Re: TI-89 vs. TI-86

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

Re: TI-89 vs. TI-86

To: CALC-TI@LISTS.PPP.TI.COM
Subject: Re: TI-89 vs. TI-86
From: Kasper Vibe Grevsen <removekaspervg@POST6.TELE.DK>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 14:08:29 GMT
References: <35f38561.47125225@news.ianitrix.net> <1998090707203800.DAA28910@ladder03.news.aol.com> <35F3EFDC.B9D7C4C3@ameritech.net>
Reply-To: Kasper Vibe Grevsen <removekaspervg@POST6.TELE.DK>
Xref: paladin.american.edu bit.listserv.calc-ti:24631

Tucker <tucker1@ameritech.net> skrev i artiklen
<35F3EFDC.B9D7C4C3@ameritech.net>...
> ...but some professors dont allow TI-92, so an 89 may be better.

Why should they allow TI-89 if TI-92 is not allowed? The problem is
abstract symbol manipulation capabilities, isn't it?

Kasper

Follow-Ups:

Re: TI-89 vs. TI-86

From: Tom Lake <tomlake@SLIC.COM>

Re: TI-89 vs. TI-86

From: David Osborne <dosborne@JPS.NET>

Re: TI-89 vs. TI-86

From: Gregory de Lagrange Chancel <gdelagrange@NORDNET.FR>

References:

TI-89 vs. TI-86

From: Adam Blitstein <sled_driver@HOTMAIL.COM>

Re: TI-89 vs. TI-86

From: STL137 <stl137@AOL.COM>

Re: TI-89 vs. TI-86

From: Tucker <tucker1@ameritech.net>