**Pages:** 1 2 3 **4** 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
(01-02-2018 01:36 PM)pier4r Wrote: [ -> ]Oh. I know that the 12C was a business model but I thought that the basic trig/exp was there. My bad. Removing.

\( e^x \) and \( y^x \) are there, it's just the trig functions that are not

A record breaking result for your list:

TI-62

max=10 using a loop

63.5 seconds

13.71183502

(01-03-2018 02:46 PM)xerxes Wrote: [ -> ]A record breaking result for your list:

TI-62

max=10 using a loop

63.5 seconds

13.71183502

Thanks for the info that is even slower than me manually (although with a newer calc, the 506w).

Impressive.

And I have even a couple of ideas that I can be, without much stress, even faster with the 506w.

In the previous test I put the value in X, I recalled the formula in F4 and I added the result to M with M+.

I could just use M as increment, The formula in F4 as A+function(M) and then save the result in A. This may be clearly faster than my 47 seconds. Maybe I can break the 40s barrier.

I will try when I have time.

edit: anyone with a 71B ?

(01-03-2018 04:00 PM)pier4r Wrote: [ -> ]Thanks for the info that is even slower than me manually (although with a newer calc, the 506w).

The TI-53 might be even slower than that. I'll give it a go this evening.

Edit: Nope. The TI-62 is slower. Kind of...

With only 32 (non-merged) steps to play with I couldn't do a loop a fixed number of times so I let it run for about 15 minutes and then stopped it to see how many iterations had been completed. It was completing them at a rate of one iteration every 5.64 seconds.

Little bump:

still missing

- 71B

- Some sharp PC

- other capable (programmable or with sum function) calculators

Really no one with a 71B? Pretty please! Virtual hugs!

Sharp EL-5120 Solver

With 100 iteration it runs for approx. 36 seconds, giving a result of 139.297187 (all digits correct according to my HP Prime).

It lacks proper loop instructions, so I used a manual counter with a IF ... GOTO instruction

Code:

X1 = 1

A1 = 0

LABEL A

A1 = A1 + 3 <x-root-of>(e^(sin(atan(X1))))

X1 = X1 + 1

IF X1 <= 100 GOTO A

PRINT A1

HP-33C (Spice): N=10, 44 sec, Result=13.71183501

HP-25C (Woodstock): N=10, 29 sec, Result=13.71183501

Again, the older Woodstock is significantly faster than the newer Spice.

I am impressed by the 33C, 34C and the TI equivalents.

A 71B? Anyone?

I edited my post above to add the HP-25C.

HP-65

N=10, Time= 32 sec, Result= 13.71183501

N=100, Time= 329 sec, Result= 139.2971873

which is 11 sec faster than the HP-67.

Added. Much appreciated!

Someone with a 71B! For the glory!

maybe is it not possible? If I remember correctly the 71B should be basic programmable but maybe I am confused.

(01-11-2018 08:19 PM)pier4r Wrote: [ -> ]Someone with a 71B! For the glory!

Which program or formula? There are so many on this tread that I lost count... A 71B would be ready here on my desk!

(01-11-2018 08:30 PM)Maximilian Hohmann Wrote: [ -> ]Which program or formula? There are so many on this tread that I lost count... A 71B would be ready here on my desk!

http://www.hpmuseum.org/forum/thread-975...l#pid86751 see the frmula in the middle of the post. It is written in bold "formula to use".

If you want to use a program that is equivalent, you can do it too. I cannot provide you a program though, I do not posses a 71B.

Und Tausend Dank!

Allora ... col HP-71B, usando un programma semplicissimo:

Code:

`5 X=0`

10 FOR I=1 TO 1000

20 X=X+(EXP(SIN(ATAN(I))))^(0.333)

30 NEXT I

40 PRINT X

ottengo un risultato in 2 minuti e 58 secondi.

Adesso proverò la stessa cosa con un HP-75D (se riesco a ricordormi come si fa a programmarlo).

Saluti,

Max

Edit:

Lo stesso programma eseguito dal mio HP-75D ottiene un risultato (uguale!) in 2 primi e 28 secondi.

Woah. Kannst du Italienisch? (Kann ich Sie duzen?)

Auf jedem fall, wenn es möglich ist, lieber auf Deutsch schreiben, dass ich üben muss.

Translated: Woah, can you speak Italian? (Can I use the informal you with You?)

Anyway, if possible, I'd like to write in German, since I must train.

Edit.

Ergebnisse hinzugefügt. Fast 3 Minuten, oder 2 un halb sind nicht schlecht.

Results added. 3 minutes (almost) or 2 and half are not that bad.

(01-11-2018 10:03 PM)pier4r Wrote: [ -> ]Kann ich Sie duzen?

Sure, "

You can say you to me" as former German chancellor Kohl (allegedly) once said to Margaret Thatcher :-)

And yes, I (still) speak some Italian because I had the big luck to grow up in that beautiful country (all in all I lived there for 20 years and will almost certainly return there when I have to retire from work).

One of my proud possessions is an unused HP-97 with Italian box and manuals which they threw away in the research facility where my father worked - it still has it's engraved "Euratom" (

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_A..._Community) inventory plaque on it's back :-) Unfortunately I don't have it here so I can't run the benchmark on it now.

Edit: In the meantime I ran the exact same BASIC program on a Casio FX-880P. It takes 2 minutes and 38 seconds (for 1000 loops), so almost exactly in the middle of the HP-71 and 75. Mind you, the Casio came nearly 10 years after the HP-75 and yet it is slower!

Los resultados deben estar identicos a los mismos en el HP 67.

Is the hp 97 not the big brother of the hp 67? Shouldn't it be faster?

edit: added the 880P (now it has 2 results)

plus, yes Italy is nice (its landscapes) as mostly every place in the world. I mean even the tundra in Russia is peculiar in some way.

Still I don't like the average mindset there, at least from the regions under Florence/Rome. In the North they were/are a little bit more organized (nonetheless there are some groups in the North that, well, are a bit backwards. Like people following separatists parties in the North-East or populists).

(01-11-2018 10:50 PM)Michael de Estrada Wrote: [ -> ]Los resultados deben estar identicos a los mismos en el HP 67.

Si. El HP-97 es simplemente un HP-67 con una impresora.

HP-32S (Pioneer)

1000 loops —> 206 seconds, Result = 1395.34628770

100 loops —> 23 seconds, Result = 139.29718705

10 loops —> 3 seconds, Result = 13.71183502

**Pages:** 1 2 3 **4** 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13