Re: Factorials on the 86

To: CALC-TI@LISTS.PPP.TI.COM
Subject: Re: Factorials on the 86
From: "Williams, Matt" <Williams.Matt@CON-WAY.COM>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 08:02:26 -0800
Reply-To: "Williams, Matt" <Williams.Matt@CON-WAY.COM>

I was just speculating.  I don't have an 86.  Just an 85 and 92.
--

        -iceboxman
TI-CALC Discoveries
http://ticd.home.ml.org
or
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Peaks/4152/index.html

iceboxman@geocities.com



>----------
>From:  Klukan[SMTP:renegade@BMT.NET]
>Reply To:      Klukan
>Sent:  Tuesday, February 17, 1998 9:09 PM
>To:    CALC-TI@LISTS.PPP.TI.COM
>Subject:       Re: Factorials on the 86
>
>Williams, Matt wrote:
>
>> It's kind of like having a computer with 32MB of RAM vs a computer
>> with
>> 128MB of RAM trying to run something.  The amount of memory available
>> on
>> the calculator has a high correlation to the speed of the calculator.
>> Just for kicks, try a TI-85 with nothing on it vs a TI-86 that is
>> completely full and see which one is faster.
>> --
>>
>>         -iceboxman
>> TI-CALC Discoveries
>> http://ticd.home.ml.org
>> or
>> http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Peaks/4152/index.html
>>
>> iceboxman@geocities.com
>
>According to TI, the 86 is slower than the 85 due to RAM page swapping
>(there's 4 times the memory there to swap).  The reason the 86 will do
>factorials faster is because it uses a different method of calculating
>them.  It uses a simple equation (86), rather than multiplying the
>factors together separately (85) as you would do by hand.  This also
>allows the use of non-whole numbers to calculate factorials (gamma
>function).  I am not trying to start another discussion, I'm just
>pointing out what I've read from TI.
>
>-Jeremy
>