Thanks for the tip on the HP32 calculator!
 

I'm delurking here :-)

Robert Swinney wrote:
Rozen sez, glibly!

"(translation, 'I can't figure those darn things out?')"

Naw, Jim -- I liken it to climbing down a ladder with 2 rungs missing from
the bottom. You have it figured OK but it is still a damned uncomfortable
situation to be in. The more you climb that defective ladder, the more
aggravating it becomes.

Bob (RPN is like trying to run CNC with no manual machining experience)
Swinney

I think RPN is probably more trouble then its worth on the simple
calculators. The stack is only 4 levels deep, so there's the possibility
of overflowing it. Also you can only see working as numbers, not what
you entered to calculate the result. So if you make a typo it can't be
found easily.

However, its a different story on the higher end calcs. You can see
things pretty clearly and tell if you have made a mistake pretty easily.

see http://alpage.ath.cx/hptute/example.gif for an example formula. It's
easy to type in RPN mode - how about algebraic? :-)

http://alpage.ath.cx/hptute/bigrpn.gif shows the steps, one screenshot
per keystroke.

http://alpage.ath.cx/hptute/hptute2.htm
http://alpage.ath.cx/hptute/hptute4.htm

shows some other examples.

Of course, it's purely personal preference. Hardly worth a war over :-)

cheers,

Al

Thanks for the tip on the HP32 calculator!
 

Robert Swinney wrote:

Gary sez:
" As John noted, RPN works exactly the way you'd do the calculations with


pencil and paper, so it is a natural and familiar way to work for people


who


are comfortable with doing hand calculation. "



I will have to agree, as I often begin calculating in the middle of a
lengthy expression. Problem is, you have to record the interim results and
some care is required to maintain those results. I can do it, but it is so
much easier to begin at the beginning and enter things sequentially in AE.
Thanks Gary, I didn't realize RPN was a product of the 20s. It would seem
that for really lengthy calculations, RPN would be a labor saver.

Bob Swinney



Bob, I'm sure you can see by now that this has all the trappings of a
religious war. Sort of like arguing about word processing programs used
to be before MS completely took over.

Of course, you AE folks are just plain wrong headed!

Steve Smith

Thanks for the tip on the HP32 calculator!
 

"Robert Swinney" writes:

Reverse Polish Notation: Method of entering math phrases into a calculating
device. The method is somewhat arcane and difficult to follow for those
with ordinary mathematical proclivities. It is, however, "very efficient"
for those with pre-existing mathematical training. Mastering RPN provides
great feelings of satisfaction, no! pride for those that learn to use it --
errrr, make that "learn to use it well". RPN savviness yields another click
on the lock of the great Math inner sanctum. In general, those that beat
their breasts about how conversant they are with RPN, remind one of the very
tired childhood phrase, "I know something you don't know".

You may have run into RPN advocates like that.

But RPN really is better, at least for the way some people think. I own
several RPN and several algebraic calculators, and have for decades. I
use both. I normally use them in private, with nobody watching me, and
thus no one to notice which one I'm using. If I'm doing a simple
computation with one or two operations, I don't much care which type I
use. But for longer calculations, I always prefer RPN. It just fits
the way I do calculations mentally.

The problem with AE is that you have to enter the expression in the
order it's written, complete with appropriate parentheses. For complex
expressions, that means I need to *write it down before starting*. And
I do not normally do that. I calculate by performing a series of
smaller operations in their natural order, and an RPN calculator allows
me to run the calculator in parallel with my head, seeing intermediate
results as I go along. I don't start with an expression for the answer,
and I don't end up with one - I just work out the process of deriving
the answer from the inputs as I go.

So why do I own AE calculators as well? They're ubiquitous and cheap.
I'd rather lose a $10 calculator than a $100 one, so I carry the former
in my knapsack and that's what I have at work. The calculator on my
Palm supports both input modes, but I leave it set to RPN all the time.

Dave

Thanks for the tip on the HP32 calculator!
 

"Robert Swinney" writes:

Bob (RPN is like trying to run CNC with no manual machining experience)
Swinney

That seems backward to me. RPN is like writing a CNC program that
carries out operations in the same sequence and with the same feeds and
speeds as the way you'd naturally do the work manually. It's like
"learn mode", where you do something manually and the machine records
that for later use.

AE is like entering the dimensions of the part and letting the computer
figure out a sequence of operations that will make it. If it works,
and is fast, and gives good surface finish, great. But if something is
wrong and you have to fix it, you're worse off. You may not know where
it went wrong unless you look at what it did step by step.

Dave

Thanks for the tip on the HP32 calculator!
 

"Robert Swinney" wrote:

So, the ordinary mortal is in for a ton
of confusion if he tries to figure out RPN.

You just gotta be kidding. I've never met anybody I couldn't explain
RPN to in a matter of a few seconds. After that, its just a matter of a
few minutes practice.

Fitch

Thanks for the tip on the HP32 calculator!
 

In article ,
Fitch R. Williams wrote:

"Robert Swinney" wrote:

So, the ordinary mortal is in for a ton
of confusion if he tries to figure out RPN.

You just gotta be kidding. I've never met anybody I couldn't explain
RPN to in a matter of a few seconds. After that, its just a matter of a
few minutes practice.

Fitch

Bet I've taught 30 or 40 over the years as well. Don't recall ANY of
mine that didn't like it... or any having much trouble learning.

Erik

Thanks for the tip on the HP32 calculator!
 

Fitch R. Williams wrote:
"Robert Swinney" wrote:


So, the ordinary mortal is in for a ton
of confusion if he tries to figure out RPN.


You just gotta be kidding. I've never met anybody I couldn't explain
RPN to in a matter of a few seconds. After that, its just a matter of a
few minutes practice.

Fitch
Looke here - The Architecture Cad Man is Back! - Bet the Cad Digger needed work :-)

Martin

--
Martin Eastburn, Barbara Eastburn
@ home at Lion's Lair with our computer
NRA LOH, NRA Life
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder

Thanks for the tip on the HP32 calculator!
 

Greg wrote:


Steve Dunbar wrote:

HP is coming out with a replacement for the 32SII, the HP 33S. It doesn't
seem to be widely available but some people have been able to buy them.
There's some discussion of this new model over on comp.sys.hp48.

Hey, thanks for the tip! I'll keep my eyes out for it.

I couldn't help myself; I bought the HP 33S at a local
electronic store this week.

It has a few features not in the HP32S, but I kind of liked the
simpler HP32S interface. But now you've get the capability to do
calculations with exponents up to 500. I'm sure that will come in
handy when I want to figure out how many universes could be
filled with ping pong balls.

The second LCD line is nice to see what is in the previous stack.
On the downside, the keyboard is _way_ busier than the 32S and
will take some getting used to. And they moved the ENTER key to
the bottom right and it is the same size as the other keys. But
this would probably only bother someone who had been using other
HP calculators for the last 20 years.

-Aaron

Thanks for the tip on the HP32 calculator!
 

In article hm1rm1-ujc.ln1@adsl-63-193-121-
233.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net,
says...

And they moved the ENTER key to
the bottom right and it is the same size as the other keys. But
this would probably only bother someone who had been using other
HP calculators for the last 20 years.

HP was never big on consistency. If you've ever worked with
HP test gear you may get a chuckle out of this.

http://www.robotics.com/hp/

Tektronix seems to have at least made an effort to maintain
some consistency in their designs over the years.

Ned Simmons