ticalc.org
Basics Archives Community Services Programming
Hardware Help About Search Your Account
   Home :: Archives :: News :: Feature: A Modest Proposal

Feature: A Modest Proposal
Posted by Nick on 5 May 2000, 01:24 GMT

Our next somewhat late (*g*) feature is written by Ben Kalafut. It talks about what TI should include in their next calculator (or calculator update :P). In my opinion, he makes some good points and some I don't quite agree with (or they aren't vital to the functionality of said calculator), but it's still worth a read and some frank discussion of opinions.

So let's do just that. Many (many) people have complained about TI's "actions," especially since after Hardware 2.00 and AMS v2.03 came out for the 68K calculators. Talk amongst yourselves - as usual, I'll try to offer any input I can.


I have owned three different TI calculators, and I have run into frustrating "brick walls" in the use and programming of each one.
I use my calculator for math and sciences; I have no real interest in gaming or getting my calculator to make sound or bit-mapped graphics. Yet sometimes, the calculators are just as useful as a Gameboy.
Even the "powerful" TI-89 and 92 don't contain what I would like to see in a graphics calculator/computer algebra system. Symbolic manipulation is a nice feature, certainly, but programming all but the most elementary routines becomes time-consuming or impossible. Texas Instruments should probably put out programs to perform Fourier, Laplace, and Z transforms, partial fraction decomposition, tensor mathematics, functional analysis, etc, but they do not do so, and apparently, no third parties are interested.
The problem, in my opinion, is that Texas Instruments considers the graphics calculator to be merely an educational tool. This is evident in the software applications which are written, and the nature of their press releases and advertisements. TI does not seem to recognize the (potential) utility of their calculators to researchers, college students, mathematicians, and professionals.
Some improvements which I would like to see on a hypothetical calculator which TI would put out to replace the 89 are:

1) True updates. I expected a boost in functionality between AMS 1 and 2.03, and all that seemed to occur was an improvement in memory allocation. Extending the function library from time to time would be nice.
2) A faster processor. The 68000 can certainly handle numerics well, but seems to bog down on all but the simplest symbolic operations.
3) Ability to define a function with multiple outputs. For example, a Gaussian elimination decomposition should return both the reduced matrix and the "O" matrix by which one may multiply the original to change it to the reduced form.
4) A true 3-D engine. It is nice to be able to enter functions of two variables, but one should be able to view three-dimensional plots obtained from numerical methods of problem solving, view three-dimensional data plots, or plot space curves parametrically.
5) Vector field plots, Poincar‚ return maps, improved slope and direction field applications.
6) LaPlace and inverse LaPlace transforms.
7) Partial fraction decomposition.
8) Improved ability to program new symbolic functions. The "part" function is a step in the correct direction but is neither sophisticated nor specific enough to be truly useful.
9) Ability to handle tensors.
10) Ability to enter strings, matrices, lists, etc as elements of lists or cell arrays
11) Ability to overload user-defined functions, so that they may return either symbolic or numeric answers, for example. Also, the ability to input fewer than the specified number of parameters to a function and not get errors.

These are just a few suggestions. I'm sure that those who are more advanced in mathematics than I have many more. I don't expect TI to come out with a calculator that does everything that Maple or Mathematica do, but by focusing too much on secondary education it is neglecting a potential market.
TI or a third party should also put out a compiled language for the calculators. I'm impressed with TI-GCC, but TI, having a team of professional programmers, could probably develop the standard libraries and even more powerful interaction with the calculator's built-in features. TI also has the muLisp language, and could possibly release a version for graphics calculators.
Another thing that has struck me is the poor quality of programs in the math and science archives.
A lot of the programs do things that the calculators already do! Additionally, many have poor documentation and terse interfaces. User-friendliness is not a major concern. Neither is standardization or development of syntaxes which make sense to anybody but the user. For the sake of consistency I have been writing my programs so that they either state, clearly, what should be input (rather than specifying a variable name), or in the case of those for the 89 which take inputs from the command line, do so in an order and syntax which follows that of TI's built- in libraries.
The graphics calculator has great potential as a mathematical tool in the classroom, the lab, and even in the professional world, but it will never realize that potential until Texas Instruments chooses not to focus strictly on the secondary education market and programmers (perhaps at the expense of gaming) develop better, more powerful, more consistent mathematics and science software.

 


The comments below are written by ticalc.org visitors. Their views are not necessarily those of ticalc.org, and ticalc.org takes no responsibility for their content.


Re: Feature: A Modest Proposal
Adam Thayer  Account Info
(Web Page)

What you are asking isn't exactly modest, but I do see your point. However, on the point of functions being able to return multiple values is one that probably has been adressed before. Unfortunately, I doubt this will change. Since most computers and design paradigms are allready one result per function (thus the whole basis of what a 'function' is), it would be a pain in the butt to write a new compiler than would handle this multiple return value system. (At least for TI), however, if TI were to write functions that returned lists of stuff instead of a value, or a matrix instead of a list, that would achieve the same result, wouldn't it?

     5 May 2000, 05:19 GMT

Re: Re: Feature: A Modest Proposal
Bennett Kalafut  Account Info

Once again, this was kind of a rant written in a hurry (and I didn't give it a title)

From our own functions, we can return lists, but TI's do not. I think that Matlab's design with regard to this is nice. The function outputs a vector of values (and is, thus, a true function) and the user can use as many or as few as he wants, storing them to separate values.

I tried this on the TI-89 a while ago using vectors and lists. A function which returns a list can be executed in a program as
foo(bar)->a
but not
foo(bar)->{a,b}

While the problem may be worked around by adding a few lines of code, if the function written is intended for user use (and not to be called by another function), it's really inconvenient.

Also, if the elements of the list or vector of outputs are themselves anything but expressions, strings, or numerical values, this method simply will not work. If I wanted to, for example, return matrices O (matrix when multiplied by the original yields U)and U (reduced row echelon format)from Gaussian reduction, I could not return a list {O,U}. When I try to enter such a list from the home screen, the calculator returns an "invalid list or matrix" error, and the same would occur in a program. The "data" type variable is a step in the right direction, but current data items cannot be lists, vectors, or matrices, and are not easily accessed from the home screen or even from within programs. The "data" type seems no better than using a matrix, in this respect--it's two dimensional and the elements can only be expressions or numbers.

Again, I realize that there are reasons for these limitations (having to do with the calculator's ability to allocate memory to variables as the user creates them?)

I thought that using indirection for output, C-style, would work, but it gives trouble, both in TI's built-in functions and our own. For example, the built-in QR and LU decompositions cannot be run from within a function. Using the command 1->#a, with a being a string and an input argument, also gives the error "Invalid in a function or current expression." I presume that there was a reason for this, but I wouldn't know.

-Ben Kalafut

     5 May 2000, 08:22 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Feature: A Modest Proposal
Kenneth Arnold Account Info

> I thought that using indirection for output, C-style, would work, but it gives trouble, both in TI's built-in functions and our own. For example, the built-in QR and LU decompositions cannot be run from within a function. Using the command 1->#a, with a being a string and an input argument, also gives the error "Invalid in a function or current expression." I presume that there was a reason for this, but I wouldn't know.

This is because functions are too limited. I would have gotten really far with my strlib (a relatively neat but inevitably pointless project to do arithmetic on strings, thus of infinite precision) had functions been able to use expr() or even string(). C/C++ got this right -- don't limit stuff.

But why this limiting of functions? Functions can be used in, say, solving an equation, and you wouldn't want your function to modify a variable that was being used, so TI thinks. But the fact of the matter is that usually you wind up writing the function yourself, and you may _want_ to change some global variables while still returning a value. Maybe it's because AMS was designed so that stupid users wouldn't cause themselves too much trouble and go whining to TI for help. But we're not stupid (I hope) and a bit more power in functions, and overall, would be appreciated, maybe as an "Advanced" mode.

Kenneth

     5 May 2000, 23:55 GMT


Re: Re: Feature: A Modest Proposal
Nick Disabato  Account Info
(Web Page)

Actually, the title "A Modest Proposal" was a reference to Jonathan Swift's satirical essay in the 1800's about overpopulation in London.

He offered an outlandish solution (boiling kids alive and eating them for meals) to show that solving the problem was no small task.

"Solving" this "problem" is no small task. :)

--BlueCalx

     5 May 2000, 23:28 GMT

Re: Feature: A Modest Proposal
Harper Maddox  Account Info
(Web Page)

Just buy a mini-laptop. They are getting awfully cheap these days. I don't think anyone realizes the main reason that this device, or any other handheld (ie. Gameboy) uses a really fast processor. Do you actually think a laptop could come anywhere near running for a month on 4 AAA batteries?

     5 May 2000, 07:29 GMT


Re: Re: Feature: A Modest Proposal
Kevin McRoberts  Account Info
(Web Page)

What kind of Gameboy do you have? The newest one (G.B. Color) is faster, COLOR, and runs off of 2 AA batteries for longer than 1 month (usually 2). Plus, buying a "mini-laptop" (if one exists in the first place) would be a huge waste of money to complete simple oporations that can be done on a calc. Also, i foung that programming for a calc (82 and 83 for me) is a HELL of a lot EASIER than trying to program things on computers (desktops/laptops)...

     5 May 2000, 07:59 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Feature: A Modest Proposal
Chris Wong  Account Info

You probably don't have a Gameboy Color, cause anyone with one knows that NO batteries will last a month on it, even with conservative use. I've found that a set of 2 Duracells gives about 10-15 hours of powered-on usage...and remember that a calculator is often left on, waiting for the next command, further sucking batteries. No, I think color is secondary to screen resolution, which is not as much of a battery drain as a color LCD.

     6 May 2000, 06:01 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Feature: A Modest Proposal
David Phillips  Account Info
(Web Page)

How much power a Game Boy game takes up is largely dependent upon the game itself. You could write a game that would run for at least 30 hours if you wanted to, but not if it used all the CPU time available and had features like sound.

     6 May 2000, 06:52 GMT

Re: Feature: A Modest Proposal
Steve Ryder  Account Info
(Web Page)

The functionality I think the 89 lacks is a true abilaity to deal with infinity. Have you ever tried to perform symbolic integratation with infinity as a bound? For almost all functions, the calculator doesn't get it right. It handles numerical integration well.
Hey, I should point out that I was able to solve a system of equations on my 89 that MATHEMATICA couldn't do (at least using their standard array of Solve, etc functions). I was impressed by that.
Also, of note is that there are already Laplace and Fourier programs out there. They run in basic, so they're slow, but they work! Quite well, I may add.

     5 May 2000, 14:37 GMT


Re: Re: Feature: A Modest Proposal
Jeff Jensen  Account Info
(Web Page)

TI's calculators are ALL about the games. They should stick a 20 mhz chip with 2 megs of ram and assembly support into an 89. Then those games would fly. Does anybody else also relize that TI-BASIC is useless?

     5 May 2000, 15:50 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Feature: A Modest Proposal
Nikku-kun Account Info

You know you're asking to be flamed, don't you?

     5 May 2000, 20:31 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Feature: A Modest Proposal
JaggedFlame

Maybe, but I think TI probably had a reason not to put in 20 mHz chips in. I don't know what it is, though. :-)

     5 May 2000, 23:49 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Feature: A Modest Proposal
James!  Account Info

A 20 MHz chip would eat batteries faster than you could shove them into your calculator!

     6 May 2000, 01:02 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Feature: A Modest Proposal
JaggedFlame

Sounds like a good reason to me. :-)

     6 May 2000, 04:44 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Feature: A Modest Proposal
Sebastian Reichelt  Account Info

TI-BASIC is NOT useless. It's for math purposes, not for gaming, and with symbolic manipulation, it's actually easier to use than other programming languages, because you don't have to "dive into" anything. If you want to program good and fast games, use C or Assembler, not Basic.

     6 May 2000, 03:17 GMT

Re: Feature: A Modest Proposal
jaymz Account Info

As far as adding functions to new rom versions, TI did that, but it's kind of lame. If you look carefully at the functions in ams1 and compare them to ams2, you will discover that ams2 adds a function called deltaList (delta is a triangle). I noticed this because I was wondering why it wasn't in ams1 in the first place, since ti ti83 and 86 have it. Still, it would be nice if they added some more functions like you mentioned.
As for the lack of quality math programs, I totally agree with you on that. A lot of them do the same thing as a built-in function only with extra 2k of wasted space. Seriously, if you don't know how to use the solve() command in the 89, do you even know that it has a CAS or what? IMO, quality programs/functions should be space-efficient and original, not replacements for TIOS functions.

     5 May 2000, 17:40 GMT


Missing features
Rgb9000  Account Info

Some missing features that i want to see would be square root to a power.
3*SQRT(9)
in example. Yes, i know you can raise a number to a fraction
9^(1/3)
to get the same result,but this approach does not take advantage of the pretty print features of the TI-89.
I think pretty much every lower ti has it(ti 85,86 etc) but the 89 doesnt.

RandInt is also a very nice funtion as well. Almost mandatory in certain games. Rand() is ok, but you cannot specify a upper bound or trials(You could use a for loop, but...) It is included in TI Statistics/List editor, but not for almost half your flash memory! And again, this feature is seen on 83s, 86s.

There was (at least)one other thing missing, but I forgot what it was.

Can anyone else think of anything missing from the TI-89, feature/catalog wise?

P.S. Scroling is too slow too. TG for fastkbd.

     12 May 2000, 00:03 GMT

Re: Feature: A Modest Proposal
Free_Bird Account Info
(Web Page)

A different CPU would definitely be desirable. How about a Transmeta Crusoe? (Sure, it's expensive, but for a top notch calc it rulez).

As for the compiler, stick with TI-GCC [{(don't even think about it)}], and improve it. TI has proven their inability to release such things (The TI-89 Flash SDK comes to mind).

     5 May 2000, 19:32 GMT

Re: Re: Feature: A Modest Proposal
Reno  Account Info

That's a bad idea; TI can just save more money and focus on the m68k processor, on how to make their OS's smaller and better for them; in the long run, when they save money, we (usually; capitalism is never a sure thing) save money as well.

I'll again note to everybody HP has been working with that Saturn chip at 4mhz for quite awhile (I think I saw 14 years in a post somewhere around here), and the HP49g (still at 4mhz) can very well compete head to head with an 89 at 10-12 mhz (whatever it is supposed to be). It also actually does real 3D graphing. Thats something the 89 cannot say. The 49G might be slower in some parts, but it is also faster in many other parts (like the 3D graphing).

     5 May 2000, 23:10 GMT


Re: Re: Feature: A Modest Proposal
burntfuse  Account Info

Isn't a Crusoe processor a PC class device? It would be nice if it would work, but it wouldn't fit and use up the batteries in a split second. Those things sometimes need ~20-40 amps to operate. Sorry, but the batteries wouldn't last.

     7 January 2003, 00:38 GMT

Re: Feature: A Modest Proposal
Jeff Meister  Account Info

While everyone here is talking about really advanced math that I don't understand, I just wanted to gripe about some stuff on the TI-83 that has been REALLY bothering me. And yes, I have a TI-89 to do all this, but I can't always have it for a quiz.

The TI-83 needs an environment where it recognizes variables as unknowns, and not just shortcuts to already-defined values. If I give my 89 something (real basic) to simplify, like 2x/6, I get x/3. But if I put that into the 83, I get some funky number, depending on what I last stored to x. Usually I end up with 0. That so very much sucks.

And while I'm at it, how about a REAL equation solver like the 86 and 89 have for the 83! None of that "has to equal 0" stuff! Grrr...

And Jeff Chai: respond to this and tell me what I missed because I know there's more... I just forget.

- Jeff

     5 May 2000, 22:48 GMT

Re: Re: Feature: A Modest Proposal
jaymz Account Info

If you want x/3 on the ti83, it's not gonna happen, because you would need a CAS, like the one on the ti89. However, the problem with the 83 is that if you reference an undefined variable, it automatically gets set to 0, which can cause an invalid answer. At least they (TI) could have made it like the 86, which recognizes if the variable is undefined.

     5 May 2000, 23:09 GMT

Re: Re: Feature: A Modest Proposal
JaggedFlame

If they put a CAS in the lower-level graphing calculators, you'd be forced to use a scientific calculator on the ACTs. (Then again, that's what I used, and I did pretty well...) (Then again, the only reason they allow the graphing calculators on the SATs is that they don't want to make the graphing calculator owners buy a new calculator.)

     5 May 2000, 23:53 GMT

Re: Re: Feature: A Modest Proposal
Bennett Kalafut  Account Info

There's a pretty quick way around the has to equal zero thing. Subtract whatever you want it to equal from the expression.

For example, if you want to find the intersection of the polynomial x^4-3x^3-6 and the exponential function, you'd use the numeric solver on the expression x^4-3x^3-6-e^x

-Ben Kalafut

     6 May 2000, 00:51 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Feature: A Modest Proposal
Jeff Meister  Account Info

<Sarcasm>

But that requires actual work! I'm a lazy TI-89 bum who is used to just plugging in the problem and out comes the answer. :)

</Sarcasm>

- Jeff

     6 May 2000, 20:26 GMT

Re: Re: Feature: A Modest Proposal
Jim Haskell  Account Info
(Web Page)

If you want to solve polynomials on the TI-83, download my Polynomial Solver! =) It's located at http://www.ticalc.org/ archives/ files/ fileinfo/ 115/11538.html (spaces included b/c the URL was longer than 40 chars >=) just get rid of them). I wouldn't trust it too much, though. It is in beta, and it does screw up sometimes. But it's pretty fast, for TI-Basic at least... If any of you find a bug, it would be cool to mail me a bug report =)

     6 May 2000, 01:56 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Feature: A Modest Proposal
Jeff Meister  Account Info

Hmm... I'll try it, maybe it'll make the math quizzes with the no-89 rule easier. Stupid teachers... why can't I use my 89!

- Jeff

     6 May 2000, 20:29 GMT


ti-89 rocks
michael pardue  Account Info

'cause you're a rich, crazy, fool. Just like me. I say we kill the teachers and take over!

Total anarchy!!!

     12 May 2000, 03:08 GMT

Re: Re: Feature: A Modest Proposal
Jeff Chai  Account Info

Yes Jeff, there is more. The TI-83/+'s catalog function should contain every math command the TI-83/+ is capable of. Believe me, it can do alot more. Next, the Z80 processor in it is running at 6 Mhz. But the Z80 can go much faster than that. Other Z80's in similar electronic devices run at 10, 15, even 20 Mhz! Military class Z80's run at an incredible 30Mhz! So if TI can lighten up and push the Z80 to the limits...

Long live the TI-89!

     6 May 2000, 04:33 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Feature: A Modest Proposal
CircaX  Account Info
(Web Page)

Ive heard of a fabled 40Mhz Z80 CPU...

     6 May 2000, 15:17 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Feature: A Modest Proposal
Reno  Account Info

yeah, and 4 AAA batteries aren't going to help you with 30-40 mhz z80. Plus, wouldn't it overheat?

Stick with coding better instead of getting spoiled by faster processors

     7 May 2000, 19:13 GMT


Re: Re: Feature: A Modest Proposal
vod

If your not in advanced math a 89 is no more usefull than a gameboy, learn to do real work with out a calc before you get screwed later when you cant add and subtract, heck i wasent even allowed to use calc's on tests until trig, and even then only on some of it.

     7 May 2000, 00:49 GMT

1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  

You can change the number of comments per page in Account Preferences.

  Copyright © 1996-2012, the ticalc.org project. All rights reserved. | Contact Us | Disclaimer