HP Forum Archive 12

[ Return to Index | Top of Index ]

graphing calculators a hula-hoop fad Message #1 Posted by Norm on 19 Apr 2003, 4:32 p.m. Greetings, thought I'd just follow up on the heavy 48G+ criticism that I posted about a week ago. It was amazing that, when I threw my firecracker onto the chat board, how many people wanted to buy it. There were 5 inquiries, even though the initial post insulted anybody who would want to buy it from me, chuckles, but they emailed me anyway... Good news is that another engineer is buying it from me, for very much the same reason as me. Just to see if he likes it or not. Well I wish him the best, maybe he will like it. "By the pound" the 48G+ is an incredible hardware value. It's solid, the plastic is good, the keys feel good, it looks solid and imposing. BUT, the command usage and the presumption that I want the display to run like that, and all the goofy stuff coded into it by the software hounds, did not impress. I mean c'mon, in the formula library, I can look up Area = PI x r^2 and download the formula??? I mean, I thought I was supposed to know that sort of thing, and when I know that, then it sort of means I went thru coursework and that I got educated. If I have to look it up in the 'library' then that's a problem. ---------->>>>>>> One thing I firmly believe. As I gather information on this 'graphing calculator' era, I see it in a dim light. EXAMPLE: I visited my patent attorney just YESTERDAY. We rode in his SUV to go get lunch. There was a TI-86 graphing calculator on the seat. The clerk at a store had already told me, weeks ago, that TI-86 is the most popular for high-school and college. So there was one. I picked it up and my escort said "its busted". He said "its my son's calculator. I didn't want to buy it for him, but he used comments from the math teacher as an excuse to make me buy it. Now it's busted. But what I really noticed was, before it busted, that all my son was doing with it was using it to play videogames." Well, just one more battle-field observation of the rifles jamming on the front-lines. And don't figure the kid learned his math any better, than if he had an HP Classic in his hands. In fact, thanks to the distractions of a graphing calculator, he probably learned his math to a substandard level. ********* "If I sketch a graph with pencil & paper, it will look better than the tiny little 130 x 130 pixel display on the calculator. The calculator does not need to provide a graph, because if you know your material, then the graph should already be seen inside of our minds." ..........Words from wise and all-knowing mathematical swami, puffing on pipe on the snow-capped mountaintop, with HP classic calculator next to him.

I have to disagree with you. Message #2 Posted by Speck on 19 Apr 2003, 9:40 p.m., in response to message #1 by Norm Norm, Personally, I think it's all a matter of perspective. Not everyone who uses, or has use for, a graphing calculator is an engineer, or an engineering student. Granted, that's probably the largest demographic, but certainly not the only one. And certainly some of those individuals are not going to have the math background that an engineer would. Therefore, having a low-cost, programmable, graphing utility available would be very convenient at times. As far as the equation library is concerned, I agree that there are some formulas in there that pretty much everybody should know, such as the areas and perimeters of certain basic shapes. However, there are also some in there which no one should *really* waste their time memorizing. Should I truly have the law of Biot-Savart at hand at all times, or should I be able to look it up when I need it? Rote memorization is not learning; having the formula in front of you does not guarantee that you have any inkling as to how to use it properly (or at all). Besides, it's just the 48 series that had the equation library, right? (someone verify this for me, please.) My 49 doesn't have it, and neither did any of my TI's. All of those calcs have features that most people will rarely use, but I have been surprised by the number of features I have actually used over the years. All the kid did was play video games on his TI-86? Well, let's look at what the digital computer was originally intended for (numeric processing), and what the most common use is today (entertainment). Don't blame the machine for what the dumbass did with it. While in school (high school and college), I noticed four things that students did with their calcs, and in no particular order: 1. Playing games (as you mentioned earler) 2. Number crunching (a terrible waste of power) 3. Graphing 4. Using the programming interface as a notepad (no extra points for guessing what for) I don't believe there are a lot of teachers that truly understand the power these students have access to, in their backpacks, almost every day. IMHO, if they taught what could actually be done with these machines, they could alleviate many of the desktop PC's and educational programs that are such a necessity and supposedly help students "learn." But then people like me would have a far harder time impressing people with "parlor tricks". :) (And if you are worried about cheating, you can always ban the machines on tests. This will clearly demonstrate who is learning the material, and who is using the machine as a "crutch.") Did I use the graphing features of my graphing calcs? Yes, but mostly early on. Rarely now. Anymore I use the handhelds for programming (they came with languages built-in; my desktop didn't. And I wouldn't want a programmable PC with a single-line screen, so why should I have to settle for a programmable calc with one?), numeric equation solver (yes I know how to do it, so I don't wish to take the time doing it again unless I need to demonstrate something), and curve fitting (definately NOT intuitive, as is pure math. The picture in my mind doesn't always give the correct answer to four decimal places). There may be some question about which calculator is most suited for students, and which is suited for professionals. The HP's are certainly not the most user-friendly machines in the world. However, if there's something about it I don't like, I can usually change it. This was one of my major gripes about the TI products I've owned in the past. If there was something you didn't like about it, well taht was just tough. You were stuck with it. I liken TI calcs to Macintoshes, and HP's to IBM PC's. One is more user-friendly, and one is more useful. What one should remember about graphing calculators, or any others for that matter, is that they are TOOLS, nothing more. Any tool can be used properly or improperly. And any tool can be useful. It wouldn't have been created if it weren't useful to someone. Now, where'd I put that damn soapbox? (scrathces head) Speck.

Re: I have to disagree with you. Message #3 Posted by Trent Moseley on 19 Apr 2003, 11:51 p.m., in response to message #2 by Speck Speck, I think you are very eloquent. tm

Re: I have to disagree with you. Message #4 Posted by James M. Prange on 20 Apr 2003, 1:24 a.m., in response to message #2 by Speck The "Equation Library" was built-in on the 48G series only. For the 48SX, it was on a plug-in ROM card that could be purchased separately. The 49G doesn't have this library built-in, but improved (faster and expandable) versions are available for download from hpcalc.org. I suppose that "expandable" may imply that unwanted equations can be removed; certainly there are some that I don't need in the library because I already know them, and others that I would never use. Regards, James

statistics- a fad?. Message #5 Posted by Christof on 21 Apr 2003, 11:23 p.m., in response to message #2 by Speck The one thing above all else that I hink justifies the very existance of graphing calcs- evne more than the programmability I find so absolutely required- is statistics functions. from the simple histogram to the ability to store thousands of individual measurements- the statistics capabilities (when people are smart/educated/aware enough to use them) cna be som much more valuable in the real world than any other set of functions. we are lied to to an astounding degree each day- from simple thing like cnn polling 'who we should attack next' without including an option of 'no attacks' or even 'other' - to histograms so obviously skewed they look like a fun house mirror reflection- to incomplete seperation of groups- we are lied to. constantly. The ability we have to reach into a pocket and look- to pop some numbers in and with a few keystrokes generate meaningful reports on the data we are being fed (eevn if it's just a report that the data makes no sense) is invaluable to any pretense of a free society in our informationally overloaded age. now if only someone else on the planet would *use* the machines for this......... -C

I'll second what Speck said (+ more) Message #6 Posted by Jeremy on 20 Apr 2003, 10:43 a.m., in response to message #1 by Norm I can honestly say that when I was in high school and learning math, the graphing calculators helped. Sure, you can draw them out on paper, but it is easier and more efficient to have a machine do that. There is nothing really learned by physically drawing them out, right? Once you can visualize what a function looks like, you don't really need to see it graphed too often from that point on, right? But class time is valuable, and the less time you spend physically drawing out graphs, the better. As for playing games, you certainly can't blame a kid for doing that. I bet you would have done it when you were his age... I know I would have and I don't consider myself a bad student. He would still have to pass the tests, right? To me, the harm in graphing calculators comes from them doing many of the things that students should learn to do by hand. Now that we have graphing calculators, students don't bother to learn as much as they should. For example, simultaneous equations. They are a pain in the ass to do by hand and to learn to do by hand, but I am better for it in the end. After you get proficient at doing it by hand, there is no reason to go on doing it by hand. But if you learn how to use the calculator/computer as a crutch... That is bad news. In that respect, even a four function calculator can do harm. My ex girlfriend was pretty sharp, but she couldn't do division by hand. To me, that is scary. It also reflects further into electronics. Nowadays, EE grads don't know how to design an Op Amp, but using the technology available we can build things with op amps. It is too hard to know everything. Maybe the best idea is to limit the technology available for certain levels of students. For example, Algebra I students might have to graph functions by hands and solve simultaneous equations by hand. Calculus students wouldn't. -Jeremy

Re: I'll second what Speck said (+ more) Message #7 Posted by Ellis Easley on 21 Apr 2003, 8:04 p.m., in response to message #6 by Jeremy "There is nothing really learned by physically drawing them [graphs] out, right?" "To me, the harm in graphing calculators comes from them doing many of the things that students should learn to do by hand." I think you contradict yourself here. From plotting graphs by hand you learn - how to plot graphs. I'm from the old days when the darkness was just beginning to clear. The TI2500 was the only calculator I saw in high school, and I couldn't afford one. (Big exception: I did have an opportunity to use an HP desktop programmable with a plotter attached for a few weeks. Trying to remember what model it was has been a driving force in my HP interest.) I think it is important to know how to do, or at least to have an understanding of the steps involved in doing, any of the things a machine can do for you faster and/or better. Long division, for instance. First, it gives you an appreciation of the time the machine is saving you. Second, it prepares you to recognize and deal with the limits that all machines have, when you run into them. Please read Robert Pease's ("What's All This ...") articles on the subject of Spice (the simulator, not the HP calculator series.) How can you know the computer is wrong if you can't check its work? Finally, every manager has to know the jobs of his employees at least well enough to hire them.

well its still busted Message #8 Posted by NH on 20 Apr 2003, 5:36 p.m., in response to message #1 by Norm well, its still busted. The kid can't even play videogames on it, if its busted. Of course that was a TI we were talking about. Maybe the HP is more reliable. Well back to work.

To Norm, Trent, and James Message #9 Posted by Speck on 20 Apr 2003, 7:24 p.m., in response to message #8 by NH Norm, I agree that if it's busted, then it's less than useful for anything except maybe as an impressive-looking paperweight. But what exactly do you mean by "busted?" I've seen several TI's dropped onto concrete floors, but which still functioned afterwards (my own TI-85, a very similar predecessor to the TI-86, comes to mind). The HP-48xx calcs tended to get a lot of screen blowouts, as the fabric bag offered little, if any, protection to the screen from direct impacts. The hard slide cases, used on the HP-39G, 40G, 49G, and all of the TI's, seem to offer a much greater level of screen protection. Something rare like a blown processor or a cracked circuit board, or invasion by a foreign matter would be hard, if not impossible, to fix. A bad battery terminal might be a bit easier to fix, and the kid might be back in business. Of course, if he's gaming, then he's running assembly, and maybe the assembly program is causing startup problems, meaning a full reset (leave the batteries out, including the backup button cell, for a few days--easiest fix of them all) might just do the trick. I've also seen "dead" calcs, which really just needed new batteries and a contrast adjustment. Not outside the realm of possibility. ---------------------------------------------------------- Trent, Thank you very much for your kind words. ---------------------------------------------------------- James, Thanks for clearing up that library issue. And I suppose ANY calc can have an equation library, depending on how program or memory space is utilized. The nice thing about the HP libraries is that some of the equations appeared to come with explanantory graphics, so that you knew what the variables related to. Graphics can be a bit harder to program efficiently, or to store as an equation variable. Speck.

Re: To Norm, Trent, and James Message #10 Posted by Speck on 20 Apr 2003, 7:28 p.m., in response to message #9 by Speck BTW, my formatting looked A LOT better in the message box before I posted it. I'll work on that. Speck

Formatiing messages and Comments Message #11 Posted by Vieira, Luiz C. (Brazil) on 20 Apr 2003, 8:57 p.m., in response to message #10 by Speck Hello, Speck; I read the messages (not completely) in this thread but I think that the needing for one or other feature is not only a matter of simply needing but also a personal choice. When I read that using graphics is a waste of time (or something like this) I think other features are available. And I like using graphics as well, mostly in high-definition screens, with advanced, full-featured programs that cost about the price of a bunch of HP48G's... not counting the system to run them. Based on pictures available at the MoHPC, if the X-Pander was available its screen resolution would be the best one. Amazing! I think writing/plotting on paper is something that demands time. Accuracy will also depend on writers ability to draw, as plotting will depend on screen's resolution. Having a final "view" in your mind may suffer distortions from a bad drawing, and when you are using graphic equipment, a zoom-in may reveal local behaviors not easily seen when looking at the math expression or hand plotting. Well, but this is not my main concern. I wrote to let you know about two "tricks" I almost always use when posting here. The first one is [ nl ]. This guy allows a new-line anytime you want it. If you use a single [ENTER], lines will be written as if it does not exist. If you use two [ENTER], you get a new-line with a separating line. If you want to keep a sequence in an specific format, use [pre] before the first character and [/pre] after the last one. If you want something like this: insert press display 5.3 CHS -5.3 you should type: [pre] insert press display 5.3 CHS -5.3 [/pre] Maybe you already know about it, but... Well, add my own name to the ones that think you wrote well. And Norm, as I have mentioned before, I try being in both words: analog and digital. But I try to keep track with anything that's new. I believe graphic calculators added a new dimension to the way students get knowledge. What concerns me, as a teacher, is that many of the new "tools" have not been well used. You see, the abacus is still used as a math tool, many contributors in here defend the slide rule (I never used one as a math tool) and others the numerical calculators. Symbolic algebra and graphics must be brainy activity. What if we were still using the logarithmic tables to compute every structure in a building? Thanks to new math tools we can go further, and graphics calculators at least allow people to "see" a function even without the skills to draw it by hand. And I see it with good eyes, I do not like having to draw the same curve two, three, four times after adjusting this or that parameter. I do not like to throw old notes away, but I do not care overwriting old files with new data. Just my thoughts. Luiz C. Vieira - Brazil

Hello Luiz, Message #12 Posted by NH on 21 Apr 2003, 12:08 a.m., in response to message #11 by Vieira, Luiz C. (Brazil) Hello Luiz, that 3rd graphics screen looked pretty good. Almost looked like there was enough pixels to do the job. What did your graphics come from, that you put in your post ? Was that somebody's calculator, or was that a PC program.

Re: Hello Luiz, Message #13 Posted by Vieira, Luiz C. (Brazil) on 21 Apr 2003, 1:37 a.m., in response to message #12 by NH Hello, Norm! Hey, it's been good to read your posts. I do not agree with some stuff, but they are indeed good points, your points. Have a look here and read till your heart keep beating. The graphics are from the "I-wish-Carly-was-not-there" X-Pander. A few months before being launched, the full project was cutt-off (and latter ACO as well). A shame! Well, join us and feel sad, too. Best regards, my friend. Luiz C. Vieira - Brazil (I'm mourning; no messages to Captain Zener this time)

I'm slow as a vacuum tube Message #14 Posted by Norm on 21 Apr 2003, 1:05 p.m., in response to message #13 by Vieira, Luiz C. (Brazil) Well gee, I'm just as slow as a 12AX7 to not have known the story about that XPander. Thanks for filling me in. That's very interesting. Imagine the fortune they must've spent just to do a prototype and to do those market studies. For a fact, I'm sure they spent FAR MORE than it would've cost to put the HP-34C (or 41C) back into production, just on their one little Faux Pah. It's hard for me to comment about whether its right, or wrong, as a decision. Probably wrong, because i believe they should innovate and experiment with calculators, and this could be the 'experimental' model. BUT I also believe in the tried and true, that which already worked, that which already had a loyal customer base. In other words, they have no business discontinuing items like 32Sii, or even its ancestral predecessors. The big problem with the 'Xpander' remains...... its such a tiny little screen to be trying to run graphics. This is the flaw with graphing calculators. Hey, as I type, I am on a screen that is 1280 x 1024 pixels, that's 1.3 Million pixels. And I get to fairly triple that to 3.9 Million pixels because they are in fullest color. Now, on this super-duper 'Xpander', we had, what was it, 200 x 300 ? That's 60,000 pixels. That's only 1.5% of the screen-area that I have got on a real computer. I would just continue to insist upon a personal-computer based mathematical graphing package, if there was even a need for me to use one (no requirement just now) until then I like a number-based calculator, such as 32S, 32Sii, or...... well you know the rest. Thx for sharing on 'Xpander'. I wonder who got the two thousand prototypes ? Bet they had an army of Carly secret-service in black-suits run around and reclaim them under penalty of death, and then they crunched them all up to make sure nobody could have any fun.

Vacuum tubes are timeless... Message #15 Posted by Vieira, Luiz C. (Brazil) on 21 Apr 2003, 3:50 p.m., in response to message #14 by Norm Hey, Norm; never mind... I was known about it later, too; after it's been gone. Well, how can it be gone without ever been? I have some experience with students and their needs (or what they think they need...). I always say that they MUST be better than their teachers, at it includes me. One of my students asked me once: "Do you consider yourself a better professional than your former teachers?" I stopped for a while and answer: "as a teacher, I am sure I'm an improved version; as a professional, I intend you to be improved versions". I think I'd answered him well. I wonder if Einstein was born in the 80's: would it be a genius and go beyond his own theory or he would go for drugs and crackery? Today's math tools may be taken as brain toys, and that's teh big problem, you know? Based on this, I plenty agree with you: pocket mah tools should not disguise major concerns. As you get a better acquaintance, powerfull desktops are on demand. About vaccum tubes: they are timeless (no oxidation being considered here). If I am not wrong, the only electronics to survive after a giant EMP bomb... (is the 12AX7 that "in"famous double triode? I don't remember... Such a long time I do not read about vaccum tubes' specs) Best regards. Luiz C. Vieira - Brazil

Vacuum tube databook Message #16 Posted by Norm on 21 Apr 2003, 7:31 p.m., in response to message #15 by Vieira, Luiz C. (Brazil) Hi Luiz, I don't want to sound rusty by mentioning vacuum tubes, but they sure are a lot of fun. Kind of impractical at the heart, which makes them entertaining. No 45 RPM jukebox should be without a few vacuum tubes. I've never designed nor prototyped with vacuum tubes, being a "linear IC analog person" but that doesn't stop me from wishing that I had used vacuum tubes instead. Pleasantly, even right now, there is a lot of activity with vacuum tubes. Mainly with the vinyl record stereo equipment crowd. There are definitely web links for studying vacuum tube equipment still available. There's a clean division there..... grossly overpriced stuff (some that delivers performance, some that is junk despite its price) and then, bargain-oriented stuff that will sound only so-so. You can still buy a stereo amplifier kit that is based upon vacuum tubes. One serious weakness in my opinion, they use a minimal complement of glass. For example, they get rid of the vac tube rectifiers and zener regulators. They replace them with ordinary silicon diodes. BAD MOVE. More glass is better. It's about 'getting your moneys worth' and getting your stereo system to light up like a christmas tree. I have a copy of the classic "RCA VACUUM TUBE DATA BOOK". Yes, the 12AX7 is a double triode. It's the most basic building block of the glass world... its just 2 'transistors' in a single casing. A lot of those get used obviously. What's striking about that old book, is how clean and clearly it reads. These guys really had a very crisp and decisive vision of what they were trying to do and the explanations were excellent. The data book is very interesting, and will always be interesting, that is, if one is doing a sort of 'archeology digging'. While it is hoped that each generation of teacher would be better, it is inevitable that there is some sliding back down the hillside. This is true of any industry, how about HP ? Each calculator better than the predecessor? NOT! When I learned typing in high school, we took 6 months in a roomful of noisy IBM Selectrics, and we learned to type !! NOW, for typing class, everybody sits down and turns on a PC and boots Windows XP, and does NOT learn to type. When I learned standard college physics at UW, they sat you down in a roomful of wooden desks, and the professor got up to the lecturn, and began writing down equations. THEN they would augment this by, almost every session, wheeling in some sort of a demonstration. Maybe it was as simple as a mass sliding down an incline. Maybe it was a diffraction grating, or a demonstration of a glass-jar capacitor. I am fearful about the outcome, and maybe I shouldn't be so skeptical, but I presume that some "Carly" took over the department, threw all the demonstrations into the dumpster, and now........ .......... everybody sits down at a PC and boots Windows XP and does NOT learn their physics. That's just my impression lately. Bill Gates has got a remarkable victory indeed, helping to screw up most every topic and industry on Earth, replacing competency with personal computers. But of course, it wouldn't be better if we all went back to vacuum tubes. Guess we all have to just muddle along. - Norm

ACK Message #17 Posted by Vieira, Luiz C. (Brazil) on 22 Apr 2003, 2:13 a.m., in response to message #16 by Norm You bet! (mostly to acknowledge and agree with) Luiz C. Vieira - Brazil

Formatting & ... Message #18 Posted by Speck on 21 Apr 2003, 7:15 p.m., in response to message #11 by Vieira, Luiz C. (Brazil) Luiz, Thank you for the formatting hints. I knew neither of them. Are they somewhat universal, or do they only apply to this board? If they're only for this board, is there a listing anywhere of what commands are available for use, and how to properly use them? As you showed, using the right commands at the right time can make all the difference. I liked the looks of the expander and what is could do, but I was also one of those who didn't care for the fact that it was supposedly not programmable. It did look like a step in the right direction. The screen made the TI-92's look like a piece of garbage. I downloaded the Xpander software, but I haven't gotten around to installing it, and am a bit leery about it anyway, as all the handhelds it was shown on had the vertical screen orientation, and mine is a clamshell (with the keyboard and horizontal screen). Don't know if that will cause problems or not. Oh, well. Only one way to find out, I guess. Speck.

Re: Formatting & ... Message #19 Posted by Ellis Easley on 21 Apr 2003, 8:19 p.m., in response to message #18 by Speck Look at the top of the first page of the Forum, under "advanced formatting techniques" I just used one! To get started, open that page in another window ("not trying to teach my grandmother to suck eggs")

That's it! Message #20 Posted by Vieira, Luiz C. (Brazil) on 22 Apr 2003, 12:58 a.m., in response to message #19 by Ellis Easley Hey, speck; Ellis is showing the "door". That's what I would do. Best regards; thanks, Ellis. Luiz C. Vieira - Brazil

Re: Formatting & ... Message #21 Posted by Speck on 23 Apr 2003, 9:47 p.m., in response to message #19 by Ellis Easley Thank you very much.

it wouldn't turn on anymore Message #22 Posted by Norm on 21 Apr 2003, 12:05 a.m., in response to message #9 by Speck The TI-86 would not turn on anymore, even if it had good batteries. That could mean a busted wire from the battery terminal, or it could be a blown micro. Could be anything. Until he gets another one, no more TI-86 video gaming.

Re: graphing calculators a hula-hoop fad Message #23 Posted by Ellis Easley on 21 Apr 2003, 8:23 p.m., in response to message #1 by Norm The following is an excerpt from an editorial by Richard Nelson titled "What is PPC?" from the PPC Calculator Journal V8N6P3-4, August-December 1981, which was reprinted on the last page of V1N1 of the PPC-UK journal, July 1982: "We are dedicated to personal computing using a personal computer. We are less concerned with home computers, business computers, desktop computers, commercial computers, or consumer computers. [*] The computer we seek is small, light weight, and configured to be portable and as convenient to transport as a wrist watch or camera. The personal computer, as defined by PPC, is with the user; the user does not go to the computer to use. A personal computer has its own self contained power source, it is hand held, and becomes an essential part of the daily life of its user. Record keeping, time and calender functions, communications, and information processing are all within the realm of the PPC ideal personal computer." * Alll I reealy wanna doo, computer, is program you! (Apologies to Bob Dylan - E.E.) After the reprint are some unattributed additional comments (which I assume are from David M. Burch, the editor of the PPC-UK journal), of which this is an excerpt: "We contribute to the State-of-the-Art. In fact, we exist to contribute to the goal of having a large memory, high speed, personal computer with communication capabilities. The hardware is limited by the software. Our machines can solve more problems than any individual or small group of individuals can develope for them." I think these remarks are relevent to this thread because these organizations were very important to the development of HP calculators and handheld computers - these voices were heard by HP.

Re: graphing calculators a hula-hoop fad Message #24 Posted by Christof on 21 Apr 2003, 11:07 p.m., in response to message #1 by Norm well, if it's a fad, it's a decade long fad with no sign of slacking. In fact, it seems that future offerings will be even more full of non-4banger types of offerings, including better graphics. because a high schooler uses a graphing calculator for games doesn't negate the value of a graphing calculator in general. I *don't* use the graphing capabilities all that much- but I *do* use the graphics capabilities. There is still very little made that provides the level of 'in pocket' programmability and utility -- to a person who wishes to do more than trig functions-- than the ti83s,ti89,hp48gx calculators. I see a lot of students who have rather expensive graphing calcs and don't need them, but I see a lto of students who have them and get a LOT of benefit from them. Even if they are 'spoiled' by not having to carry log tables. as for including the formula for area in a formula library, your argument seems absurd to me. it is like not including 'and' in a dictionary because everyone who uses a dictionary should already know what and means. Or- like no documenting 'ls' on a new unix box because anyone using the command line must laready know the command. (or maybe, not documenting 'login' is a better comparison) I vote for completeness over pride most of the time :) -C

[ Return to Index | Top of Index ]

Go back to the main exhibit hall