Re: Solver?

[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Solver?

True, the calculators cannot emulate human thought. Also, if you're sure
it'd take you less time to solve the problem, then do it yourself.
Wouldn't be amazing if people began to learn math skills themselves
rather than using calculators?

-Joseph

 Have A
  :-)
Nice Day

OBTW, "inobvious" is a word. Even if it wasn't, it is now.

Rene Kragh Pedersen wrote:
>
> Mark Calvert wrote:
> >
> > Does anyone know of a better solver program for the TI-86?  Overall, I
> > am very pleased with the one built in, but occasionally I will enter a
> > problem that will take a long time to solve on the solver that is
> > relatively easy.
>
> I can't help you there.
> That aside, I just wanted to offer my comment on what you say. I assume
> that when you say "relatively easy", it's because it didn't take you
> long to solve the problem yourself?
> What I'm getting at is that although the calculator is often much better
> and faster than us at solving most problems, it still lacks the ability
> to take a backwards step and see the greater perspective of a problem,
> i.e. "if you re-write this into something that initially is a bit more
> complex, or if you start out by squaring this function, it will pay off
> in the end, no matter how inobvious[1] it seems."
> In other words: the calc gets the job done, but not necessarily in the
> most intuitively easy and/or fast way, simply because it isn't that easy
> to program mathematical intuition, as opposed to rough method.
>
> [1] Is this a word? :-)
>
> Regards,
>
> --
>           Rene Kragh Pedersen
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> (2) When joining the two chain ends, the closing spring is to be
> pressed in, but in no other way than contrary to the running direction
> of the chain in the two closing grooves.
References: