Calculator Input
Calculator Input
(OP)
My old canon calculator I've had for 21 years finally gave up the ghost.
Ive been trying my son's canon calculator but dont like the input method, e.g. sin, cos, square root before number input i.e. operation done as you would write it on paper. They all seem to be like this nowadays.
I think the older calculators used reverse algebraic input, but they dont seem to have them anymore. I know Hp have RPN but dont want to get HP anymore prefer casio or canon.
Anyone have any suggestions ?
Ive been trying my son's canon calculator but dont like the input method, e.g. sin, cos, square root before number input i.e. operation done as you would write it on paper. They all seem to be like this nowadays.
I think the older calculators used reverse algebraic input, but they dont seem to have them anymore. I know Hp have RPN but dont want to get HP anymore prefer casio or canon.
Anyone have any suggestions ?






RE: Calculator Input
RE: Calculator Input
RE: Calculator Input
RE: Calculator Input
I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.
RE: Calculator Input
RE: Calculator Input
TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
homework forum: //www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers
RE: Calculator Input
Used Hp45 for about 10 years so I know about RPN. I think Hp is good not great very overated. My canon I now realise was very underrated. May give canon F-792SGA a go very cheap from amazon and ships to Australia.
Anyone have this calculator ?
RE: Calculator Input
Been teaching my 14 yo daughter to use RPN for her chemistry class. I think she is hooked.
Can't really see going from RPN back to algabraic. The RPN is more efficient and gives your brain more of a workout.
RE: Calculator Input
RE: Calculator Input
when HP upgraded their flagship G-series RPN calculator, they put the divide where the drop was, X where the divide was, - where the x was, + where the - was, and enter where the + was....
i've hated them ever since.
RE: Calculator Input
RE: Calculator Input
RE: Calculator Input
Seems like RPN vs algebraic argument is similar to Big and Little Endian argument in computers.
TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
homework forum: //www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers
RE: Calculator Input
haha that was actually clever.
RE: Calculator Input
I believe there are three calculators that are accepted by the NEECS testing folks: a Casio, a TI, and an HP. If one of those tests is in your future I’d select from the models on their list.
RE: Calculator Input
Same reason I use a Mac over a PC but let's not go there….
RE: Calculator Input
Until that time, no thanks.
RE: Calculator Input
After a couple of decades of RPN'ing, I had to take an important exam using a non-RPN calculator. As I studied and worked problems with the calculator, I found that I was coming up with incorrect answers much of the time. Worse, it was a systemic problem. I'd run the same calc five times and get the same, wrong answer all five times. Eventually, I realized that I'd forgotten how to do order of operations. Or, more precisely put, I'd forgotten how to care about doing order of operations. That stuff's irrelevant in RPN which is, of course, normally a selling point. It took me a few days to start getting correct answers again and, even at that, I didn't feel anywhere near as confident on the exam as I would have were I using my HP.
It is for this reason that I've specifically not imposed RPN on my offspring despite an almost overwhelming urge to tie RPN usage to allowances.
Love it!
I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.
RE: Calculator Input
RE: Calculator Input
That is one of the things I love about RPN is that it makes you do some mental mathematics. Keeps the old noggin youngish.
RE: Calculator Input
One of the older versions of Washington state's SE exam. In the end, it turned out that they would have been okay with a non-communicating HP. Back in the day, however, the state exams were a bit less organized than they are now and the instructions sometimes left a bit to be desired. Plus they'd only communicate with me via registered international mail.
I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.
RE: Calculator Input
RE: Calculator Input
Ah, ok, thanks.
RE: Calculator Input
If you are sitting at a desk with a computer on it, I see no advantage in using a calculator for anything. I have one sitting o a bookshelf over there, but I can't remember the last time I used it.
Doug Jenkins
Interactive Design Services
http://newtonexcelbach.wordpress.com/
RE: Calculator Input
RNP is good but not perfect IMHO. The stacks are limited (there are about 5) so that for a really long chain calculation the stacks may not be enough to do the entire calculation and results are lost along the way. At least this is what I can remember with my HP45 in my student engineering days.
RE: Calculator Input
*Algebraic has 2 stacks.
RE: Calculator Input
I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.
RE: Calculator Input
It is kind of sad when a perfectly good product is discontinued for an inferior product.
A confused student is a good student.
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson, PE
www.medeek.com
RE: Calculator Input
I had two and lost both to bunk enter keys. The tactile keys are great but I think a little more delicate than other styles.
I went bongos over this initially too. It can be fixed by messing with the KEYTIME variable.
I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.
RE: Calculator Input
HP calculators have 4 stack registers, often referred to as X, Y, Z, T, which can be verified by pushing stuff onto the stack and then rolling the stack. Enter 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 then R↓, and you get 5, 4, 3, 5, 5, 4, 3, 5, 5 That's because the X register is the display register, so R↓ pushes the 5 in the X register into T, and the 5 that was entered, which wound up in Y, gets rolled into X and is displayed.
some HP emulators actually allow you to see the 4 registers.
As for the number of registers, since common math operations are binary operations with two operands, there would not be any need to have much more than 4 registers. If there were more than 4, humans would tend to lose track of what's in which register beyond 7. HP made the T register self-replicating, in the sense that if you pop things off the stack, T remains the same, i.e., enter 1, 2, 3, clear, +, clear, +, clear, +, clear, +, and 1 keeps showing up.
TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
homework forum: //www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers
RE: Calculator Input
On my 50g:
1) Type 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
2) Hit [+] eight times.
3) Result = 45
Infinite stack on some models. I found the four stack 32S a bit limiting for the California surveying exam. I actually had to write some intermediate values down which I found thoroughly unacceptable.
I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.
RE: Calculator Input
Those must have been some hellatious equations.
RE: Calculator Input
Not really. The ones that I remember were just location tracking. Here's how I would have done it on my real HP:
1) Clear stack.
2) Enter starting elevation and leave on stack.
3) Calculate elevation change over 2% cross slope to side of road. Leave on stack.
4) Calculate elevation change to apex of vertical curve. Leave on stack.
5) Enter depth to bottom of manhole thing. Leave on stack.
6) Burrow underground at 1% for 100' for some reason. Leave on stack.
7) Aim for the zenith less 15 degrees and travel for six chains. Leave on stack.
8) Travel vertically 2.25 rotation on a 6" pitch helical travel path.
....
38) Hit enter until there's only one number left
Yeah, I could have kept a running total somewhere. But why should I have to? I have trust issues and infinite stack technology has been around since the 90's.
I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.
RE: Calculator Input
RE: Calculator Input
Seriously? If you are using a computer for everything, you are wasting time. I can size a beam on my calculator faster than I type in the job name in my fancy beam program.
RE: Calculator Input
No, I don't waste any time. There is nothing that can be done on a calculator that can't be done at least as quickly on a spreadsheet. And with a spreadsheet you have a record of what you just did, access to much more sophisticated procedures on the spreadsheet or using VBA, and you can also interact with all sorts of other software.
I'm not saying there is anything wrong with using a calculator, there are lots of calculations where they are just as good as a spreadsheet. Just for me they don't add any value.
Doug Jenkins
Interactive Design Services
http://newtonexcelbach.wordpress.com/
RE: Calculator Input
The reason for taking the time to create a spreadsheet is simple, once you do a problem there is no point in having to re-invent the wheel each time you encounter a similar problem. I have many worksheets for lots of seemingly insignificant problems that I could probably hand calc but as IDS suggest for most jobs you need a record of the calculations and the spreadsheet saves me from writer's cramp.
@KootK
Thanks for the KEYTIME tip on the HP50g, just fixed that.
A confused student is a good student.
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson, PE
www.medeek.com
RE: Calculator Input
RE: Calculator Input
Ohhhh! That hurts... but true!
Knowing how to use a slide rule does have one advantage:
http://www.slideruleera.net/MaintainSharpInstincts...
www.SlideRuleEra.net
www.VacuumTubeEra.net
RE: Calculator Input
OK, I won't argue against YOUR HP calculator doing that, but models 35, 45, 25, 41, 34, 11, 12, 15, do not; they all have four register stacks.
TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
homework forum: //www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers
RE: Calculator Input
_____________________________________
I have been called "A storehouse of worthless information" many times.
RE: Calculator Input
RE: Calculator Input
Maybe you should kept a spare calculator wrapped in aluminum foil
TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
homework forum: //www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers
RE: Calculator Input
RE: Calculator Input
1) Type 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
2) Hit [+] eight times.
3) Result = 45
but really do this:
1 <enter> 2 <enter> 3 <enter> 4 <enter> 5 <enter> ... 9 + + + + + + + +
vs algebraic
1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 = 45.
RPN requires more key presses and produces intermediate answers that don't match the output for the series addition.
While I appreciate that RPN has some efficiency in some cases, it never appealed to me to be a human optimizing compiler for translating algebraic functions to post-fix notation and to reorder operations to comply with an alternate philosophy.
RE: Calculator Input
I was forced into using RPN in college. It took me about two weeks of frequent calculating to get acclimatized. My brain was plastic enough back then to pick it up swiftly. There is always something elegant and beautiful about the method that is optimally efficient in my opinion. That's why I like RPN, not because I'm convinced that I get to go home six secondS earlier each night because of RPN efficiency.
I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.
RE: Calculator Input
Same number of keystrokes
1<ENTER>2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+ (45 is displayed)
TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
homework forum: //www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers
RE: Calculator Input
I figure any tool you use day in and day out should be elegant and beautiful as long as you are not compromising too much efficiency. Same reason I enjoy my Mac everyday.
RE: Calculator Input
RE: Calculator Input
I must object here. While I won't argue that RPN use is a significant efficiency improvement, it definitely represents an efficiency improvement. See wikipedia's explanation below which we may or many not choose to accept. The advantage may be nill for straight adding but it grows for more complex calculations, particularly where parentheses are involved. Given the prevalence of post-fix algorithms in computer science, it's a pretty hard to accept that there's no efficiency advantage. When in doubt regarding efficiency matters, see machines.
My experience is the exact opposite. With RPN, I find that I can start most anyplace that I see low hanging fruit and a path to completion will emerge without much effort. And it's almost impossible to make errors with order of operations in RPN because whatever operation you're performing will be executed on incoming arguments that sit right in front of your nose to be verified.
I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.
RE: Calculator Input
My personal experience, given Excel vs. HP11C is that lots of nested parentheses can get quite confusing, and if there are more than 4 to 5 nestings of parentheses, I have to double check to make sure I closed the parentheses correctly.
In any case, to each their own; just as there are people passionate about ME and people passionate about English Lit. and so forth, I can certainly see that algebraic vs. RPN might come down to just personal preference/personality.
TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
homework forum: //www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers
RE: Calculator Input
I think RPN is to human-computer interface what Esperanto is to language, a solution to a problem that isn't severe enough to make the transition worth it for most users.
RE: Calculator Input
RE: Calculator Input
I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.
RE: Calculator Input
RE: Calculator Input
RE: Calculator Input
Sadly, RPN appears to be slowly dying - similar to the manual transmission.
RE: Calculator Input
As a car enthusiast, my car is and will always be a manual transmission.
I had to Google RPN as well, I am too proficient with my TI-89 or TI-30 to change my ways.
RE: Calculator Input
true, but radian is somewhat more engineering friendly than degree. A radian angle deviation multipled by the radius arm results in the arc length. You have to convert degree to radian to do that. Of course, in Mathcad, it's irrelevant, since it does the conversion on the fly.
TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
homework forum: //www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers
RE: Calculator Input
RE: Calculator Input
3DDave,
No regular RPN user does it that way. We do it as described by IRstuff, i.e.:
1<ENTER>2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+ (45 is displayed)
There are many scenarios where RPN requires the same amount of keystrokes as algebraic but there are no scenarios where it requires more. None that I can think of, at least.
RE: Calculator Input
Basically half as many keystrokes as an algebraic calc. Of course, how many people do this calc on a regular basis - maybe com. sci majors :>
RE: Calculator Input
Some algebraic calculators repeat the last operation. In the early days it was a hack to wire the "=" key to an external switch and enter 0+1=; the external switch would repeat the "+1" to work as a digital counter. If the number was the circumference of a wheel on a bike, for example, it was an odometer.
So, algebraic is 2*2 = = = = =, less strokes than the suggested RPN method.
Anyone wanting to make their eyes water on the subject of calculation needs to read 'What Every Computer Scientist Should Know About Floating-Point Arithmetic' by David Goldberg. One version appears here: http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19957-01/806-3568/ncg_g...
RE: Calculator Input
TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
homework forum: //www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers
RE: Calculator Input
RE: Calculator Input
So, algebraic is 2*2 = = = = =, less strokes than the suggested RPN method.<<<
I will concede that that saves a keystroke over the equivalent way to do that using RPN...something I didn't think possible. However, having said that, that's not the reason I load the registers with a constant. I do it to multiply a string of numbers by said constant. That is, type in the constant, hit enter three times and from then on it's simply number, x, clear, as often as needed. Which, incidental, absent mistyping a number is the only time the clear key is ever used; it superfluous otherwise.