Search found 47 matches
- Mon Mar 11, 2024 5:47 pm
- Forum: DM32 BETA Bugs
- Topic: DM32 Numerical Precision for Transcendental Functions
- Replies: 14
- Views: 883
Re: DM32 Numerical Precision for Transcendental Functions
I sometimes fidget playing with trig values and seeing how accurately simple identities work, such as sin(x)^2+cos(x)^2=1 or arccos(sin(x))=90-x in degrees mode. [...] Computing 31 sin x^2 31 cos x^2 + on the DM32 gives a value != 1. Whereas my trusty HP-15C does not have this problem. (Of course, ...
- Wed Nov 22, 2023 9:27 am
- Forum: DM41X
- Topic: MCode A B C Register
- Replies: 8
- Views: 1472
Re: MCode A B C Register
Indeed, the Math code in the 41C VASM has almost no comment, the documentation was probably kept separately at the time. But unless you are trying to do special things or understand the internal code, you just need to know the entry points and the entry/exit registers. Also, what is the difference b...
- Sat Sep 09, 2023 10:05 am
- Forum: DM32
- Topic: Extended / Global Registers
- Replies: 2
- Views: 1561
Re: Extended / Global Registers
These code snippets clearly illustrate the interest of hypothetical future local labels, since the 7 routines already use half of the global labels. With local labels, the program R would be: LBL R STO i LBL 0 *** RANDOM STO(i) ROLLDOWN ISG i GTO 0 *** RTN The rule would be: a local label is visible...
- Sun Jul 23, 2023 12:46 pm
- Forum: DM32 BETA Bugs
- Topic: Strange result of integral
- Replies: 20
- Views: 4612
Re: Strange result of integral
DM32 gives the same result than 32SII That's surprising, and interesting ! The way the 15C/32SII estimate the error is somehow unusual, AFAIK not documented in text books or even HP articles. If I don't misunderstand, result in register Y is the uncertainty not the accuracy. That is why a value of ...
- Sun Jul 23, 2023 11:08 am
- Forum: DM32 BETA Bugs
- Topic: Strange result of integral
- Replies: 20
- Views: 4612
Re: Strange result of integral
I performed the integral with my calculators...I'd like to share the results with you guys... All the calculators have been set to SCI 2 a part from HP-42s and DM 42 which accuracy has been set to 1E-2. All of them gave the correct answer: 5.96E91. HP Prime almost instantly gave 5.96393809189E91. T...
- Mon Jul 17, 2023 10:34 pm
- Forum: DM32 BETA Bugs
- Topic: Strange result of integral
- Replies: 20
- Views: 4612
Re: Strange result of integral
If I use your FN G and SCI 4 I get the correct result within 2 seconds. If I use your FN G and FIX 4 I get the wrong answer -2.6976 E91 within 65 seconds. Can you check whether you get the wrong answer using your FN G and FIX 4? FIX 4 means to compute the integral value accurate to 4 places after t...
- Mon Jul 17, 2023 6:06 pm
- Forum: DM32 BETA Bugs
- Topic: Strange result of integral
- Replies: 20
- Views: 4612
Re: Strange result of integral
FWIW the genuine 32SII gives the correct 5.9639e91 in about 1 minute with this program: LBL G RCL X ENTER x^2 * EXP RTN and these commands: SCI 4 FN= G 0 ENTER 6 ∫ X. Or with a little thinking : 5.7 ENTER 6 ∫ X gives the same result in less than 20 seconds (still on the 32SII). Can you check the sam...
- Sun Jul 16, 2023 9:56 am
- Forum: DM41X
- Topic: Boolean comparison functions?
- Replies: 7
- Views: 2705
Re: Boolean comparison functions?
IF A < 60 AND (B > 200 OR C = -1) AND (NOT (D = 0)) it would be nice to have functional (rather than imperative) forms of X >= Y and friends. (The logical operators are available in the Advantage Pac, as no doubt everyone here knows). I have written my own GTE (Greater than or Equals) etc. routines...
- Fri Jul 14, 2023 10:30 pm
- Forum: DM32
- Topic: Recommendation - Replace Clear x with Clear Stack
- Replies: 6
- Views: 2069
Re: Recommendation - Replace Clear x with Clear Stack
We need the CLx command in the CLEAR menu, for programs !
How do you enter CLx as a program line with the C key ?
J-F
How do you enter CLx as a program line with the C key ?
J-F
- Mon Jul 10, 2023 9:42 am
- Forum: DM32 Documentation [current User Manual ver. 3.52b]
- Topic: Section 15.6.2: X<>(i) missing
- Replies: 2
- Views: 2193
Re: Sections 15.6.1,2: x<> i and x<>(i) missing
Also x<> i should be added in the list of section 15.6.1.
A small typo in the same section: for consistency with section 15.6.2, "∫ i" should be written "∫FN i".
Actually the correct writings would be "∫FN d i" and "∫FN d(i)". I let you decide.
J-F
A small typo in the same section: for consistency with section 15.6.2, "∫ i" should be written "∫FN i".
Actually the correct writings would be "∫FN d i" and "∫FN d(i)". I let you decide.
J-F