I prefer the algebraic method much more than RPN, I can see how RPN can be useful for short problems, but for complex problems i think it be very difficult to beable to keep track of what value in the stack was used and therefore is not very reliable.

How can they say RPN is exclusive? They don't own it. It's even available for the TI-83+ with RPN III.

Wierd.

Makes it look better if they put it that way.

Some dude on mIRC is saying he has an 84+, we'll see

I am pained, he actually does have one....

How? I thought they aren't released until June 1st?

Perhaps someone's relative works for TI or something...

I believe that you are thinking of the 89 ti, due this summer.

that's what amazon.com says.

I thought they were already out... *goes to check*

Ahh darnit, you're right. *feels stupid*

"the worlds most powerful RPN scientific calculator"

Utterly ludicrous.

It's not even THEIR most powerful RPN scientific calculator.

The HP 33s has strengths and weaknesses. They claim it to be very powerful for a couple of reasons:

First, the user can switch between Algebraic and RPN mode at will.
Second, it has a faster processor than the HP 32sii (its direct predecessor).

And, 31k of RAM is _PLENTY_ of space for storing the kind of programs that would be useful on a calc of that sort. Just so ya know: In these applications, the programs generally don't have any sort of user interface at all, hence no need for a fancy graphical screen. You input the program handle, enter the arguments, then set it running.

ie. prog1(x,y,x)
(Or, in RPN mode, enter the arguments, then the program handle.)

For example, say you have a really long complicated formula that you do repeatedly in the course of a day... write a program for it. It has something over every TI scientific (not read grpahical) I have ever used: complex number support. Very useful in my courses.

As for graphical calculators, I have to admit that I find it easier to work with my TI 89 than my HP 49's(The 49g and 49g+ are functionally identical unless you want to do ASM programming) so I use it more often. RPL programming (HP's user-level language, at the same level as TI BASIC, but with an entirely dfferent sort of programming experience) has eluded me so far. All I've managed to write so far is a function add(x,y) that returns x+y...

I have learned to appreciate the symbolic RPN interface -- for the really complicated equations, it actually requires fewer keystrokes than algebraic entry. For example, say you want to find the derivative of (sin(x) + x)/sqrt(x)

On a TI 89, you'd type
deriv((sin(x)+x)/sqrt(x),x) <enter>
for a total of 19 keystrokes, including the shift key.

On a HP 49, you'd type
x sin x + x sqrt / x deriv
for a total of 10 keystorkes, including the shift key.
If it looks confusing, remember that the stack is always updating itself as you type in the equation, so you know where you are.

you like totally stole my example from this story....

To quote the link, "Really Poor Notation." I really don't see why it's still used anymore. With AutoClBr on AMS and a CAS, there's no chance of your entry being misinterpreted without you catching it.

What does CAS have to do with entry errors?

YOu can see the results presented graphically. Specifically, PrettyPrint.

That has nothing to do with CAS though.

http://alpage.ath.cx/hptute/bigrpn.gif shows an equation being entered via RPN (that webpage has an explanation of how it works elsewhere). It is being shown in 'pretty-print' as well.

My point is you can't do pretty print on a two-line calculator display.

I completely agree - RPN on such a small screen in a pain