 
Danie
(Much more at home with my 41CX :-)
Not all of it! A couple of things are missing.
Most painful omission is the Periodic Table of Elements
with the zillion properties and graphs!
What 41CX?  :-)
Wait till you get used to this baby! 
!Demeter!
what does the text on the card say? HP82211A or HP82211B?
Martin
Martin,
It's a HP82211A.
I have also found that if I have the card installed, and I try to
solve TVM *without* using the solver (I.e. I use the TVM and TVMROOT
functions), the calculator crashes with the card, but works fine
without the card.  It does have the periodic table app, but no tetris,
that I could find.
Daniel
On Tue, 10 Sep 2002 20:06:15 +0200, Martin Pedersen
http://uuhome.de/oklotz/index_e.html) for metakerneling, 
erableing 
etc
and convert your 48 in the best calculator? :-)
if you have a GX you can forget the EQ Lib card, regardless of the 
version.
The main difference between the A and B version is the Tetris in the B
version.
The periodic table and the Tetris for the GX can be loaded from
www.hpcalc.org
Raymond
The ROM card was made for the 48SX and yes, the EqLib it's implemented 
in
yor new 48GX.
I haven't used my HP49G for about three weeks and then when I turned
it on today it had the sandclock symbol showing and it wouldn't go
away. Everything works fine, but I can't get rid of the sandclock.
Even after I turned it off and turned it on again later, the sandclock
was still there. I even tried resetting the memory - that didn't work
Serge
I think that the hourglass (that's like I name it) stays on when the
batteries are going out. Try to replace them.
Hope this helps
Luis.
I don't have any set of old batteries to test that, but I think that
it is the alarm announciator that remains on, when the batteries
approach the end of their life. The other thingie up there, the
sandhour, or hourglass or whatever you name it, is only on when the
HP49G processes something...
Nick.
this has been going on for several days now ... very weird. Any ideas
Serge
Maybe you should try to change your batteries. When mine are empty, the 
message Battery low is not always displayed but I get the same 
behaviour as you do.
It seems to happen when you are using rechargeable batts.
Hope that helps.
-- 
Vincent Rubiolo
3rd Year Student At The School Of Engineering
Ecole Des Mines De Nantes (France)
Is there a way to produce a set of user equations that the Eqlib 
program
will identify on the hp-48GX? I have a similar program on the HP-49G 
written
by James Purdy and you can establish a set of usereq in the HOME
directory.
Please let me know if this is possible.
Jeff
---
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Seen:
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Find at least two things wrong with the above picture ;-)
It does seem about time, however, that ISPs and corporations, at least,
which thus far they generally don't care about at all.
Virus proliferation would be much less if ISPs all had to
held liable for damage resulting from failure to do so;
this would be similar to a pure food and drug law,
but would it be politically feasible in the current
corporate-dominated climate?
.
Excuse me?! It is up to you to provide for the virus protection of your
system! Why should your ISP protect your lazy ass? Get a life, creep!
Why should any community or society have health (or any) standards;
detoxify your own food and water, then.
Why should it even have police -- go get your own AK-47,
you lazy creep!
Quite a few ISPs have been havens for internet polluters;
after all, it dumps into someone else's yard, so who cares?
-[]-
Sorry I cranked you up. It is just that I feel we need to be more self
reliant. I don't like depending on people I don't know to provide my 
virus
protection, or what they might be providing. Capitalism has nothing to 
do
with it. While I don't have an AK-47, it may be a good thought. Are the
police right there when someone is breaking into your house?
Calm down, John :-) I didn't think anything could make you angry...
--
Bhuvanesh
when the W32/Klez virus as wreaking havoc in the Netherlands.
Effective but a bit thorough, I say.
-- 
This message was written with 100% recycled electrons
Pivo
Jeff asks:
The built-in Eqlib looks only in rom for the predefined equations.
You can create directories of your own equations with no
extra software, but if you want software to navigate menus
and other gimmicks like the built-in library, several exist;
this is one of many, but pretty easy to use
(it's also written in UserRPL, with some sysevals):
HP48G version (second post updates the first):
http://www.hpcalc.org/hp48/utils/misc/usreqlib.zip
HP49G version:
.
Regarding fm232 or Finanzmathematik (Financial Mathematics, 
LIBRARY
1672) developed with Debug2 and written in system RPL by
Andreas_Moeller@gmx.de
Is there any chance to translate (from german to english) the text
from within this application (and the Readme file
Programmbeschreibung Finanzmathematik.pdf as well), which seems to
f radius (1-B)/2, 3 times faster
This just proves the point that TI is faster :-)
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))
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.
zZ