dm319

joined 1 year ago
[–] dm319@feddit.uk 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Yes, I think the processor must be slower, and as a result, the integration is more limited. They also have different methods of differentiation, and maybe the Casio one is superior.

I don't have a 991-CW, but do you know what it can do with the complex functions? My experience of older Casio 991s is that complex is limited to arithmetic operations only. This seems to be the case on the W506T - i.e. it won't do Log or Sin of a complex number. But then many 'scientific/non-graphing' calculators (except for HP) don't.

[–] dm319@feddit.uk 2 points 3 months ago

I feel like you need this calculator...

Next to the fx-85GT which I think is similar to your 8200AU. They are certainly based on the same calculating platform. The Casio's latest (cw) platform is very high precision, I think 20+ digits, and the Sharp is 16, not that anyone needs more than 10 though. The display on the Casio is better - higher resolution and slightly better contrast, but the Sharp is still good and sufficient for needs. The Sharp is far more direct in use - the 'change' button just cycles through output types. It will convert straight to other bases or Deg/Rad/Grad, and change the mode at the same time. Memory handling seems to me to be WAY better (i.e. what way are you meant to store a result into variable 'A' on the Casio? - you think it should be the variable button, but then its a menu select for the variable, another menu select for what you want to do with it, and even then it isn't obvious how to store your result!). The Sharp is just STO A or STO B etc. Also 1÷2E3 gives the expected answer.

I will post you one from the UK if you can't get one there!

[–] dm319@feddit.uk 2 points 3 months ago

Just to follow up, there's a great thread on integration on the W506T here: https://www.hpmuseum.org/forum/thread-13968.html. The upshot is that is that the 506 uses Simpson's, which will falls down in some use cases, especially ones with asymptotic curves, and needs the user to select more iterations manually.

In terms of trigs I tried these two: cos(1.57079632 rad) = 6.79491584e-9, which is correct to 4 decimal places. Not bad, better than older Casios, not as good as the latest Casio platforms which get at least 9 digits correct. arcsin(arccos(arctan(tan(cos(sin(9 deg)))))) = 9.0000001 which is reasonable.

 

I got this HP-17Bii recently - it's my first Pioneer model. I didn't realise until I got it that the keys are in fact double shot (thought double shot was limited to HP ancient history). Even the shift key is a big hunk of yellow resin embedded in a regular key by the looks of it.

[–] dm319@feddit.uk 3 points 1 year ago

Ah, it's now obligatory!

[–] dm319@feddit.uk 2 points 1 year ago

I'd say it's kind of nice. Something very pleasing about having the two lines, but it is not more functional as a result. The constants/conversions are very nice and well-implemented. Think some people will find them useful for day to day stuff or at school.

 

The official Swissmicros 2-line firmware dropped on the Winter Solstice as an early Christmas present. It also has a nice set of constants and conversions.

[–] dm319@feddit.uk 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Oh wow, the whole thread is just people suggesting alternatives!! OP - enjoy your neovim and don't listen to the rest. It's a terrific editor and will be around for many decades more.

[–] dm319@feddit.uk 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That thing holds it's place in computing history. Kinda the first pocket computer?

[–] dm319@feddit.uk 2 points 1 year ago

He really likes it. The titanium back has given a great looking engraving of his initials. Now just hoping he didn't lose it!

 

I'd been toying with the idea of what RPN calculator a kid could use at school here in the UK. I thought the sticking point would be that most RPNs are programmable, but turns out that isn't an explicit exclusion on the JCQ calculator guidance for GCSE and A-level exams. They can also use graphic calculators. There is a hard no on CAS. The HP-15c seemed the least likely to cause issues with invigilators, so went for this. We'll have to see if it works out though.

[–] dm319@feddit.uk 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Respect for the 4 level stack!

[–] dm319@feddit.uk 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Very nice! Was this a rebranding of another make or made by radioshack themselves?

also

[–] dm319@feddit.uk 3 points 1 year ago

Ah yes that's a pretty nice graphing calculator, also looks pretty good in pink!

 
 

The HP-65 was not only HP's first programmable scientific, but it could also read and write magnetic cards. There were several 'pac's of cards allowing it to tackle financial, astronomical, aviation, electrical and other speciality field calculations. The buttons were double shot and have a lovely tactile click. The red LED screen is remarkably crisp and easy to read.

[–] dm319@feddit.uk 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think I like the buttons and the highly-specialised functionality. At least that's what I think when people say 'what's the point, you have a far more powerful calculator in your pocket already'. Yes, one without buttons.

 
 

These are the tests which can give you quite a good profile and accuracy rating for your financial calculator. Any more contributions and confirmation are very much appreciated and I will update the swissmicros page (though I may need to move it off there at some point).

| #  | Ref        | N            | I%YR      | PV       | PMT          | FV        | P/YR | Mode  |
|----|------------|--------------|-----------|----------|--------------|-----------|------|-------|
| 1  | DM         | 38 x 12      | 5.25%     | 270'000  | ?            | 0         | 12   | end   |
| 1b | DM         | 38 x 12      | ?         | 270'000  | -14'584/12   | 0         | 12   | end   |
| 2  | SlideRule  | 360          | 15% → 12% | 100'000  | ?-?          | 0         | 12   | end   |
| 3  | Kahan 1983 | 60x60x24x365 | 10%       | 0        | -0.01        | ?         | =N   | end   |
| 4  | DM         | 480          | 0 → ?     | 100'000  | ?→ PMT       | 0         | 12   | end   |
| 5  | Dieter     | 10           | ?         | 50       | -30          | 400       | 1    | end   |
| 6  | Dieter     | 10           | ?         | 50       | -30          | 80        | 1    | end   |
| 7  | A Chan     | 10           | ?         | -100     | 10           | 1e-10     | 12   | end   |
| 8  | Miguel     | 32           | ?         | -999'999 | 0            | 1e6       | 1    | end   |
| 9  | DM         | ?            | 25        | 100000   | -2083.333334 | 0         | 12   | end   |
| 10 | DM         | ?            | 25        | 100000   | -2040.816327 | 0         | 12   | begin |
| 11 | robve      | 60x24x365    | 1/6% → ?  | 0        | -0.01        | ?→ FV     | =N   | end   |
| 12 | robve      | 40           | ? → I%YR  | 900      | -400         | -1000 → ? | 1    | begin |

2: https://www.hpmuseum.org/forum/thread-20707.html
3: https://www.hpmuseum.org/forum/thread-1012.html
5, 6: https://www.hpmuseum.org/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/hpmuseum/archv021.cgi?read=234439
7: https://www.hpmuseum.org/forum/thread-18359-post-161549.html#pid161549
8: https://www.hpmuseum.org/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/hpmuseum/archv017.cgi?read=120592
11, 12: https://www.hpmuseum.org/forum/thread-16565-page-2.html

Puzzle 2 is from here, and needs you to calculate PMT given n = 360, I%YR = 15%, PV = 100'000, FV = 0, then calculate PMT, but with I%YR = 12%. Subtract the two results, and put that back into PMT, then change n = 36 and I%YR = 15% again, and calculate PV.

Puzzle 3: you may need to divide I%PY by N depending on how your calculator handles i vs I%YR and what the limit is on P/YR.

Puzzle 4 needs you to calculate PMT first given I%YR = 0, then re-input this back into PMT and calculate I%YR. On the HP-12c this is best done by pressing x<>y twice before putting back into PMT.

Puzzle 11: calculate for FV first, re-input back to FV and compute I%YR.

Puzzle 12: calculate for i first, re-input back into i and compute FV.

The other puzzles are just a solve for '?'.

They can be a bit confusing, so I also did a couple of videos here and here solving them on a DM-42 and HP-12c.

 
 

A random shot of my calculator 5000 miles from home while I enjoy a beer near the Pacific. We had been discussing how much water was on earth and what size of a ball it would make. I have no affiliation with the brewing company so apologies for the product placement.

 

HP's most accurate financial calculator, oddly enough, and despite only returning the ceiling of solve-for-n.

view more: next ›