The Museum of HP Calculators

HP Forum Archive 13

[ Return to Index | Top of Index ]

HP-41C HP-15C & complex numbers
Message #1 Posted by Vincent Weber on 18 Nov 2003, 12:22 a.m.

Hi all,

After reading so much praise of the HP-15C in these columns, I had a good look by myself using the (excellent) simulator by Lygea on PocketPC (Pocket15C). My conclusion is that, yes, the HP-15C was a very finely design machine - elegant, compact, with well integrated and powerful features. It is true that for 3 long years, from the birth of the HP-15C (1982) to the Advantage and CCD modules for the HP-41C (1985), the HP-15C was the only device able to handle matrixes natively in a usable way ! However, when comparing HP-15C with HP-41C with Advantage module, I find that:

1) As Valentin already described it in a very good article, the matrix features of the Advantage module outshine by far the ones of the HP-15C (even though the HP-15C has some nice touches, so that matrix descriptors on the stack). As surprising as it may seem to the supporters of the idea that on the 15C all features are readily available on the keyboard, very often the HP-41C matrix routines require less keystrokes than their HP-15C counterpart: I especially think of matrix edition. Even in so-called 'USER' mode, the HP-15C requires 3 keystrokes to enter a new element (such as '1 STO A' while the HP-41C requires only 2 ('1 R/S'). In addition, handling complex matrixes on the HP-15C requires to manually transform them back and forth in matrix/real forms - an operation transparently handled in the Advantage ROM.

2) The SOLVE and INTEGRATE features are identical,

3) The CFIT program is much more powerful and flexible than the simple linear regression available on the HP-15C,

4) The Advantage ROM does not have hyperbolics, combinations and permutations, generalized factorial, and random number generator. Well, it is a pity, but the first three items are very easy to program, while the fourth one is quite useless (except to program games...). No big deal.

5) The HP-15C has recall arithmetics. It is an interesting feature, but it is quite easy to emulate on the HP-41C in 3 steps instead of one (i.e. RCL+ 32 is equivalent to X<>32, STO+ 32, X<>32, even if it is less elegant).

6) The HP-15C has direct line addressing. I would not want to use this feature, as it opens the door for messing up your programs very quickly (modify one line and you have to modify them all !).

7) The HP-15C has all 12 conditionals. It is a very nice touch, although it can be easily overcome by swaping the numbers to compare, let alone the fact that I do not think that remembering instructions as 'TEST x' is very elegant.

8) We now come to the *one* big superiority of the HP-15C: the fine integration of complex numbers. As Valentin pointed out, even the 42S is not able to have 4 different complex numbers on the stack, while the 15C can. At first glance, the complex functions of the Advantage module really pale in comparison of those of the 15C: On the 15C, these functions are optimized at the firmware level, do not require any register, are fast (well, as fast as the HP-15C can be), are integrated with all real functions (even reverse trigonometrics, which is not available on the '41 !). However, on second thoughts, I find this to be more cosmetics than of real use. Who really need to perform complex arithmetics ? Electrical/Eletronics engineers ? I don't think so. I studied electronics and I never used complex numbers on a calculator. Reason, I think, is that in electronics you would perform your reasonning in a symbolic manner on paper, and use your calculator as a numerical application to compute the value of a resistance, a phase, an amplitude, whatever - which only involves real numbers. Furthermore, complex numbers in Electronics are mostly used in their polar form (amplitude and phase) - a painful operation on the HP-15C, as you need to convert polar-form number into rectangular form to perform all operations, and then back into polar form to see the results. Only the 42S & 48 series are able to do this. I think complex numbers are more useful in matrixes, to solve systems of equations - which the Advantage module performs far better than the 15C.

I would not trade-off this nice, but secondary to me, features for the core advantages of the 41C:

1) Alphanumerics: not only can the HP-41C display mnemonics instead of key codes, but also have alpha prompts and messages in programs through the alpha-register. Most important, you can handle a large libray of programs with global labels which you can name the way you like, rather than being restricted to 'A-E' '0-9' and '.0-.9'. I find this unvaluable.

2) Expandabiliy: I can use the '41CX emulator as a financial calculator (as I happen to be studying finance) - even a securities module with the Black-Schole equation pricing of an option is there ! Let alone Statistics, Avionics, synthetics programming with the CCD module... No machine had ever had such flexibility.

3) User keyboard: those who complain that the 41C is poorly designed because you have to type the name of the function you want to call obviously never used it: The 41C was designed to be customized by the user. Therefore, instead of trying to put everything on the keyboard like the 15C does, the 41C puts minimum, common operations on the keyboard, leaving it beautifully simple, and leaves it for you to assign your favourites functions to your favourite keys. Overlays can show you what they are, but it is still workable to do without overlay as if you press and hold the key, it would show the assigned function name, than return to 'NULL' after a while with no execution. A *very* clever design. A really pity that the (otherwise excellent) 42S chose custom menus over the user keyboard.

4) Memory: the extended memory made the 41 the very first PDA ever - even before the Psion 1 ! It can be used to store files and matrixes. A real must.

5) Speed: Altough reputed slow, the 41 was still about twice faster than the 15C...

As a conclusion, I would say that it is just amazing than a 1979-designed machine was so flexible. It could survive the more advanced features of the 34C and the 15C with its expandability; it could even resist the 28C/28S birth (a 1987 HP sales book was advertising both 41CV/X and 28S on equal grounds, and the 41CX was actually more expensive than the 28S !). HP discontinued the '41 series only with the birth of the 48SX, the only machine that could take over by inheriting -some- of its expandability... and even the 48 left 41 users with a lof of regrets !

Cheers,

Vincent

      
Re: HP-41C HP-15C & complex numbers
Message #2 Posted by Patrick on 18 Nov 2003, 1:50 a.m.,
in response to message #1 by Vincent Weber

There is no doubt that the 41C family was and is much more powerful than the 15C. For me, though, there is something of an imaginary line. On one side of this line are the applications which are best suited to a calculator, on the other a computer. In my mind, the 15C is the most usable and powerful device on the calculator side of this line. It is small and pocketable, is elegant to look at, provides most of its functions on the keyboard and not through menus, and is not hamstrung by the villany of short lived batteries. As a bonus, it provides substantial power when needed. It is an extremely pleasurable device to use, IMO.

Today, I choose to do things with a computer when the job is more complicated than what a 15C can handle. I have owned a 41C since a month or so of its introduction but never find myself wanting to reach for it, other than to ogle it for historical sentiment. On the other hand, I have a 15C on every one of my working desktops.

Edited: 18 Nov 2003, 1:51 a.m.

            
Re: HP-41C HP-15C & complex numbers
Message #3 Posted by Ángel Martin on 18 Nov 2003, 5:35 a.m.,
in response to message #2 by Patrick

Interestingly enough this reasoning will apply much better to the 48 and 49 machines than to the 41.

IMHO the 41 didn't cross this imaginary line, but it bent it!

Best, ÁM.

      
(deleted post)
Message #4 Posted by deleted on 18 Nov 2003, 5:27 a.m.,
in response to message #1 by Vincent Weber

This Message was deleted. This empty message preserves the threading when a post with followup(s) is deleted.

            
Re: Mr. Weber's EXEMPLARY review [LONG]
Message #5 Posted by Victor Koechli on 18 Nov 2003, 5:45 a.m.,
in response to message #4 by deleted

Two more things to add to this:

- Writing a 'matrix editor' so you can enter numbers into a matrix on the 15C by simply pressing R/S is easy:

LBL 0 u STO A (press STO A while in USER mode) R/S GTO 0

- I'm surprised to hear that the 42S should be unable to have 4 complex numbers on the stack. I'll have to check that when I get home tonight, but AFAIK, you can have 4 objects of *any* kind on the 42's stack. Anyone like to comment?

Cheers, Victor

                  
A correction & a comment
Message #6 Posted by Valentin Albillo on 18 Nov 2003, 5:58 a.m.,
in response to message #5 by Victor Koechli

Hi, Victor:

Victor posted:

   LBL 0
   u STO A  (press STO A while in USER mode)
   R/S
   GTO 0

Your routine, simple as it is, has a nasty bug. When the very last element of the matrix is stored, the [u STO A] instruction will *skip* the next step, i.e. it will skip the [R/S] and go on executing the [GTO O], while resetting the row-column indexes back to 1 at the same time. Thus it doesn't stop as intended, but rather stores the same value (the last element's) *over* the value of the first element, then stops. So, you end up with your first element having been overwritten by the last element, unnoticed to you :-)

" I'm surprised to hear that the 42S should be unable to have 4 complex numbers on the stack. I'll have to check that when I get home tonight, but AFAIK, you can have 4 objects of *any* kind on the 42's stack. Anyone like to comment?"

It's bad wording. It's not that you can't *have* 4 complex numbers on the stack. You can, of course. The correct wording is that you can't *enter* 4 complex numbers on the stack, as you need two stack registers, X and Y, to enter a complex number into X proper, and that would send your previously entered complex number now in the T register into oblivion.

That's not the case for the HP-15C because it does have a full, 4-level+LastX parallel stack and thus you can enter a full complex number into both X registers without disturbing the T registers at all.

Best regards from V.

Edited: 18 Nov 2003, 6:52 a.m.

            
Re: Mr. Albillo's CONSTRUCTIVE comments [LONG]
Message #7 Posted by Vincent Weber on 18 Nov 2003, 5:54 a.m.,
in response to message #4 by deleted

Dear Mr Albillo,

Two small comments:

1-So far I have really appreciated your deep knowledge and your style on this forum, and I appreciated this part of your post, which is helping me to learn more. I thank you for that.

2-Given your contemptous, arrogant and unfriendly tone, it seems that your emotional intelligence is way below you IQ. I advise you to read "People's skills", if you heard of it - you seem to need it urgently. Please focus on the chapter about giving negative feed-back. Perhaps your knowledge is due to the fact that you spend too much time with machines and not enough with human beings ?

I fully agree with you: please don't waste time on me or on any other idiot you may find on this forum. We do not deserve your lights - the same way that you do not deserve our esteem.

Yours sincerely,

V. Weber

            
Geek spotted here!
Message #8 Posted by Emmanuel on 18 Nov 2003, 6:56 a.m.,
in response to message #4 by deleted

I'm just simply amazed at the comptent and disdain you use to literally attack someone posting a debatable, but complete and documented opinion. Hey, it's just an *opinion* !

IMHO, you definitly need to spend less time with obsolete hardware, and spend some more with your friends and family - if you have any.

Being aggressive and even sometimes vulgar will never help your credibility. In short, get a life.

            
Re: Mr. Albillo's arogancy
Message #9 Posted by HrastProgrammer on 18 Nov 2003, 7:42 a.m.,
in response to message #4 by deleted

This is none of my bussines but it seems that Mr. Albillo has just crossed a line of nice and civilized manners. I haven't read such an arrogant post in this forum for a long time. I appreciated some of his posts in the past because they contained information and facts which were useful for me. He obviously knows very much about HP calculators and it is very nice from him to share this knowledge with the rest of us. But I am not sure if we want him to share his arrogance with us. It is obvious that Mr. Albillo takes every opinion as a personal attack on him and his favourite calculators (especially HP-15C). I read his posts about new HP calculators such as HP-49G+ ... it looks like a personal battle between him and HP. So what if HP-49G+ is not good enough? I simply won't use it and this is the end.

Is HP-15C the best calculator on the earth? For V.A. it surely is but for the others perhaps it is not. "HP-15C is the best" is not a fact, it is just a personal opinion. Do I like HP-15C? Yes, I do. Can I live without one? Of course, because I can do everything HP-15C can do in some other way and using some other techniques on HP-41C, HP-42S, HP-71B or HP-48GX. Four complex numbers cannot be entered on the HP-42S stack. So what? I can store two of them, enter the other two and recall the stored ones. Big deal. Or I can use my HP-48GX. Does it have the ability to have four complex numbers on the stack. It has, not 4 but almost 7000 complex numbers on the stack. Does it make it better than HP-15C? For me, it certainly does. For someone else, it doesn't have to be so.

I don't see Mr. Weber's post as something so bad to say that "I've had enough of you". In fact, I don't see his post bad at all. He simply described some of his opinions and arguments. Nice to read. Perhaps I don't agree with some of his claims but so what? He has all the rights to express his opinions in this forum as long as they are about HP calculators and as long as he don't attack or insult anyone. Then comes Mr. Albillo who is "certainly wasting his time trying to maintain a meaningful e-conversation". Well, Mr. Albillo, you really don't have to waste your time on this forum with such posts - just go and make something else.

Best regards.

P.S. I don't know Mr. Weber - I just wanted to point to something which seems wrong to me.

                  
Re: Addition to my previous post
Message #10 Posted by HrastProgrammer on 18 Nov 2003, 7:57 a.m.,
in response to message #9 by HrastProgrammer

I can store two of them, enter the other two and recall the stored ones.

Ooops, I wanted to say: I can store one of them, enter the other three and recall the stored one.

            
Re: Mr. Weber's EXEMPLARY review [LONG]
Message #11 Posted by Joesph on 18 Nov 2003, 8:33 a.m.,
in response to message #4 by deleted

Grow Up

      
It's amazing (!)
Message #12 Posted by Valentin Albillo on 18 Nov 2003, 8:01 a.m.,
in response to message #1 by Vincent Weber

It's amazing ...

... the irrational attitudes some people incur towards me.

I make a derogatory (but rationalized and documented) comment on the *technical* abilities and sheer lack of objectiveness *in reviewing some devices* that some person evidences, without ever saying a word (or even subtly mentioning) any other aspects of said person's private life or attitude towards life in general, which I profoundly ignore and couldn't care less, and all I get are *personal* (not "technical") attacks, in the most derogatory terms possible, with bold statements about my "emotional IQ", my "social abilities", hastily quantizing the "time I spend with my friends and family", the "obsolescence of the hardware I deal with" ...

... which of course *none* of the persons uttering such has the *slightest* idea about whatsoever. In other words, a completely irrational, venomous attack, which only tries to pathetically retaliate some alleged "offence" by gratuitously and furiously trying to hurt the alleged 'offender', which is even kindly 'invited' to leave the forum.

Well, sorry but it just doesn't succeed. We have some proverb in Spain which roughly translated reads

 "It doesn't offend he who wants, but he who can".
... and I get no offence from such blind, irrational attacks, coming from people that know not a thing about me. I guess all you utter them because you would feel 'vindicated' if I had no life, or were a social misfit, surrounded by old HP-15Cs all alone in my dark room.

Well, I've got news for you, because regrettably (for you, it seems), I *do* have an extremely successful social life, have a wonderful family life as well, participate in a lot of Internet forums and all kinds of intellectual and artistic activities (just search the web for "Valentin Albillo") and am surrounded by state-of-the-art hardware and software you can't even begin to imagine, in an extremely sunny and enjoyable place. Does ESA and Cisco ring a bell ? Or else you don't even know what I'm talking about ?

I'll comment no more on this off-topic issue here, at all, but anyway, it wasn't my intention to offend anyone, and if I've done so, I duly apologize. But next time, it there ever should be a next time, please stick to *technical* attacks or defences to 'revenge' alleged *technical* offences and leave the family, life, and everything else out of the question, ok ? It's just bad style and does nothing to support your points ... ;-)

Best regards from V.

            
Is this what your dusty life is all about?
Message #13 Posted by HP-Calc-Collector on 18 Nov 2003, 8:16 a.m.,
in response to message #12 by Valentin Albillo

Mr Albillo The Great,

It appears you are having some bad days, or at least I guess so, because the combination of your arrogance, comptent, and pure aggressivity are very bad symptoms of a downgrading need-a-life undertaker.

I will not even list the *technical* inaccuracies you keep repeating, like an old man speaking to his mirror. That's sad enough as is.

In case you don't notice, neither me nor the readers of this great forum are the least interested in you whoopa-dupa hardware environment, your living place within some corruption-ridden country, or your soooooo-interresting participation in other forums.

Come on, life is not limited to old calculators, even great little machines as the HP-15C. Try the real life (where real geniuses are often incredibly modest and friendly personnalities), for once, instead of making yourself publicly pathetic.

                  
Let's keep the high level?
Message #14 Posted by Nelson M. Sicuro (Brazil) on 18 Nov 2003, 8:45 a.m.,
in response to message #13 by HP-Calc-Collector

Hey, people, c'mon! Let's get the high level here! I live in a much corrupted country, this doesn't make me a bad person!

I read several posts of the highest level from this people that are *personally* and *anonymously* atacking our fellow V.A. Ok, we must be patient with others, as we all don't know everything of everything.

My *personal opinion*, I don't think is polite to call indirectly other people 'dumb', nor offent the caller in a personal level without arguments, not knowing him.

There are several 'polarized' discussions of one or other calculator (let's talk about RED LED?), is all matters of personal taste. I would love to have a RED LED HP-42S... (I'll build one some day)

I'm not a expert in the mathematics field, but I like it very much and I keep learning, in special in this excellent forum!

Best regards to all,

Nelson

(12345 to delete)

Edited: 18 Nov 2003, 8:46 a.m.

                  
Please: help for translating...
Message #15 Posted by R Lion on 18 Nov 2003, 9:25 a.m.,
in response to message #13 by HP-Calc-Collector

Quote:
...your living place within some corruption-ridden country...
I can't understand the meaning of that, posted for the anonymous HP-Calc-Collector... Could someone help me? Thanks in advance.

Raul L(Spain)

Edited: 18 Nov 2003, 11:01 a.m.

                        
Re: Please: help for translating...
Message #16 Posted by David Brunell on 18 Nov 2003, 12:48 p.m.,
in response to message #15 by R Lion

Any country which has a system of taxation that allows politicians to take money from some people and use it to buy votes from others is "corruption ridden." That includes every country I know of, including my home country, the USA. Sadly, it wasn't always that way here.

I, as an electrical engineer, utilize complex numbers quite frequently, in both polar and rectangular form. Often, I will need to do a few quick calculations on the stack if I am analyzing a small circuit. Here, the 42S or 48 series is preferable to the 15C and 41C since the former allow both real and complex parts to be visible simultaneously. (I admit to using my TI-92 most of the time for these calculations however.)

I think there are polite and impolite ways to disagree with someone, and most of what has been posted in this thread so far is impolite. If you have strong emotions against someone's point of view, it is better to just let it slide than to resort to inflamed rhetoric and personal attacks.

Regards,

David

Edited: 18 Nov 2003, 12:56 p.m.

                              
Re: Please: help for translating...
Message #17 Posted by R Lion on 18 Nov 2003, 1:43 p.m.,
in response to message #16 by David Brunell

Thanks David... and I'm wondering why this guy (?) talk about Spain in this way.
Definitely, I don't like these masked contributors.

                                    
Re: Please: help for translating...
Message #18 Posted by Dave Hicks on 18 Nov 2003, 3:55 p.m.,
in response to message #17 by R Lion

Quote:
and I'm wondering why this guy (?) talk about Spain in this way.

Spain? When I read that, I assumed Valentin must live in my country. Must be the cold making me cynical today...

                                          
Dave: thanks for your work and hospitality (no text)
Message #19 Posted by R Lion on 18 Nov 2003, 4:59 p.m.,
in response to message #18 by Dave Hicks

                  
Re: Is this what your dusty life is all about?
Message #20 Posted by Angel Martin on 18 Nov 2003, 1:47 p.m.,
in response to message #13 by HP-Calc-Collector

Just keep the stereotypes aside, would you?

Best, AM.

            
Re: It's amazing (!)
Message #21 Posted by Vincent Weber on 18 Nov 2003, 8:47 a.m.,
in response to message #12 by Valentin Albillo

Mr Albillo,

If you are such a sociable person, you probably know that on a forum, you are not judged on what you are, but on what you display. And I can ensure you that what you display is pretty nasty. No personal attacks ? Let me laugh. Your post is full on assumptions about my education & background, and is litterally filled with hatred. What don't you go and read it again ?

Anyway, if you want to focus on technical issues, it is fine with me. Your agressivity was the first thing I noticed in your post, but on second reading, I found that besides the tone, your statements are also very debatable.

Probably living a deep love story with your HP-15C, you seem to have interpreted my post as "The HP-15C is lousy" while the essence of my message was clearly "The HP-15C is a very fine machine, with quite a few nice advantages over the 41C, but the 41C owner can overcome these". Since you wrote litterally on July 21st "There's almost nothing you could do with a real or emulated (not simulated) HP-15C that you won't be able to do with this emulated 41C", you obviously have radically changed ideas in the past three months, given the space you devote to (passionnately) demonstrate the hidden depth of this "almost nothing".

Besides, you take the "geek" approach while I was taking the "user" approach, which of course leads to some miscommunication. Examples:

"You're comparing a built-in *microcoded feature* versus an *RPN program*. That's not fair."

Yes, it is very true. Yes, the microcode features are far more optimized than RPN programs, I have noticed this, despite my mental disabibilities, thank you. So what ?? Does it change the fact that, from a USER perspective, MEDIT and CFIT are more user-friendly ? My point is not to be "fair", this is not a war against your beloved HP-15C, which I love too. The thing is, the user does not care of whether the routines he uses are optimized or not. He will care only as far as speed is concerned - and despite its great optimization, speed is not the 15C's main asset anyway, right ?

"Very easy to program ? With full accuracy for all the x range ? You're utterly misinformed, please do yourself a favor and read "Mathematics Written in Sand" by Mr. Kahan. A little mathematical and algorithmical culture will do you well".

On www.rskey.org, there is a fairly good '41 program to compute the Gamma function. It may not be as precise than the one for the HP-15C, though, I agree. And so what ? Again, from a USER perspective, I do not care that much if I miss one decimal on the Gamma function. You will tell me that it is because I do not use the Gamma function often and you will be right. Does it justify your agressivity ? As for "my mathematical and algoritmical culture", thanks for caring. FYI - I developped alone a Nortel voice/video/data network simulator for SITA/Equant (the largest telecommunication network in the world) 7 years ago, which is still used as a corporate standard today. The tool computes all routes & network metrics with one-bit precision and uses artificial intelligence techniques to build the topology in a couple of minutes on a simple PC, which the native Nortel tool could not achieve on a high-end workstation in hours So, I believe that I know a little more about algorithms and optimization that you may think. Before you judge people with contempt I suggest that you try to know them first.

"And, quite useless ? A random number generator ? Really, this is the point when I'm thinking I'm wasting my time with you, as you seem so painfully uninformed of all things mathematic. I could give you dozens of random number generator's applications, both real-life and theoretical, but this is not the place for it.Do your homework, read a little, and get informed yourself, I'm not doing it for you."

There are indeed many such applications, which I am well aware of, thanks again for caring about my education. Personnally, I just don't need this on a *programmable calculator*, because the range of applications I use nowadays (matrixes, statistics, finance) do not require it. It seems that it makes me sub-human for you. Sorry !

"Good reasoning. The fact that you don't want to use a feature, because you're afraid of it or you don't see its potential, automatically means that feature is useless. For anyone. Banned out of existence. Counts for nothing. I like your style. Your reviews are great. You should consider doing some reviews of TI models, SHARP models, etc. BASIC ? Who needs BASIC ? It opens the door to spaghetti code ... Ugh !"

This sounds as if I had stated "All the pigs who are using direct line addressing should be shot at once". Mr Albillo, you definitely know how to write; the next step for you would be to learn how to read... (You see, it is not difficult to be sarcastic and nasty: I can do it too !).

"That's it. I've had enough of you. I'm certainly wasting my time trying to maintain a meaningful e-conversation with you as you're so painfully devoid of the minimum required knowledge and objectivity to rationally discuss the matters at issue."

All, please note that this is an "answer" to my comments in the use of complex numbers in electronics. Besides the insults, I do not see any argumented answer. Perphaps Mr. Albillo is an expert in electronics, and my opinion on complex numbers is so grossly ridiculous that every engineer would agree with it ? I guess that in your mind, the electronics engineer who posted recently that he has no use for a complex stack is also an idiot, then. Because of course, you are THE expert in everything - mathematics, electronics and real world applications ?

"As I said before, I like your reviewing style. Fair, knowledgeable, objective, comprehensive ... chapeau !"

...And I really enjoy yours: Argumented, constructive, pleasant, respectful of others' points of view: bellissimo !

Your sincerely,

V.W.

            
Re: It's amazing (!)
Message #22 Posted by Wayne Brown on 18 Nov 2003, 8:52 a.m.,
in response to message #12 by Valentin Albillo

Quote:
I make a derogatory (but rationalized and documented) comment on the *technical* abilities and sheer lack of objectiveness *in reviewing some devices* that some person evidences, without ever saying a word (or even subtly mentioning) any other aspects of said person's private life or attitude towards life in general, which I profoundly ignore and couldn't care less, and all I get are *personal* (not "technical") attacks, in the most derogatory terms possible, with bold statements about my "emotional IQ", my "social abilities", hastily quantizing the "time I spend with my friends and family", the "obsolescence of the hardware I deal with" ...

... which of course *none* of the persons uttering such has the *slightest* idea about whatsoever. In other words, a completely irrational, venomous attack, which only tries to pathetically retaliate some alleged "offence" by gratuitously and furiously trying to hurt the alleged 'offender', which is even kindly 'invited' to leave the forum.


Well, sorry, but I see all of the following comments not as "derogatory (but rationalized and documented) comment on the *technical* abilities and sheer lack of objectiveness *in reviewing some devices* that some person evidences" but as a "venomous attack" on Mr. Weber personally.

Quote:
You're utterly misinformed, please do yourself a favor and read "Mathematics Written in Sand" by Mr. Kahan. A little mathematical and algorithmical culture will do you well.
Quote:
Really, this is the point when I'm thinking I'm wasting my time with you, as you seem so painfully uninformed of all things mathematic. I could give you dozens of random number generator's applications, both real-life and theoretical, but this is not the place for it.Do your homework, read a little, and get informed yourself, I'm not doing it for you.
Quote:
Will you fault the HP-15C for the shortcomings of your emulator, as you're faulting it for *your* mathematical shortcomings ?
Quote:
That's it. I've had enough of you. I'm certainly wasting my time trying to maintain a meaningful e-conversation with you as you're so painfully devoid of the minimum required knowledge and objectivity to rationally discuss the matters at issue.

The last of these "comments" is the worst. (I found the tone of many of your other comments to be offensive, but have limited myself to quoting the most egregious.) Had Mr. Weber himself behaved in an obnoxious or condescending manner I would have had no problem with you reponding in kind, regardless of whether the technical points he made were right or wrong. But his was a polite and friendly note, and there was no excuse for your vicious response even if he were 100% wrong and you were 100% right.

My disagreement is not with your technical issues but with the insulting manner in which you choose to present them. In the disputes you've had with others here on the Forum I've often agreed more with your positions than with the positions of some of the others. However, I find that I hold those others in higher regard than I hold you. Why do you suppose that is?

            
I am saddened
Message #23 Posted by bill platt on 18 Nov 2003, 11:44 a.m.,
in response to message #12 by Valentin Albillo

Hello Valentin, Hello Vincent,

I am more deeply saddened by this episode than perhaps I would have expected. During the relatively brief period over which I have followed this forum, I have been delighted by the sense of cooperation and sharing, Sure, there have been occasional flames, and some "interlopers" coming in to stir up off-topic trouble. But these moments have been rare.

By and large, this forum has been a remarkable achievement--an international cast of characters, ever-changing, yet ever-present. A sense of community. A sense of, "If I give something here, I will receive even more, but it feels good to give here, so I'll keep giving."

And we have personality! Valentin, the sometimes fiesty mathematiitian; Luiz, the warm and generous Brazilian, with words of encouragement for those with a hardware problem; Nelson, the amazing hardware guy...Wlodek, the legend; Hrast, Christophe, Miendert---these guys make *real* amazing things, and most of us just listen in awe! Randy, the professional hardware expert who has the time and patience to give us help...Norm, NORM!, life would not be the same without him! (He even writes songs.....) And there are so many others---it would be 50 pages to recognize all the personalities here, and the nice things they have done (thanks Katie for helping me with a bad scan of an HP45).... And it would be sad if either Vincent or Valentin departed...they both have interesting things to say.

SO,

I do think Valentin went too personal and cutting---but I hope it was just one of those "lost in translation" episodes...remember, some of our favorite contributors are not english first.... Or maybe it's like when you tell a sarcasm on the phone or with your head turned---it comes out all wrong without the face to belie the sarcasm!

I do hope we can see things patched up here.

And to look at this in perspective, there are other forums out there that are rude, lewd, obnoxious word-sewers. We have never had such depths as you find, for example,, at

http://www.ppi2pass.com/w-agora_eef/view.php?site=eforums&bn=eforums_eef&key=1069091623&first=1069174345&last=1068761617

Hoping for a resulotion of this conflict (and approriate apologies)

Best regards,

Bill

                  
Re: I am also saddened
Message #24 Posted by james on 18 Nov 2003, 12:23 p.m.,
in response to message #23 by bill platt

Bill, you have said exactly what I was wanting to say but was struggling as to how to say it - I have also found the recent events very sad, in particular, as up to now I have always looked on this forum as one of the last bastions of civilised discussion, in a world which rapidly becomes more uncivilised, where people were capable of disagreeing with each other without resorting to personal attacks.

Like you, Bill, I hope that matters can be resolved.

Best, James

                  
Re: I am saddened
Message #25 Posted by Vincent Weber on 19 Nov 2003, 5:18 a.m.,
in response to message #23 by bill platt

Hi Bill,

Thanks for your kind and wise words. I am also saddened, all the more that I used to have a lot of respect for Valentin's posts. I actually love both HP-41C and HP-15C, in fact, I own one 41CV and one 41CX, but I am not lucky enough to own any module or a HP-15C. I purchased a nice Ipaq 1940 PocketPC, where I can run both an HP-41 emulator with all modules and an HP-15C simulator from Lygea. I wanted to choose once for all which one to use, and tried to persuade myself that I would not need the HP-15C with all the functionality of the 41C; hence my post to show that the HP-41C owner can live without the nice touches on the HP-15C. My goal was actually to be challenged, I would have loved a constructive reply to tell me "You should use the 15C instead" - that's a nice verbal game. When I saw that the first reply was from Valentin, I was really excited to read it ! My joy was short, though. I felt really insulted a first time, and a second time shortly after ("It's amazing !"), when Valentin refused to take any kind of responsability whatsoever in what happened, and put all the blame to others. Out of anger, I replied to him in the same kind of tone which he used with me, not to take revenge, but in the hope that this would trigger some positive reaction and that he would realize that such behaviour is not acceptable.

I have cooled down now, and I would like to tell Valentin that I am sorry both for giving him the impression that I was looking down on the HP-15C, and then for imitating his behaviour, which was not the smartest thing to do.

I also would like to tell him that, should he realize his own mistake and apologize to me in a brief, yet sincere note, his apology will be immediately and cheerfully accepted with no fuss, and I will feel proud and honored to share opinions and ideas with such a knowledgeable person. Otherwise, well, what to do, I will just have to accept the fact that our value systems are too different for us to communicate, and I will focus on other people on this forum, who, I must say, are generally very polite and pleasant to interact with. Thanks to all of you who posted a positive note.

Cheers,

Vincent

                        
Re: I am saddened
Message #26 Posted by Valentin Albillo on 19 Nov 2003, 6:57 a.m.,
in response to message #25 by Vincent Weber

Hi, Vincent:

Vincent posted:

"I also would like to tell him that, should he realize his own mistake and apologize to me in a brief, yet sincere note, his apology will be immediately and cheerfully accepted with no fuss, and I will feel proud and honored to share opinions and ideas with such a knowledgeable person"

Thanks for your soothing message and measured words, all the more welcome as, in all honesty, I must state that no matter what particular technicalities were involved, the general tone of my reply to your original post wasn't up to the standards that must be observed between civilized, well-mannered people, and so I must sincerely apologize for any and all distress it may have caused you, because, although no offence was really intended on my part, it certainly could be construed as a blatant case of disrespect, an unfortunate state of affairs for which I'm deeply sorry.

That said, I'm the one who will be most honored to share knowledge and personal experiences with you, which can only result in our mutual enrichment. Again, thanks for your kind words and most amiable attitude and please accept once again my heartfelt apologies.

Also, to all those forum's members who kindly offered their valuable opinions and did their best to calm things down, thank you very much, your support is greatly appreciated and played a key part in helping us settle things down.

Best regards from Valentin Albillo.

                              
Re: I am saddened
Message #27 Posted by Massimo Gnerucci (Italy) on 19 Nov 2003, 7:19 a.m.,
in response to message #26 by Valentin Albillo

Well done Valentin!

Now that all is fine again could we please come back to our preferred, yet obsolete, toys?

Thanks to both parties for pissin' on the flames.

Massimo

                              
Many thanks Valentin.
Message #28 Posted by Vincent Weber on 19 Nov 2003, 7:42 a.m.,
in response to message #26 by Valentin Albillo

Dear Valentin,

I would like to deeply thank you for your kind and heartwarming words. As far as I am concerned, the issue is closed, and I am most honored to have the opportunity to discuss with you on this forum.

If you wish so and of course if you have the time, we could kick-off our discussion on two topics:

1) What do you think could be the limitations of the Lygea Pocket15C simulator (not emalator) vs. the orginal 15C ? The advantages are clear: mnemonics alpha display, light speed, 999 program steps, each matrix has the full 64 registers, display of full stack... the drawbacks are less clear to me. I suspect they might have to do with the precision of some operations. Since I own a PocketPC with Pocket15C, I could test such operations...

2) How to give the 41C the missing features from the 15C ? Any good complex stack implementation ? The RPN functions from the Advantage ROM are not really satisfactory (2-level stack, slow, no reverse trigonometrics - although Z^1/N gives *ALL* the roots of a complex number, which even the 48 does not do !); the 'CA' application from the PPC ROM is interesting, but it is a slow RPN implementation, with an "infinite" stack a-la 48 which does not allow T register replication; I don't know of any other implementation. I recently had a look at the AEC ROM, which does a good job a M-Code hyperbolics, and can also translate algebraic expressions into programs, almost like the 32SII - although not integrated with a solver, too bad. I like the 41 because I am amazed of how versatile and time-resistant a 1979 machine can be; I like the 15C for its best "power/volume" ratio and its classy design.

Cheers,

Vincent

                                    
Re: Many thanks Valentin [LONG]
Message #29 Posted by Valentin Albillo on 19 Nov 2003, 10:41 a.m.,
in response to message #28 by Vincent Weber

Hi again, Vincent:

Vincent posted:

"I would like to deeply thank you for your kind and heartwarming words. As far as I am concerned, the issue is closed, and I am most honored to have the opportunity to discuss with you on this forum."

Thanks to you for kindly accepting my apologies, the honor is mine indeed. Now, let's quickly forget this most unpleasant affair and move on :-)

"1) What do you think could be the limitations of the Lygea Pocket15C simulator (not emalator) vs. the orginal 15C ? The advantages are clear: mnemonics alpha display, light speed, 999 program steps, each matrix has the full 64 registers, display of full stack... the drawbacks are less clear to me. I suspect they might have to do with the precision of some operations."

Regrettably, I haven't had the opportunity to try Lygea's simulator so I can't comment on its strengths and weaknesses (apart from the backlabel's info :-) Accuracy should probably be greater, as it surely uses Double precision, i.e.: 17 significant digits, versus the 13-digit internal, 10-digit external available on the 15C. If it then rounds those 17 digits back to 10, *all* of them should be correct. That's *not* the case with the real 15C, where such operations as 3^201 is off by *two* counts in the last place (worst case known. See "Advanced Functions" manual).

Things I would look for include checking if absolutely all (400+) functions available in the 15C are indeed implemented, and with the exact same behavior. For instance, if you want to try a few:

  • Does the display blink continuously when some operation results in overflow ? If yes, does "backarrow" stop the blinking ? Does CF 9 stop the blinking ? Does any other key or operation stop the blinking ? Does SF 9 start the blinking again ?

  • When running a program, do "user STO" and "user RCL" automatically skip the next step when the last element is processed ?

  • When running a program, does MATRIX 7 (Frobenius norm) automatically skip the next step if the contents of the X register is *not* a matrix descriptor ?

  • When running a program, does SOLVE automatically skip the next step if no root was found ? Does INTEGRATE skip the next step if the final value didn't meet the precision requirements after reaching the internal maximum iteration limit ?

  • Do all complex multi-valued functions have the same branch cuts as in the HP-15C ? Check square root, exp, log, and hyperbolics

  • Do the results agree with the real 15C for inverses, determinants and system solutions for singular or very nearly singular matrices ? I would try all the examples in "Advanced Functions", just to be sure

  • Does the random number generator mimic the results of the one in the real 15C ? If not, does it pass the Spectral Test (as the real 15C does) ?

  • Does [Pi] [STO #RAN] [RCL #RAN] produce 0.3141592654 ? Same with 9.999999999E99, -9.999999999E99, 9.999999999E-99, -9.999999999E-99

  • Does line number branching work the same as in the real 15C ? I would check with out-of-range, negative, and non-integer values in I.

  • Does GTO I work correctly when I contains a matrix descriptor ?

  • if you are in complex mode, can you store a matrix descriptor in both the real X-register *and* the imaginary X-register ? What does it do if you then press [+] or [-] ?

  • Are both RCL DIM (i) and RCL DIM I legal instructions ? What do they do ?

I know you don't have a real HP-15C for checking these questions, but do check them on your simulator, if you want to, and we can compare results afterwards.

"2) How to give the 41C the missing features from the 15C ? Any good complex stack implementation ?"

I wrote a very good one as part of an HP-41C Solutions Book published locally (Matematica Avanzada). It's never been published elsewhere, but regrettably I don't have a copy of the book right now. I know I *do* have the original listings and documentation, but they're buried in a 4-feet stack of old listings and calculator docs and materials, and it would take some time to search for it, then retyping it all in a word processor. I'll do it, eventually, but it will take some time. I remember it accurately implemented an RPN complex stack just as a user would expect it, including all functions and functionalities, even complex store and recall, programmability, anything. It was a large, carefully crafted program and it certainly delivered the goods. I found it superior in usability to even the HP-15C's native complex mode, as it offered important extra functionality, such as complex storage/recall. It also had a novel and imaginative solution for conveniently implementing complex numbers entry and display.

"I like the 41 because I am amazed of how versatile and time-resistant a 1979 machine can be; I like the 15C for its best "power/volume" ratio and its classy design."

After all is said and done, the 41C is the best machine, no question. But the comparison will never be fair, as they simply aren't in the same league and besides, they weren't designed to compete but to complement each other. Matter of fact, many an HP-41C owner would also buy an HP-15C as well, to carry along all the time, whatever the place.

As a pure number-crunching calculator (not computer, not system, not expandable, not essentially programmable, ultra-pocketable, rugged, batteries last forever, highest quality keyboard and display), the HP-15C is arguably the best, all places, all times. As an essentially programmable, ultra-advanced calculator-cum-computer (expandable, configurable, customizable, portable, powerful, groundbreaking) the HP-41 is best, no question.

... and nevertheless, it doesn't really matter, as most any contemporary SHARP models (and even some CASIOs) can run rings around them both ... ;-) No flames, please, just kidding ! :-)

Best regards from V.

                                          
Matematica Avanzada?
Message #30 Posted by Angel Martin on 19 Nov 2003, 3:19 p.m.,
in response to message #29 by Valentin Albillo

Valentin,

If you finally succeed digging out your originals, I'd be more that interested! I'm not an expert on high level math, but have a deep fondness for those areas I studied while in college, many moons ago.

The HP solutions book is a good start, but in many respects it leaves quite some room for improvement. What a shame hp never took real advantage (pun intended) of the Advantage ROM! Anyway, as I said I'd love to see your programs - and of course, documentation in Spanish won't be a bit of a problem :-)

Best wishes y saludos, Angel

                                                
Re: Matematica Avanzada?
Message #31 Posted by Valentin Albillo on 21 Nov 2003, 12:14 p.m.,
in response to message #30 by Angel Martin

Hola, Angel:

Angel posted:

"If you finally succeed digging out your originals, I'd be more that interested! I'm not an expert on high level math, but have a deep fondness for those areas I studied while in college, many moons ago."

Thanks for your interest in my programs, and in Mathematics in general as well. Seems we share at least two main hobbies ...

"The HP solutions book is a good start, but in many respects it leaves quite some room for improvement."

Indeed ! Not just "some room" but cathedral-size room, at least for mathematical topics. I still remember the dreadful programs in the original Math ROM for the HP-41C. When I heard that ROM announced, I was all too eager and excited to lay my hands on one, assuming it would be full of quality, highly optimized programs and algorithms. Well, it was so bad as to be nearly unusable, it wasn't optimized but very nearly "pessimized". In short, I thought it was so bad that I gave it for free to somebody, not wanting to waste up a worthwhile port with that sloppy, unlovingly-written rubbish.

Solution Books for math topics weren't much good either, and HP Spain did know that, because both Fernando del Rey and me were all too happy to let them know, so they commisioned us to write several Solution Books to be published locally. I remember three: "HP-34C Advanced Mathematics", "HP-34C Physics & Chemistry Solutions" and "HP-41C Advanced Mathematics". They each had some 20-25 high-quality, ultra-optimized user code programs, *lovingly* written by Fernando (50%) and me (50%), with full documentation and examples. I still have one of these books, namely "HP-34C Advanced Mathematics" (courtesy of Fernando del Rey, I sent my one-and-only copy down under, to Australian's PPC Melbourne Chapter), but also keep the original listings and documentation for all of them. If only I would find them ! ... :-(

"What a shame hp never took real advantage (pun intended) of the Advantage ROM!"

Yes, HP was already showing signs of decadence back then, but Grapevine did publish a number of very interesting books and leaflets on the Advantage ROM. I happen to own three:

- Using your Advantage ROM: Statics for Students"

- Using your Advantage ROM: Electrical Circuits for Students"

- Using your Advantage ROM: Computer Science"

The last one did include a long, complex program to try and simulate most HP-16C functionalities on a 41C, quite successfully by the way.

"Anyway, as I said I'd love to see your programs - and of course, documentation in Spanish won't be a bit of a problem :-)"

If I can locate them and get some scraps of free time, I'll make them publicly available, but the documentation will have to be in English, to make them more easily accessible for a wider, international audience.

Muchas gracias por tu interes, y saludos. No viviras por Madrid, verdad ?

                                                      
Re: Matematica Avanzada?
Message #32 Posted by Angel Martin on 21 Nov 2003, 2:06 p.m.,
in response to message #31 by Valentin Albillo

Valentin,

I'm also *fine* with English documentation, as a matter of fact, it is probably better.

I was wondering whether you ever came across the AECROM module? The reason why I mention it is because its hyperbolics MCODE functions. I've been meaning to get my MCODE scalpo and extirpate them from the AECROM and into my SANDROM, which I'm now extending to an 8k-module, and thus will have plenty of math functions.

I know they make use of the 41 internal routines, so supposedly they should retain the same internal precision as the EXP (and LN for the inverses) functions, albeit I suppose this gets impacted by the repetitive calling of them? (I'm showing my ignorance here). This touches upon something I've been wondering for a while: what's a good method to evaluate/check the calculation precision?

I'll work on this a little tonight, will keep you posted.

Best, AM

PS. Aun siendo de Madrid (c/San Bernardo para ser precisos) me temo que actualmente vivo bastante lejos: cerca de Karlsruhe, en Alemania... nadie es perfecto :-)

                                                      
Re: Matematica Avanzada?
Message #33 Posted by Ed Look on 21 Nov 2003, 6:23 p.m.,
in response to message #31 by Valentin Albillo

Valentin,

I would be very very interested in seeing your chemistry and physics applications materials for the 34C. I understand that you don't have the actual booklets, but any format, compressed text files, copies on regular paper sent in an envelope requiring stamps (I would gladly pay postage, etc.). I am no mathematician nor programmer by any stretch of anyone's imagination, but these materials perhaps I can really use.

                                                            
Re: Matematica Avanzada?
Message #34 Posted by Valentin Albillo on 22 Nov 2003, 8:13 p.m.,
in response to message #33 by Ed Look

Hi, Ed:

Thanks for your interest, but the problem is, not only I don't have the actual printed Solution Books, but further I don't have the originals exactly located ! I know I still have them, but 'buried' among many other articles, papers, magazines, etc, etc, in a 4- or 5-feet stack at home. It will be a major task organizing and classifying all that information, then I would need to translate them into English (as the original documentation is in Spanish), then retype or scan them in orden to make them distributable in electronic format.

Regrettably I can't allocate the time all of this would require right now, but if I ever manage to do it all, they will be made publicly available and I'll post a note in this forum to let you know.

Again, thanks for your interest and

Best regards from V.

                                                                  
Re: Matematica Avanzada?
Message #35 Posted by Ed Look on 22 Nov 2003, 9:22 p.m.,
in response to message #34 by Valentin Albillo

Valentin, no problem. I don't use the 34C much anymore for any real work, anyway; I thought perhaps I could easily translate them to my 32SII (much similarity between those two in many ways).

Puedo leer un poco espanol. Actualmente, estudie espanol desde el grado seis hasta universidad... pero no puedo hablar espanol no mas... solamente puedo leer y escribir un poco. Si encontraria los materiales in el futuro, yo los aceptaria alegremente.

Okay... no more Spanish tonight. That was too long ago. (Sorry!) (Pain inside cranium...)

                                                      
Re: Matematica Avanzada?
Message #36 Posted by Angel Martin on 23 Nov 2003, 3:23 p.m.,
in response to message #31 by Valentin Albillo

Well, it's done: from now on the SANDBOX ROM will include the three main Hyperbolic functions and their inverses.

It looks like I could locate and transcribe the code from the AECROM, which in turn uses internal mainframe routines.

Riding on this fortunate success, I took upon writing a new MCODE function to calculate the roots of a quadratic equation: ax^2 + bx + c =0

The user inputs a,b,c in the stack, the results are left in Y and X, as the two real roots (Z contains 1) or as the real and imaginary parts of the conjugated comlpex roots (Z contains -1).

Another function also implemented is for the constant (not the function) Gamma de Euler, i.e. 5,772156649 E-01, as it shows up relatively frequently.

Any suggestions for further MATH functions or routines, anyone?

Best,

AM

                                          
Re: Many thanks Valentin [LONG]
Message #37 Posted by Vincent Weber on 19 Nov 2003, 11:47 p.m.,
in response to message #29 by Valentin Albillo

Hi Valentin

" Thanks to you for kindly accepting my apologies, the honor is mine indeed. Now, let's quickly forget this most unpleasant affair and move on :-)"

My pleasure. Yes, let's move on ! :-)

"That's *not* the case with the real 15C, where such operations as 3^201 is off by *two* counts in the last place (worst case known. See "Advanced Functions" manual)".

Unfortunately, I do not own a real 15C.I have been searching for one for month in Singapore... I managed to get one 41CV, one 41CX, one 42S and one 32SII. 15C, niet - probably the owners are too attached to it to sell it... ;) I don't own the "Advanced functions" either - it does not seem to be available on the Internet... So, we will complement each other: I will tell you the behaviour of Pocket15C, and you will be able to compare it with the real behaviour :)

3x201 answers 7.968419666E95 on Pocket15C, and 7.96841966626E95 on my 48GX. It seems that the first 10 digits are correct then ?

"Does the display blink continuously when some operation results in overflow ? If yes, does "backarrow" stop the blinking ? Does CF 9 stop the blinking ? Does any other key or operation stop the blinking ? Does SF 9 start the blinking again ?"

The display does not blink: as explicitely documented by Lygea, the digits turns red instead. However, the behaviour seems to be the same than on the real 15C, i.e. both "backarraw" and CF 9 get the digit back to black, while SF9 get them back to red.

"When running a program, do "user STO" and "user RCL" automatically skip the next step when the last element is processed ?"

I have tried the following programs:

User STO --------

001 f LBL A 002 3 003 ENTER 004 3 005 f DIM A 006 f MATRIX 1 007 f LBL 0 008 R/S 009 USER STO A 010 GTO 0 011 1 012 2 013 3 014 RTN

After inputing 9 elements, the program exists the "infinite" loops and displays "123" which I believe is the expected behaviour.

USER RCL (lauched immediately after 'USER STO') --------

001 f LBL A 002 f MATRIX 1 003 f LBL 0 004 f PSE 005 USER RCL A 006 GTO 0 007 1 008 2 009 3 010 RTN

Same bahaviour - the program successfully exists the loop.

"When running a program, does MATRIX 7 (Frobenius norm) automatically skip the next step if the contents of the X register is *not* a matrix descriptor ?"

I have tried the following programs (assuming A holds a 3x3 matrix as in the previous example):

001 f LBL A 002 RCL MATRIX A 003 f MATRIX 7 004 1 005 2 006 g RTN

Output: 12

001 f LBL A 002 0 003 f MATRIX 7 004 1 005 2 006 g RTN

Output: 2

Again it seems that the behaviour is correct.

"When running a program, does SOLVE automatically skip the next step if no root was found ? Does INTEGRATE skip the next step if the final value didn't meet the precision requirements after reaching the internal maximum iteration limit ?"

For SOLVE, I tried the following:

001 f LBL A 002 g X^2 003 1 004 + 005 g RTN

(f(x)=x^2+1, not likely to find *any* root unless the solver has been upgraded to a complex one ;))

Then:

006 f LBL B 007 f SOLVE A 008 1 009 2 010 RTN

The output is the expected "2". If I suppres the "g X^2" step in A, i.e. if I solve for X+1=0, I get "12" as an output for B.

For INTEGRATE:

I failed to reproduce this with a few examples. I am not too sure on how to get such a 'difficult' function to integrate for the 15C... Any idea ?

"Do all complex multi-valued functions have the same branch cuts as in the HP-15C ? Check square root, exp, log, and hyperbolics"

"1 ENTER f I sqrt g ->P" (in RAD modes) gives sqrt(sqrt(2)) as module and PI/8 for the principal root of 1+i = sqrt(2)*exp(i*PI/4). I would say that this is the expected behaviour ?

"1 PI 4 / f I EXP g ->P" (in RAD modes) gives the expected e as module, and PI/4 as argument.

"1 ENTER f I g LOG" gives the expected LOG(Sqrt(2)) as a real part, and PI/4/LN(10) as the imaginary part: LOG(1+i) = LOG(sqrt(2)*EXP(i*PI/4)) = LOG(sqrt(2)) + LN(EXP(i*PI/4))/LN(10) = LOG(sqrt(2) + PI/4/LN(10).

"1 ENTER f I f HYP SIN" gives the same results as with using the definition: (exp(x) - exp(-x))/2

"Do the results agree with the real 15C for inverses, determinants and system solutions for singular or very nearly singular matrices ? I would try all the examples in "Advanced Functions", just to be sure"

I can't comment on that, but I can try whatever examples you have. If I'm not wrong, that was done once on this newsgroup with correct results.

"Does the random number generator mimic the results of the one in the real 15C ? If not, does it pass the Spectral Test (as the real 15C does) ?"

I cannot comment about the results on the 15C. As for the spectral test, I heard of it, but I have no time right now to try it :)

"Does [Pi] [STO #RAN] [RCL #RAN] produce 0.3141592654 ? Same with 9.999999999E99, -9.999999999E99, 9.999999999E-99, -9.999999999E-99"

With PI, the result in 0.314159265; the others triggers an overflow (numbers become red), and the answer is either 1.0 or -1.0. Do we have a pitfall here ?

"Does line number branching work the same as in the real 15C ? I would check with out-of-range, negative, and non-integer values in I."

The bahaviour seems to be proper. Out-of-range values triggers an 'Error 4'.

"Does GTO I work correctly when I contains a matrix descriptor ?"

This does not trigger an error, but do be honest, I am not 100% sure of what this is supposed to do ?

"if you are in complex mode, can you store a matrix descriptor in both the real X-register *and* the imaginary X-register ? What does it do if you then press [+] or [-] ?"

RCL MATRIX A f I triggers an "Error 1"... I have tried that in the beginning hoping that this would have the same bahaviour as the 42S to create a complex matrix, and was disappointed when I saw that the only way to create complex matrix is to transform them from 'real' matrixes. Do you mean that this is actually supposed to work ? (forgive my ignorance - please keep in mind that I could not find a real 15C and that this simulator is all that I have !").

"Are both RCL DIM (i) and RCL DIM I legal instructions ? What do they do ?"

Both of them are legal. Assuming I contains a 3x3 matrix descriptor, RCL DIM I gives the dimensions of the matrix on the stack (3 and 3), while RCL DIM (i) gives 65, which I strongly suspect to be the number of registers used by the matrix + 1 (65 as a fixed-sized in the case of Pocket15C).

"I wrote a very good one as part of an HP-41C Solutions Book published locally (Matematica Avanzada). It's never been published elsewhere, but regrettably I don't have a copy of the book right now. I know I *do* have the original listings and documentation, but they're buried in a 4-feet stack of old listings and calculator docs and materials, and it would take some time to search for it, then retyping it all in a word processor. I'll do it, eventually, but it will take some time. I remember it accurately implemented an RPN complex stack just as a user would expect it, including all functions and functionalities, even complex store and recall, programmability, anything. It was a large, carefully crafted program and it certainly delivered the goods. I found it superior in usability to even the HP-15C's native complex mode, as it offered important extra functionality, such as complex storage/recall. It also had a novel and imaginative solution for conveniently implementing complex numbers entry and display"

I am looking forward to see it. Congrats ! :)

"... and nevertheless, it doesn't really matter, as most any contemporary SHARP models (and even some CASIOs) can run rings around them both ... ;-) No flames, please, just kidding ! :-)"

Actually, I have seen some many people bashing Casio here... while I do esteem Casio ! My first machine was a Casio fx-8000G in high-school, and was doing a good job. Casio has been innovating in may ways: in 1982, the fx-602p, while not as powerful as the HP41, was faster, with a real LCD screen; the FX-702P in 1981 was a faster competitor to the Sharp PC-1211; in 1985, Casio simply revolutionnized the market by creating the first graphing calculator (the FX-7000G) with a large screen, together with the first programmable formula-based calculator (the FX-4000P, which is an adorable little thing that I have in my collection). Speed and quality of screens were key assests to Casio in the 80's. HP28C/S came only 1/2 years later, with half of the size of the screen, and were very expansive. During my school days, the usual path was to have a Casio in high-school and to move to the prestigious new HP-48SX, which was actually my first beloved HP. It is only recently that I started to discover the virtues of older machines, such as the 41,15, and 42 :) In comparison, TI did not innovate much: With the expection of the TI-59, a prestigious machine with modules (in 1977 !) which was litterally killed by the HP-41, TI was down until the '90s (I do not think of the TI-66 as a serious rival to the HPs, and the TI-88 project was cancelled). And the machines of the '90s were actually copies of Casio (think of the TI-81, so simular to the Casio FX-7000G... 5 years later !). Only their TI-92 could 'beat' the HP48, but I do not call this a calculator anymore, given the volume and weight :) They are finally dominating the market with the TI-89, a fine but overkill machine, which is actually very recent (1998). So, long live Casio ! My 2 cents :) Cheers, Vincent

                                                
Re: Many thanks Valentin [LONG]
Message #38 Posted by Veli-Pekka Nousiainen on 20 Nov 2003, 5:44 a.m.,
in response to message #37 by Vincent Weber

To my opinion Sharp BASIC and editor is more flexible than that of CASIO. I have CASIO FX-702P and Sharp PC1261 and PC1500. Naturally HP 71B and 75C are my preferred "pocket" PC (75C is a little bit too big for my shirt pocket, I use 16C instead, I wish I had not sold my 15C, I wish HP would make 15C Platinum - or should it be "Gold") My TI was (IIRC) old LED model SR-56 or something. I still can use it as a window-door stop. # VPN #

                                                
Real HP-15C results [LONG]
Message #39 Posted by Valentin Albillo on 21 Nov 2003, 6:28 a.m.,
in response to message #37 by Vincent Weber

Hi, Vincent:

Vincent posted:

"So, we will complement each other: I will tell you the behaviour of Pocket15C, and you will be able to compare it with the real behaviour :)

That's exactly the idea ... :-) Let's see:

"3x201 answers 7.968419666E95 on Pocket15C, and 7.96841966626E95 on my 48GX. It seems that the first 10 digits are correct then ?"

Correct.

"The display does not blink: as explicitely documented by Lygea, the digits turns red instead. However, the behaviour seems to be the same than on the real 15C, i.e. both "backarraw" and CF 9 get the digit back to black, while SF9 get them back to red."

OK.

["user STO [...] I have tried the following programs [...] which I believe is the expected behaviour"

Correct.

"MATRIX 7 (Frobenius norm) [...]I have tried the following programs [...] Again it seems that the behaviour is correct."

Indeed.

"SOLVE [...] I tried the following [...]"

Again, correct.

"INTEGRATE [...] I failed to reproduce this with a few examples. I am not too sure on how to get such a 'difficult' function to integrate for the 15C... Any idea ?

Yes, you can define a "non-integrable" function (using *random numbers*, precisely ! :-) See ? They can be useful in a calculator for things other than games :-), that will fail all convergence tests thus making INTEGRATE exhaust all its allowed iterations, but it would need to evaluate your quite-complicated, random-based function 65,536 times or more, which would mean an *awful* lot of time. I suggest we give it a miss for now.

"complex branch cuts [...]"

All your many examples (thank you) give exactly the very same results, so Ok.

"inverses, determinants and system solutions for singular or very nearly singular matrices"

I suggested you could try the examples in "Advanced Functions" but since it seems you don't have a copy and typing them here would be somewhat tiring and error prone, I suggest we leave this 'parked' for now.

"random number generator"

I really don't expect them to agree at all, it would be unreasonable except in an exact emulator. The important thing would be that Lygea's RNG would pass the Spectral Test, but that you wouldn't be able to easily test in the simulator itself. It would then be a matter of whether Lygea says as much in their documentation, or else asking Lygea directly.

"Does [Pi] [STO #RAN] [RCL #RAN] produce 0.3141592654 ? Same with 9.999999999E99, -9.999999999E99, 9.999999999E-99, -9.999999999E-99 [...] With PI, the result in 0.314159265; the others triggers an overflow (numbers become red), and the answer is either 1.0 or -1.0. Do we have a pitfall here ?"

Yes, we do. The real HP-15C never gives an error, and RCL RAN# gives 0.9999999999 (ten '9') for the E99 ones, and 0.0000000000 (ten '0') for the E-99 ones. No numeric argument will ever give an error, no matter its value. All arguments are simply 'scaled' to be between 0 (included) and 1 (not included).

"line number branching [...] The bahaviour seems to be proper. Out-of-range values triggers an 'Error 4'."

Ok.

"Does GTO I work correctly when I contains a matrix descriptor ?" [...] This does not trigger an error, but do be honest, I am not 100% sure of what this is supposed to do ?"

If I contains the matrix descriptor for matrix A, then GTO I should go to LBL A, likewise with B,C,D,and E.

"if you are in complex mode, can you store a matrix descriptor in both the real X-register *and* the imaginary X-register ? [...] Do you mean that this is actually supposed to work ?

No, it isn't. It was kind of a *negative* test, to see if the simulator would do something that the real HP-15C doesn't (but presumably could). So, correct behavior again.

"RCL DIM (i) and RCL DIM I [...]"

Correct again. It gives 19 instead of 65 on a just-reset HP-15C, but it corresponds to the present allocation, like the 65 does in your simulator.

Conclusion:

All in all, I think your simulator does pass most compatibility tests with flying colors, better than I expected. However, it does seem likely (to me) that it won't give the exact same results for these operations:

  • Inverse, determinant, and system solving for *exactly* singular or very nearly singular matrices.

    This has to be tested, but I fully expect different results, based on the proprietary things the real 15C does with these kinds of matrices and the fact that the simulator actually works to significantly greater precision.

  • Random number generator.

    This most likely doesn't mimic the one in the HP-15C and the only 'important' thing is whether it passes the Spectral test (as the real HP-15C's RNG actually does) or not. This can most likely be ascertained by asking Lygea's directly.

  • Extra-precision, non-documented features

    The real HP-15C does perform some Sigma-Plus and Sigma-Minus operations and related statistics with extra precision, and this can be cleverly exploited in very specific user programs, as the one featured in "Advanced Functions" to accurately solve a most difficult case of 2nd-degree equation. I don't think that such program would run in your simulator, it would be necessary to key it in and see what the output is.

  • Miscellaneous functions

    We've seen that STO RAN# and RCL RAN# do not work the same as they do in the real HP-15C for some arguments, and there are probably many other functions and features that could be tested as well. I'm thinking about Py,x and Cy,x for certain values of x and y, and other such cases, like Sin and Cos of *extremely* large arguments, where the internal argument reduction modulus 360 or 2*Pi could be computed differently in the real HP-15C and the simulator, etc.

Given enough time, it would be interesting to create an "HP-15C Simulators' Test Suite", comprising a certain number of specific calculations, programs, routines, and behavior that would be tried on any aspiring HP-15C simulator to give it a 'degree' of compatibility. Such tests do exist for compiler languages, Java and BASIC for instance, and are extensively used for standardization, normalization and certification.

I'd say that Lygea's simulator gets probably a 95% compatibility or better, and the remaining 5% is not all that important, anyway.

Thanks for this most interesting exchange and

Best regards from V.

                                                      
Re: Real HP-15C results [LONG]
Message #40 Posted by Vincent Weber on 23 Nov 2003, 9:42 p.m.,
in response to message #39 by Valentin Albillo

Hi Valentin,

Great that this testing helped you to conclude that Lygea's job is not that bad :) Actually I like their program very much. There are a couple of things I do not like with it, though, among which: 1) Holding 'SST' and 'BST' keys does not automatically scroll the program steps, as in the real HP-15C. This is documented by Lygea, but they do not explain why they did not implement this nice, yet simple to code, feature. 2) They did not use the freedom that a simulator gives over an emulator to make the registers complex and to 'STO' and 'RCL' complex numbers in one instruction (which would increase the interest of the complex implementation tremendously). 3) Their 'Help' file is nice, but somehow too succint for somebody like me who never had a chance to own a real 15C with manuals. 4) There is no possibility to import/export program (apart from the possibility of manually copying the memory image file from your PocketPC to another one, or to/from a PC).

Apart from these weaknesses, this is a very neat program.

For integrating a function with random numbers, yes, I see why it should give you problems... :) First, probably such a function is not continuous (?) and I vaguely remember from my math courses that a non-continuous function could still be integrated, but under specific conditions to make the Riemman or Cauchy sums converge....

Btw - I know that on the 15C flag 8 is for complex mode and Flag 9 for overflow. Do flags 0-7 have specific meaning ? Especially: is there a '41 equivalent of the useful 41 features to detect if a the user is performing numerical input (I think it is flag 22 if I remember correctly), so that you could easily program an interactive solver that would either set the value for a variable or solve for it depending on whether or not you are typing a number ? This is where I think Lygea' help file falls short - there is no description of flags whatsoever.

Cheers,

Vincent

                                                            
Re: Real HP-15C results [LONG]
Message #41 Posted by Valentin Albillo on 24 Nov 2003, 10:32 a.m.,
in response to message #40 by Vincent Weber

Hi, Vincent:

Vincent posted:

"Do flags 0-7 have specific meaning ? Especially: is there a '41 equivalent of the useful 41 features to detect if a the user is performing numerical input (I think it is flag 22 if I remember correctly)"

Regrettably the answers are "no" and "no". Flags 0-7 are "user flags", devoid of any special significance to the system which never uses them at all, while flags 8-9 are "system flags", used for complex mode and overflow signaling as you're well aware.

So, there aren't any system flags which will detect numerical (or otherwise) input, a la 41C (the HP-67/97 also had some flag support for this feature as well, where flag 3 would be set for data entry).

Ah, and by the way, check your e-mail ... :-)

Best regards from V.

                                                
Performance Tests?
Message #42 Posted by Patrick on 22 Nov 2003, 6:34 p.m.,
in response to message #37 by Vincent Weber

Hi Vincent

I admit I haven't read your detailed posting carefully, but I was wondering if you have undertaken any benchmarks comparing the 15C simulator against the real thing? Of course, it would depend on the PPC hardware upon which you performed the test, but would still be interesting to me.

Cheers, Patrick

                                                      
Re: Performance Tests?
Message #43 Posted by Vincent Weber on 23 Nov 2003, 9:31 p.m.,
in response to message #42 by Patrick

Hi Patrick,

Such a benchmark would actually be irrelevant, as the simulator is so fast that every operation gives an *immediate* answer. Even solving for a root in an equation gives an answer as if it was a mere addition. This is due to the fact that the program does not emulate the hardware, but code every operation natevely - which is a real piece of cake for any PPC... That's the advantage of a simulator over an emulator (together with the extra memory and the alphanumeric display of program steps).

Cheers,

Vincent

                                    
Re: Many thanks Valentin.
Message #44 Posted by Veli-Pekka Nousiainen on 19 Nov 2003, 12:13 p.m.,
in response to message #28 by Vincent Weber

Vincent wrote: "although Z^1/N gives *ALL* the roots of a complex number, which even the 48 does not do !);"

Z^1/N on the 4XG series: -5^(1/4)

[1. 0. 0. 0. 5.] PROOT gives all roots at once!

Let's start a flame-war Vincent! # VPN #

                              
The way things should be... (edited)
Message #45 Posted by Vieira, Luiz C. (Brazil) on 19 Nov 2003, 8:24 a.m.,
in response to message #26 by Valentin Albillo

Hi, Valentin;

once, sometime ago, I wrote you an e-mail, and you may remember it well. In brief, I mentioned my own feelings for your positive, chalenging participations. I'd not change a dot on it. I keep it the way it is.

I'm honored visiting and contributing on a place shared with you all (I'm trying to be more frequent).

Best regards.

Luiz (Brazil)

Edited: 19 Nov 2003, 1:47 p.m. after one or more responses were posted

                                    
Luiz: glad to "see" you here again! (no text)
Message #46 Posted by R Lion (España) on 19 Nov 2003, 8:53 a.m.,
in response to message #45 by Vieira, Luiz C. (Brazil)

                              
Re: I am saddened - Well done, Valentin
Message #47 Posted by Juan J on 19 Nov 2003, 5:13 p.m.,
in response to message #26 by Valentin Albillo

Hello Valentin,

Reconforting to read your kind words to Vincent. And good to see an issue like this settled in such a polite manner. Appropriate for a smart person like you. Well done, period.

My 2 cents.

            
Re: It's amazing (!)
Message #48 Posted by Andy Agui on 18 Nov 2003, 10:05 p.m.,
in response to message #12 by Valentin Albillo

Well it seems that we have gone off the topic: the HP 15C is a clever machine, but not the best, that is just and opinion and the hp 15C, cannot answer many problems,like the reductment of mass, in the transcision of matter to plasma occurs, with the increasement of speed.

I understand Mr. Albillo, Spanish is ( in my opinion,one of the best language to describe science, therefore the technical knowledge that mister Albillo possessed.

But they also taugh us something ( Spanish citizens ) in the schools:

" la verdad pure y sencilla, es raramente pura y pocas veces sencilla,. He alli el dicho: Yo solo se que no se nada"

Trans:

" the pure and simple truth, is rarely pure and not always simple, therefore the cry: I just know, that nothing I know"...

Andy Agui

      
Re: OK folks, nothin to see here, move along...
Message #49 Posted by jimc on 18 Nov 2003, 12:52 p.m.,
in response to message #1 by Vincent Weber

I think Bill Platt in this thread put it best when he said that our forum has personality. I would say that we have personality plus.

Such passions are admirable, but we must realize that email allows us certain liberties that face to face discussions would not. Let's all be grownups, shake hands and let us agree to disagree. Using email, there never will be a final word, it will be a never ending thread, belittling to both writers and readers.

My enjoyment of a quality product is lifted by the passion that both of you have for your respective machines. THAT is what HP calcs are about.

12345

      
Let's try to cool it
Message #50 Posted by Dave Hicks on 18 Nov 2003, 2:42 p.m.,
in response to message #1 by Vincent Weber

Hi everyone,

I attached this to the top post in this thread though it's not a reply to any particular person. Also, I have a cold at the moment so my head isn't clear enough to know "who started it".

I've been hiding in my cave working on a new version of the forum software so I haven't been following the forum closely for some time. (And if any of you are waiting a long time for an email response, I'm sorry about that but my inbox has gotten awfully deep lately - I'll try to catch up soon.)

Let's try to remember that these are all opinions and opinions will vary. Something like the Advantage Pac which was an option to update an older top-of-the-line calculator to be more competitive with newer models is, I think, an inherently controversial product. Obviously in some ways the older but higher end device will be more powerful but in other ways, the add-on is likely to seem a little kludgy.

Let's also allow for the difficulties in translation. I once mentioned that someone here (for whom English is not his primary language) was using aliases to do some "disguised self-promotion" (and I also referred to it as "mostly harmless".) He emailed me demanding to know why his self-promotion was "disgusting" compared to other people on this forum. "Disguised" vs. "Disgusting": VERY similar-looking words with VERY different meanings. I have a feeling that a lot of forum battles come from similar misunderstandings.

Back in Junior high school my friend and lab partner in Chemistry was a guy from Israel who, whenever he lost an argument, said in a loud voice "You See?!" I always laughed but at the end of the term, he got an "A" and I got a "B". The professor admitted that I had higher test scores but he said "Most of the time when you guys come to me to settle your arguments, he's right so I think you just don't understand it quite as well even though you test better." Fortunately my friend was enough of a friend to explain his arguing style to the teacher, at which point the teacher realized that just about every discussion he had with us was the reverse of what he thought it was ... oops ;-)

Even if you think someone has crossed the line, please try to nudge the discussion back to technical and friendly.

By the way, the main feature of the new forum software will be to allow accounts. At first it will be just an option that will make the forum more convenient but I can flip a switch and make them required or to send any posts made without an account through me and/or other moderators for approval. I intend to leave this switch "off" for now but I can turn it on if either the spam or people posting under multiple aliases get to be "too much".

            
Re: Let's try to cool it
Message #51 Posted by R Lion on 18 Nov 2003, 3:04 p.m.,
in response to message #50 by Dave Hicks

Quote:
...or people posting under multiple aliases...
I hate it!

I can't help getting angry about that "corruption-ridden country" of HP-Calc-Collector. It's outrageous.

Edited: 18 Nov 2003, 3:05 p.m.

                  
Re: Let's try to cool it
Message #52 Posted by Victor Koechli on 18 Nov 2003, 4:37 p.m.,
in response to message #51 by R Lion

Yes, that was unnecessary, like many other things said in this thread. Let's just try to cool down and get back to our usual level, which means technical, competent and sometimes very funny. I've always liked it.

As far as anonymous comments are concerned: If it's not coming from a person, don't take it personally. Just ignore it.

Cheers, Victor

                        
Thanks, Victor, and I agree (no text)
Message #53 Posted by R Lion on 18 Nov 2003, 4:55 p.m.,
in response to message #52 by Victor Koechli

            
Re: Let's try to cool it
Message #54 Posted by GE (France) on 18 Nov 2003, 5:54 p.m.,
in response to message #50 by Dave Hicks

Hello Dave (ah 2001...), In short let me say that accounts are not necessarily a good idea. Did anyone ask for this ? Just MHO.

                  
Accounts
Message #55 Posted by Dave Hicks on 18 Nov 2003, 6:57 p.m.,
in response to message #54 by GE (France)

Over the last couple of years I've had some direct suggestions for accounts. There have also been other situations, which have suggested accounts as a solution (or at least something that would help): spam, people posting under a bunch of names (one person once made up 17 names to attack someone here), and a troll posting under the same name as a regular (intentionally.)

Mostly I'm creating accounts to have a fall-back solution to spam. At the moment we're getting 1-4 spams per day and keeping them out of most people's sight by other means but the current methods won't scale well if the spammers ramp up their efforts. For now (and maybe forever), the accounts will be optional because I prefer not to put blocks in the way of first-time posters. However, some spammers have made it clear that they're willing to abuse wide-open forums so I need a good future potential counter-measure if their volume gets to be too much for the current counter-measures. I did some reading before coding and I don't know of a more effective way to slow spam. Simple measures like IP banning no longer work because persistent forum spammers are becoming like email spamers - they set up an ISP account and spam everyone before they get cut off. Then they just set up somewhere else.

Accounts will also make the forum more convenient - once you login, you won't have to type your name, email and password to post/edit/delete. You'll have the option to have a private email address to which people can email using the forum software without seeing your actual email address. (Or you can have no email address visible/usable, or you can use an obscured address just as you can now.) You will need to provide a real/working email address for registration but this does not have to be the same one that you make visible in the forum. (If you chose to make one visible at all.)

What are your concerns about accounts?

                        
Re: Accounts
Message #56 Posted by Ernie Malaga on 19 Nov 2003, 3:19 a.m.,
in response to message #55 by Dave Hicks

Quote:
What are your concerns about accounts?

Dave, I have no concerns about accounts. In fact, I approve of the concept wholeheartedly and urge you to make them required.

Just my 2 cents.

-Ernie

                        
Re: Accounts
Message #57 Posted by R Lion(España) on 19 Nov 2003, 7:29 a.m.,
in response to message #55 by Dave Hicks

I use an account in other forum with no problems

Best regards

Raul L

                        
Accounts ? If this is the only solution... :(
Message #58 Posted by Vieira, Luiz C. (Brazil) on 19 Nov 2003, 8:13 a.m.,
in response to message #55 by Dave Hicks

Hi, all;

I'd keep myself away of the last events; no judgement, instead I have my own understanding and opinions.

If the sort of irregular events becomes unacceptable and begins to keep good people away from this heavenly place, I'd agree on placing an "account for posting". If they are somehow rare or sparse as they are now, I think it's fine. At least others will understand that the great majority won't accept these events without a fierce complaining. Please, I am keeping myself away of the events themselves because in many situations, cultural differences may become a problem when taken "as is". And even family matters may cause unnecessary discussion.

About accounts: I think that reading should be kept as free as it is, just posting should be allowed only for those who sign in. This way, anyone that wants to "visit before signing" would have the chance to know how good it is sharing his/her own experiences with ones who do the same.

Again, Dave, thank you for all your effort keeping this place as "clean and neat" as it is. I think I share the same enthusiasm as many others who want to keep it as it is.

My 2¢.

Luiz (Brazil)

Edited: 19 Nov 2003, 8:15 a.m.

                              
Re: Accounts ? If this is the only solution... :(
Message #59 Posted by Trent Moseley on 19 Nov 2003, 10:15 p.m.,
in response to message #58 by Vieira, Luiz C. (Brazil)

I agree with Luiz.

tm

                        
Re: Accounts
Message #60 Posted by Valentin Albillo on 19 Nov 2003, 9:07 a.m.,
in response to message #55 by Dave Hicks

Hi, David:

I agree with Luiz: reading posts should be free for all, no account or registering required, but posting should require a previously created account, with the user having to provide a real e-mail address where his/her initial password would be sent. Fake address = no password received.

Only users with an existing account and subject to a login procedure would be allowed to post. This would all but eliminate all spam and anonymous trolls doing their things. It would also help reduce the multiple-alias-for-the-one-and-only poster problem, etc.

Should it be not possible to allow free reading while requiring login for posting, I would opt for accounts and login in both cases.

Thanks for your efforts to improve this wonderful forum and for your disinterested and unpaid for hospitality.

Best regards from V.

                              
Re: Accounts
Message #61 Posted by Victor Koechli on 19 Nov 2003, 10:18 a.m.,
in response to message #60 by Valentin Albillo

We should, however, make an exception for Norm, as otherwise we would have to live without his multiple fake user-ID halloween posts. I would really be missing these...

Cheers, Victor

                                    
Agreed :-) [NT]
Message #62 Posted by Valentin Albillo on 19 Nov 2003, 10:43 a.m.,
in response to message #61 by Victor Koechli

Best regards from V.

                                    
Re: Accounts (Humorous)
Message #63 Posted by Paul Brogger on 19 Nov 2003, 11:02 a.m.,
in response to message #61 by Victor Koechli

Captain Zener would have to get his own email address?

Maybe, should a "registered" user choose to use a pseudonym for humorous effect, his/her actual id or email address could be included subtly, in parentheses somewhere in the message (if not the thread summary line).

Pseudonyms can be used for good as well as for ill -- the Forum would lose something special if it were to absolutely prohibit the occasional post "from" a celebrity, famous figure, or obviously fictitions persona.

                                          
Re: Accounts (Humorous)
Message #64 Posted by Matthieu on 19 Nov 2003, 11:38 a.m.,
in response to message #63 by Paul Brogger

Yes, Norm is very important for this forum! And he needs multiple means for 'being Norm'.

Some people just make the forum discussion more vivid by posting a polarizing - but NOT offending and NOT personally aggressive - thesis. Just in the way Norm does. This can create a very interesting controversial discussion from the others that often also has a high technical content.

But of course such a contributor cannot do this always by using his real name because everyone knows that, e.g., Norm would never believe ‘HP-34C is a calculator that does look like a Sharp 1500’. But if he wants to initiate a controverse discussion 'someone else' has to kick in this thesis for him (it's just an example, sorry, Norm that I used your name).

Norm, we need you … !

One further argument: Some people might be afraid to ask a 'silly' technical or mathematical question and like to ask this as a disguised guest, e.g. with some alias like 'calc_friend'. He may be afraid that other people here may disrespect him, so being excluded from future serious discussions. And since yesterday we know that this fear may be legitimate …

So, if not abused and if used in a good sense for the forum, a small number if incognito posts should be allowed ...

1234 to delete

(please delete it if you think this is complete nonsense !)

Edited: 19 Nov 2003, 12:02 p.m.

                              
Re: Accounts
Message #65 Posted by Karl Schneider on 20 Nov 2003, 2:01 a.m.,
in response to message #60 by Valentin Albillo

Dave --

Please allow me to "ditto" Valentin!

-- Karl Schneider

                        
Re: Accounts
Message #66 Posted by Thibaut.be on 19 Nov 2003, 10:18 a.m.,
in response to message #55 by Dave Hicks

Amazingly this forum is, though well known and highly frequented, not that much spammed, and most important of all, not polluted by deliberate flaming or whatsoever.

Actually this is the 4th time I've seen "serious" interpersonnal issue. I suggest that we submit a file to the Guiness Book of records, at least for the less flamed forum !

I have been visiting this site since 1998 and have always appreciate the comments of the visitors, obviously people sharing a common passion. But I was amazed by the people's politeness, willing to help, and experience. I have learned a lot mon my calculators udring all this time and I'm sure there's a lot Istill need to know.

For all this, my warmest thanks to Dave who definitely hit a very high target in terms of standards.

To anwser the question, I'd be in favour in a non mandatory account solution. Using an account would just consolidate the credibility of the existing and active visitors, while new guests will be keen on participating without an account. Should spamming and flaming be more recurrent, then we could shift to a mandatory account policy.

My 2c ...

                              
Re: Accounts
Message #67 Posted by Veli-Pekka Nousiainen on 19 Nov 2003, 12:09 p.m.,
in response to message #66 by Thibaut.be

BUT if we need to give our real addresses here, doesn't that draw spammers as a super-magnet? # VPN #

                        
Combined account responses
Message #68 Posted by Dave Hicks on 19 Nov 2003, 3:16 p.m.,
in response to message #55 by Dave Hicks

Quote:
BUT if we need to give our real addresses here, doesn't that draw spammers as a super-magnet?

When/if you register an account, you can provide up to two email addresses. The first is a real email address that is required but is used ONLY to complete the registration process. It is never shown or used for anything else. For the second address, you have the options of: using a real email address but not allowing anyone to see it (logged-in members can email via the forum software but without seeing the address), OR using a munged but visible address, OR using no address at all. (The latter two are the options that you have now.) The intent of the first option is to make the forum less of a spam magnet.

Quote:
I agree with Luiz: reading posts should be free for all, no account or registering required, but posting should require a previously created account, with the user having to provide a real e-mail address where his/her initial password would be sent. Fake address = no password received.

No account is ever required for reading even if I set the most "closed" options. For someone only reading the forum, the only change they will see is that next to " Search / Personalize Display" at the top, there will also be "login / accounts" which can be ignored for reading. Initially, you won't even have to go there to post, but if you do login, you'll see the name, email, and password fields disappear from the forums (until/unless you log out again.) Initially, creating an account and logging in for posting will be purely optional. It may stay that way forever or it could become required (but still only for posting). Or it can be set such that people who post without an account don't see their posts appear until a moderator has approved them. But again, unless we have increasing problems, accounts will stay completely optional.

(Oh and accounts are free. I have no intention of ever charging money for them nor is there any facility for payment built into the software.)

Quote:
Norm!

Hey no-one's attacking Norm! :-) I admit though that if I ever set the most "closed" option, I don't know how Norm will be able to post as various people without allowing the same for spammers and trolls. I'll take a look at that but may delay it till a later release since I plan not to use the most closed option any time soon. If it's only Norm, the simplest solution might be for me to set up several accounts for him. (But then what if the real Carly wants to sign up ;-))

                              
Re: Combined account responses
Message #69 Posted by GE (France) on 19 Nov 2003, 5:32 p.m.,
in response to message #68 by Dave Hicks

Hello, First of all I must say again that this place is totally wonderful and that you Dave are making it work. Perfection is just that : no flashy devices, no dumb colors, it just WORKS.

Why are accounts irrelevant ? Because any troll/spammer can create a 'real' email address someplace just to register here and you won't ever know she's a dog. Also if you are lucky enough to have chilfren you know that the one way to ban bad behavior is not to lock doors but to explain and convince. Also, I feel pride in seeing this forum nearly free of the usual Internet garbage/bragging/spelling mistakes/name calling etc WITHOUT any thought police at work.

Second, what if one wants to post a quick answer and/or has no plan to come back ? Put any obstacle in between and the occasional poster won't give a damn.

Third, accounts may lead to the infamous "please give me a low number Richard" disease. Those with old accounts, with many posts, would be tempted to post more, less thoughtful messages, and might despise newbies (and even overuse commas ??).

Of course the tide is coming, and we don't know what you must do to clean things behind the scene, but maybe we could just keep things as they are. After all, past the excellent platform you've set up, the most important thing here is the content.

                                    
Re: Combined account responses
Message #70 Posted by Dave Hicks on 19 Nov 2003, 6:07 p.m.,
in response to message #69 by GE (France)

Quote:
Why are accounts irrelevant ? Because any troll/spammer can create a 'real' email address someplace just to register here and you won't ever know she's a dog. Also if you are lucky enough to have chilfren you know that the one way to ban bad behavior is not to lock doors but to explain and convince. Also, I feel pride in seeing this forum nearly free of the usual Internet garbage/bragging/spelling mistakes/name calling etc WITHOUT any thought police at work.

I'm hoping that it will slow them down and send some elsewhere though. I don't know how to explain to a spammer that he should please stop now. One spammer has been spamming this forum (and others) for over a year now. He comes from different ISPs so they "get it" but he/she doesn't.

Lately, we're also getting spammed by scripts. (I can tell because no person could type 4 spams per second.) I don't know how bad all this is going to get. If there's a better defense I'd love to hear about it.

By the way, spam is already being deleted by the "thought police". As I said, we are now getting several in a typical day. I hope that doesn't destroy any illusions about this forum. It shouldn't because these people are just using big lists of forums just like email spammers do. There's nothing personal. I just don't see a need for the top 4 posts on the forum each morning to be advertisements for a company looking for people to post ads on forums ("All you have to do is type ads like this one!!!") followed by replies as to how stupid this is. (Which the spammer won't see anyway.)

Quote:
Second, what if one wants to post a quick answer and/or has no plan to come back ? Put any obstacle in between and the occasional poster won't give a damn.

Granted. This is why I don't really relish doing this. However, the furthest I would probably go is to set it up so a person without an account can post but it's viewed by a human moderator first. The UI will be just as now - only there will be delay for the message for the message to appear. (Also I have an option to automatically set new accounts to be moderated in this way so if people do create accounts just to spam, that can be controlled as well. So far, open forums are getting spammed far more than closed ones but time will tell.)

Quote:
Third, accounts may lead to the infamous "please give me a low number Richard" disease. Those with old accounts, with many posts, would be tempted to post more, less thoughtful messages, and might despise newbies (and even overuse commas ??).

I'm not sure exactly what you mean here but your name is your account and the software doesn't track post counts.

                                          
The human element
Message #71 Posted by Patrick on 20 Nov 2003, 1:35 a.m.,
in response to message #70 by Dave Hicks

When you register for certain services online now (such as an eBay account) they show you a little picture which contains some numbers and ask you to type the numbers into a box right next to the picture. Scripts can't read pictures, so this is a good way to cut out the spam automation, I would think.

Have no idea how available such technology is and whether it is free or must be purchased.

                                                
Re: The human element
Message #72 Posted by Dave Hicks on 20 Nov 2003, 11:11 p.m.,
in response to message #71 by Patrick

I've looked at CAPTCHAs (Completely Automated Public Turing test to tell Computers and Humans Apart). At this point I'm going to keep watching them but I probably won't have one in the next release. Most of the better ones don't seem to be available outside universities (unless you make a research grant perhaps?) and some of the simpler ones have been solved to 80-90% accuracy by AI programs.

Also most assume that humans can see well, which is not always true.

                              
Re: Combined account responses
Message #73 Posted by Wayne Brown on 19 Nov 2003, 6:22 p.m.,
in response to message #68 by Dave Hicks

Quote:
If it's only Norm, the simplest solution might be for me to set up several accounts for him. (But then what if the real Carly wants to sign up ;-))
Don't let her! We'd rather have Norm. :-)
                                    
Re: Combined account responses
Message #74 Posted by James M. Prange on 20 Nov 2003, 1:12 a.m.,
in response to message #73 by Wayne Brown

Well, Norm does seem to be rather a special case. But seriously, I'd love to have Carly participate in the forum. Norm could always use an alternate spelling of someone's true name when posting a spoof.

                        
Re: Accounts
Message #75 Posted by James M. Prange on 20 Nov 2003, 1:07 a.m.,
in response to message #55 by Dave Hicks

Well, I hope that posting about the new-fangled RPL calculators doesn't make me a "troll".

Of course I don't see most of the spam.

Regarding the identity that a poster uses, I do tend to take the post more seriously if the name seems real, but I do realize that some may have perfectly legitimate reasons for not revealing their true identities.

What I do find objectionable is when the same poster uses more than one identity in a single forum or newsgroup.

As for accounts, my only concern is that it may put off some newcomers who would be welcome here. If accounts do become necessary, please make it so that lurkers may still read the forum, and we only have to log in to post something.

Regards,
James

                  
Re: Let's try to cool it
Message #76 Posted by Juan J on 18 Nov 2003, 7:17 p.m.,
in response to message #54 by GE (France)

It has saddened me too, to see how a review became such a bitter exchange. A while ago I wrote about how easy it is to say anything under an alias and how disrespectful it can be to others, especially in such a civilized forum like this. Pretty much the same thing it was, a far off-base comment from an unidentified (I mean, no e-mail address) contributor which became much the same exchange I've seen. I even suggested Dave to make the e-mail address field mandatory; this seemed too much. Eventually, the "offender" identified himself and wrote a sort of apology.

More recently, I praised Valentin's intelligence, but noted that as smart as he is, sometimes he kind of "crosses the line" (and in a rude manner) when he speaks his mind. After reading Dave's story about his Israeli friend, I think that language subtleties aside, there are ways to say things, to make your point/statement quite clear, without hurting your audience or setting off a war. Now I insist. A wise man knows how to share his wisdom without disrespecting his audience; it is also wise to make your point in a polite manner. No offense intended, Valentin.

In my opinion, Vincent Weber was just expressing his point of view about how the 15C and the 41C deal with matrices and complex numbers. That there were things he may have not considered or known about, or that a second opinion was what he expected, well, was quite probably his intention when he wrote his post. But then came Valentin's reply, an angry exchange and finally, so to speak, the icing on the cake, the anonynous offender, who does not deserve respect of any kind (not mine at least) for his words.

About how Valentin says things, I have already commented. Now Mr. HP-Calc-Collector, the anonymous contributor who made things worse by making the exchange personal. Probably he thought that making rude statements wins debates. But in the end it turns to be like the asp that stung a knight when Arthur and Moerdred met with their armies at Camlan; the knight thought it was an attack, pulled off his sword and when the battle that ensued was over there were only Arthur and Moerdred left. Should we feel offended by a person that behaves like this? I think not. Anonymous offenders who think that winning arguments is matter of being rude or tread with personal details simply don't belong here. And don't deserve our respect.

I like to think of this forum as a (very) civilized one with valuable contributors from everywhere and with with very diverse backgrounds, where matters are discussed, points of view expressed and questions answered; a pleasant place in the Net to participate in, don't you think? Why not trying to keep it the way it is, and has been?

                        
Limbic vs. Gray Matter content....
Message #77 Posted by Michael Meyer on 18 Nov 2003, 10:53 p.m.,
in response to message #76 by Juan J

An ongoing theme in science fiction writing is the issue of whether pure logic is better than logic with emotion. The general conclusion (in both Vulcans and androids) is that emotion is what gives meaning to logic.

I'm amazed, as a psychiatrist, at how separate these two entities are in the brain. The lower, older structures (including the limbic system) appear to be the exclusive location of emotion, where the gray matter appears to involve storage and intellect without emotion.

Other animals appear to have the same sort of limbic system as humans (can you name a human emotion a dog can't show?). I've seen humans with defective intellect and intact emotion (mental retardation) and vice-versa (borderline personality disorder).

The people on the board, in my opinion, have tremendous intellect. I'm glad there's a passion for this interest as well, as it gives it meaning.

Many here are the top of their fields. (Ever put a bunch of experts in the same room? One expert I know flunked his board exams by arguing with the examiners he probably knew more than they did...)

Just a reminder that the people on this forum have a great knowledge and great passion as well... tempers are bound to flare from time to time.

Everyone count to ten, listen to Dave Hicks (who is kind enough to let us be guests on his system), and keep providing us with top-notch intellectual information.

I'd like to add that I've seen very little flaming all-in-all over the years... maybe a little was due as a matter of human discourse. <grin> We'll probably see some again some day too. But for now...

On with the forum. And remember... the doctor is watching you.... (it sounded good, anyway).

                              
Re: Limbic vs. Gray Matter content....
Message #78 Posted by Trent Moseley on 18 Nov 2003, 11:51 p.m.,
in response to message #77 by Michael Meyer

I must say that I agree with Michael. I feel that we are all here toghter. Some of us know a lot of things that others don't know, and some of us know a lot of things that we all know in our own way. This is a beautiful Forum! Let us keep it that way.

tm

                                    
Kudos for this forum!
Message #79 Posted by Frank V on 19 Nov 2003, 1:56 p.m.,
in response to message #78 by Trent Moseley

Thank for the SYMPHONY. Episodes such as the one we have just witness is the HALLMARK of this forum. Thanks Dave and all participants.


[ Return to Index | Top of Index ]

Go back to the main exhibit hall