HP-28 INTEG -> HP-48/49/50 INTEG Message #25 Posted by Karl Schneider on 21 Feb 2009, 3:19 p.m., in response to message #22 by Peter A. Gebhardt
Peter A. Gebhardt stated,
Quote:
As an example (28 Pocket Book)
------------------------------
3: 'X^3+4*X+8'
2: {X 1 3}
1: .00001
2: 52
1: 5.1992166102E-4
If entered on my HP50G - "Integral: Too Few Arguments"
Because that might have been discussed "ad nauseam" in the past, pls. point me to the relevant postings then.
Michael de Estrada responded:
Quote:
I do not own a HP-50g, however, I do own a HP-48SX, which I believe works the same way, and in order to perform integration you need 4 stack entries as follows:
Level 4 - Lower Limit (1)
Level 3 - Upper Limit (3)
Level 2 - Integrand ('X^3+4*X+8')
Level 1 - Variable of integration ('X')
The accuracy is specified by the display mode, i.e. in your case it
would be FIX 5.
Yes indeed, the stack arguments for integration in the HP-28 differ from those in the HP-48/49/50.
I recall mentioning that in a thread from 2004 you might find interesting:
Quote:
"Arnaud's (HP-48) program can't even be run on a 28C because its integration accepts arguments in a different format (dummy variable and limits enclosed in a list), which I don't know how to automate. It also didn't accept value-loaded variable names for the limits."
It should be noted that the integrand-function uncertainty provided in stack level 1 in the HP-28 does not specify the same thing as the ACC parameter in the HP-42S and HP-71B Math ROM.
An excerpt from my post of 28 Nov 2005:
Quote:
28C, 28S:
(These models) specify uncertainty in a particular decimal digit as a numerical parameter to the INTEG function.
42S, 71B Math ROM:
(These models) specify a relative uncertainty as a per-unit fraction of the function-value magnitude, as a numerical parameter to the INTEG function.
Also, from a thread in 2006:
FIX for integrand-function uncertainty in the HP-48/49/50 works as in the HP-33s/35s, not as in the HP-15C, HP-34C, HP-32S/32SII, and HP-41 Advantage.
-- KS
Edited: 21 Feb 2009, 11:31 p.m.
|