Please, all(or at least most) of those suggestions have almost no use in a calculator. Think about it. Why would you need a "true" 3D engine? Or a faster processor? I see no point. Calculators were not made for games. Sure they may be fun to program, but if you want to play games on a handheld system, buy a freaking gameboy, not a calculator. You referred to the gameboy as being an "advanced" peice of machinery, but true as that may be, there is not much aof a point to advancing a calculator just so some half-baked programmers can waste time with one.

Akira

This comment is pretty funny, especially considering that I have no interest in gaming on the calculator, and that most of the suggestions made pertain to math (including the one about a true 3D engine!). Could Akira explain why a game programmer would want tensor mathematics, and more flexible functions and data types?

-Ben Kalafut

Well, that's not entirely true. See, my principal banned all electronic gaming (Game Boys, Virtual pets, etc...) since she has some weird grudge against harmless fun. Except, let me say that again, EXCEPT, graphing calculators. We need them for math class, and it would be illegal for them to delete all the games on all of our calcs. So they just let us play them during lunch hour and stuff. Sure, Sqrxz may be no substitute for Super Mario Bros DX, but if it's the best I can get, then I'm satisfied.

It's ILLEGAL to delete your students' programs? Wow! I never knew that! Is there some official law that says that?

My math teacher will certainly be surprised to hear this when he goes on his next game-deleting spree... :-)

Well, I suppose, THORETICALLY, since you own the calculator, and you put the games on it on your own free time, the school system has no right to invade your privacy. I don't think that there is a law in the books that says that no person that doesn't own the machinery can delete items off it without given permission, but I'd check the computer crimes statutes in your state's written law journal(it costs around $70 for the book, $30 for the CD).

The crimes are in the New Mexico State Statutes are written in Chapter 30, Article 45.

They may be in other places in a diferent state staute book.

Akira

But you'd be suspended before you could do this :).

Actually, I read on another comment board somewhere that the teachers can delete your games. But, if you see the teacher coming, throw your calculator into your backpack. Now he/she can't get it without a search warrant. Hmm... nah you'd get suspended for this too.

Welcome to the public school system. The minute you step through the door, all your civil rights (and some other not-so-civil ones) go bye-bye :/.

- Jeff

I dont know about the teacher, but the principal could search your bookbag (and you if they want) (you really dont have many rights on school grounds) and then you could be written up for "talking back" or something to a teacher.

See, that's why I use a magical program to hide my games (as well as my, erm, "study aids" coughcoughcheatprogschoughcough...) =)

> Why would you need a faster processor? Try these:

1. Graph Y=fnInt(sqrt(e^(-x²)/(2pi)),X,0,X)+.5
2. Find a t confidence interval on the 83.
3. Do a residual plot on 100-element lists.
4. Calculate 2000! (Download a program for this.)

Makes you realize the disadvantage of a 6 MHz processor, doesn't it? Speed is almost as important for math as it is for games.

Hardly anyone actually does that, especially finding 2000!. Also, it's a 10-12 MHz processor, not a six.

Isn't it only running on 6 MHz? Please tell me if I'm wrong.

Well, he means the TI-89/92+ run on 10-12mHz processors. Maybe the six was some other calculator...

The 83 has a 6Mhz (geez, I THINK....I cnat remember now)

A TI-83 runs at 6mhz.

The 81 ran at (I think) 2MHz
The 85 runs at 5MHz
The 86 runs at 4.8MHz(yes, the 85 is faster)
The 89 runs at 12MHz
The 92 runs at 10MHz
The 92+ runs at 12 MHz

Hope this helps

Hardware version 1 89's only run at 10MHz, while the hardware version 2 89's run at 12MHz.

Ooohhh, that was it. I guess I just heard about the 10/12 MHz difference, and got the wrong number into my head. Thanks.

Actually, the 85 & 86 have a 6mhz processor in them, but the reason the 86 only runs at 4.8 mhz is because TI reduced the 86's non-user available memory by 50% so the 86 could have 16k more user-available memory. That is why the 85 is 1.2mhz faster han the 86.

I always thought the 81 ran @ 1 Mhz.
But who cares anyway!?

2400 bytes ram, bah.

A true 'dinosaur' in todays modern calc era.

I always thought the 81 ran @ 1 Mhz.
But who cares anyway!?

2400 bytes ram, bah.

A true 'dinosaur' in todays modern calc era.

Look at the 83's specs. It's only six MHz.

How often have I needed to do these four things?
1. Once
2. Nearly every day (I'm in AP stats)
3. Several times (same reason as #2)
4. Never

You have a good point, but remember that there actually are people who need to do this.

My point was that faster processors are needed for reasons other than games. I would appreciate comments from calculus and statistics students who agree with me.

If you wanted to compute 2000! it would be easier to use the formula n!=sqrt(2pi)*(n)^(n+1/2)*exp(-n) which gives very good approximations for large n.

Your equation (n!=sqrt(2pi)*(n)^(n+1/2)*exp(-n)) is not quite correct and is missing a term.

n! ~ sqrt(2*pi*n)*n^n*exp(-n + 1/(12*n))

And if you don't want an overflow it has to be done in logarithms.

(ln(sqrt(2*pi*n)) + n*ln(n) - n + (1/(12*n)))/ln(10)

And for better accuracy start with the smallest term first on the calculator 1/(12*n)

"x==y" let x be y
n! ~ sqrt(2pi*n)*n^n*exp((1-12n^2)/(12n)) == j

ln(j) = (n+1/2)*ln(n)+1/(12n)+ln(2pi)/2-n == k
So clearly e^k = j~n!

To express j as power of 10:
j = 10^(k*ln(e)/ln(10)) = 10^(k/ln(10))

To express j in scientific notation:
k/ln(10) == L
floor(L) == p
10^(L-p) == c
So j = 10^L = c*10^p

Some examples of this method on my TI-92:
2,000! ~ 3.31628*10^5735
2,000,000! ~ 3.77683*10^(1.17335*10^7)
2,000,000,000! ~ 3.72392*10^(1.77335*10^10)
I don't know how accurate the last one is.

P.S. I had some trouble posting. If this shows up more than once, I am sorry.

Of course with that formula you just get inf istead of 2000! spit back at you, so it's not much help on TI-89/92+

Of course with that formula you just get inf istead of 2000! spit back at you, so it's not much help on TI-89/92+

O.K..now, tell me why I should ever want to do this?

How many calculus and statistics courses have you taken? There is a real need to do these things. (except that you'll probably never need to know that 2000!=3.316275090e5735) Just because YOU never need to graph integrals or use stats functions doesn't mean that NO ONE does.

coding could be a problem with the speed of these calculations as well...

Sometimes a little thinking can be a substitute for a faster processor. Unless you want to know 2000! exactly, there are methods (see below) for calculating this with little effort computationally. In fact you can determine 2,000,000,000!(not exatly though)fairly quickly if you know how and you take the necessary precautions to avoid internal operational error.