Enter vs. =

09192018, 04:44 AM
Post: #1




Enter vs. =
A study about the differences between RPN and Algebraic notations: "Electronic calculators: which notation is the better".
It is referenced in PPCJ V7N8p4: Quote:This five page article is probably the closest "scientific" study available that attempts to determine which is better, AN or RPN. See Applied Ergonomics, March 1980, page2. 

09192018, 05:04 AM
(This post was last modified: 09192018 05:05 AM by Gamo.)
Post: #2




RE: Enter vs. =
Got this article from NASA Lab
"Interruption as a Test of the UserComputer Interface" Compared RPN and AN Here is the link to my Dropbox https://www.dropbox.com/s/d7ayuzxewnzjpo...G.pdf?dl=0 Gamo 

09192018, 05:11 AM
Post: #3




RE: Enter vs. =
(09192018 04:44 AM)Didier Lachieze Wrote: A study about the differences between RPN and Algebraic notations: "Electronic calculators: which notation is the better". The date of the study says it all, 1980. Things have changed a lot in 38 years. What was true then isn't necessarily true now and matter of fact RPN is but a relic from the past, completely ignored by everyone except a few diehard fans like us. V. . All My Articles & other Materials here: Valentin Albillo's HP Collection 

09192018, 05:16 AM
Post: #4




RE: Enter vs. =  
09192018, 05:20 AM
Post: #5




RE: Enter vs. =
(09192018 05:16 AM)Didier Lachieze Wrote:(09192018 05:11 AM)Valentin Albillo Wrote: Things have changed a lot in 38 years. What was true then isn't necessarily true now Of course not. I was just commenting on the article's conclusion, not the reference itself, thanks for it. Regards. V. . All My Articles & other Materials here: Valentin Albillo's HP Collection 

09192018, 09:27 AM
Post: #6




RE: Enter vs. =
Hello!
(09192018 04:44 AM)Didier Lachieze Wrote: ...In terms of practical choice between calculators, it would appear that RPN is faster and more accurate overall ... I was puzzled by the "more accurate" statement. After looking into the article it appears that they actually mean: "less prone to errors" which is something completely different. Regards Max 

09192018, 12:28 PM
Post: #7




RE: Enter vs. =
With the article's results, it's kind of a doubleedge sword why more companies didn't jump on board with RPN in the past.
One one hand, it helped differentiate HP calculators. On the other, less RPN calculators in the market. 

09192018, 12:50 PM
Post: #8




RE: Enter vs. =
I don't think time has changed the results of the article.
RPN is still RPN and algebraic is still algebraic. What have changed is calculators with bigger display and the use of the so called "pretty print" or text book entry or whatever, where one can entry in the calculator display an exact expression or formula like in a text book. But, IMHO, this is good for entry equations. For long expressions number crushing nothing beats RPN and again, the research is still relevant, IMHO. Thanks for bring this from the past, I was not aware of that, but I've already knew the results by personal experience. Cheers JL 

09192018, 01:08 PM
Post: #9




RE: Enter vs. =
(09192018 05:04 AM)Gamo Wrote: Got this article from NASA Lab Gamo  Every time I try to download (both direct and also to my DB account) the download fails. Is the document shared with the proper settings to allow download? Bob Prosperi 

09192018, 01:15 PM
(This post was last modified: 09192018 01:16 PM by SlideRule.)
Post: #10




RE: Enter vs. =
From the SUMMARY of INTERRUPTION AS A TEST OF THE USERCOMPUTER INTERFACE by John G. Kreifeldt & Mary E. McCarthy [Dept. of Engineering Design, Tufts University, Medford, MA. 02155] at the 17th Annual Conference on Manual Control
In order to study the effects different logic systems might have on interrupted operation, an Algebraic calculator and a Reverse Polish Notation calculator were compared when trained users were interrupted during problem entry. The RPN calculator showed markedly superior resistance to interruption effects compared to the AN calculator although no significant differences were found when the users were not interrupted. The 13 page (total) academic research PDF is referenced as N8213721 and contains many interesting observations/conclusions. BEST! SlideRule 

09192018, 01:31 PM
Post: #11




RE: Enter vs. =
I think the reason algebraic input cause more "errors" is user doing too much at once.
There is no rule that forbid algebraic calculator to calculate in steps. This reduces many unnecessary parenthesis groupings, with much simpler subexpression. Showed intermediate results allowed some error checking, just like RPN. This is especially true for EOS calculator, with saved previous calculation in ANS. Example from the article: (3.3 + 4.5) * (5.2 + 6.1) * (7  3 + 8.4) = 1092.936 EOS: (implied ANS when start with +, , *, /, sqrt ...) 3.3 + 4.5 = * ( 5.2 + 6.1 = * ( 7  3 + 8.4 = RPN: 3.3 Enter 4.5 + 5.2 Enter 6.1 + * 7 Enter 3  8.4 + * EOS can scroll back previous calculations, to confirm correct user input. I think EOS have slight edge overall. Not just me, the market say so too ... 

09192018, 01:41 PM
Post: #12




RE: Enter vs. =
Here is the direct pdf attachment of the article.
Gamo 

09192018, 01:44 PM
Post: #13




RE: Enter vs. =
Having taught both high school and college students how to use calculators for math and business classes, I have formed a few opinions. In general, RPN takes about 1/2 the number of keystrokes that algebraic does for the same formula. Second, most students find RPN rather natural; it's the way one evaluates when using pencil and paper. The poorer students found RPN even more natural, probably because they had more trouble with abstract symbols.
Back in the 1960s, outlined the computation tree for some expressions using threeaddress, twoaddress, oneaddress, and stack notation for computation. All four of these did exist in hardware. Three address (like a Cray) was slight better than twoaddress (IBM 360) which was slightly better than single address (CDC 1604) which was slight better than stack (Burroughs B8500). The B8500 could compile a bit faster. Thus the gain in RPN over algebraic was probably due to notational simplicity, not data flow. 

09192018, 02:00 PM
Post: #14




RE: Enter vs. =
Don’t forget the HP12C! It still sells to a unique group with its RPN interface. It’s us engineering & math types that are gradually abandoning RPN.


09192018, 09:06 PM
Post: #15




RE: Enter vs. =
(09192018 02:00 PM)Dwight Sturrock Wrote: ... It’s us engineering & math types that are gradually abandoning RPN. Mostly it's the educational world abandoning everything other than TI because TI has a lock on the US education market. "Us engineering & math types" simply aren't enough of a market to have a say in what type of calculators are made and marketed. 

09192018, 09:42 PM
Post: #16




RE: Enter vs. =
(09192018 09:06 PM)John Keith Wrote:(09192018 02:00 PM)Dwight Sturrock Wrote: ... It’s us engineering & math types that are gradually abandoning RPN. Well, yes, but then those high school pupils graduate and become university students (some in engineering and sciences), but they keep their old TI graphing calculators. They don't switch over to HP once they take up a technical field of study. HP really does need to stay in the educational market otherwise the gig is up long term. If it were somehow possible to gain something in the school market (if not the US, at least somewhere with some volume), then one can eventually build a following. When I was in high school (35 years ago), not many peers used HP calculators, but people could easily if they chose, before the mathematics curriculum wasn't wrapped around a specific brand / model like it is now. It's a tough situation in the USA for anybody other than TI. 

09202018, 02:59 AM
Post: #17




RE: Enter vs. =
(09192018 01:31 PM)Albert Chan Wrote: I think EOS have slight edge overall. Not just me, the market say so too ... The market also chose VHS over Beta. That doesn't mean VHS was better, it simply means there were many more of the inferior products sold. Let's be clear and try to not confuse better or worse with more or less success. Bob Prosperi 

09202018, 07:17 AM
Post: #18




RE: Enter vs. =
(09202018 02:59 AM)rprosperi Wrote: Let's be clear and try to not confuse better or worse with more or less success. Maybe Worse Is Better? 

09202018, 09:31 AM
Post: #19




RE: Enter vs. =
(09202018 02:59 AM)rprosperi Wrote:(09192018 01:31 PM)Albert Chan Wrote: I think EOS have slight edge overall. Not just me, the market say so too ... It also means that Sony wanted to charge a license fee to Beta machine and tape makers while VHS was free to use! Beta was actually better quality than VHS. Tom L Cui bono? 

09202018, 09:56 AM
Post: #20




RE: Enter vs. =
Hello!
(09192018 02:00 PM)Dwight Sturrock Wrote: It’s us engineering & math types that are gradually abandoning RPN. We've had this topic dozens of time before, yet I repeat my little point again: In my part of the world and during the years it would have mattered to me, the "engineering&math types" who were high school, college and university students simply could not afford RPN calculators. For some reason only known to HP they chose to market their products at two or three times what the competition asked for theirs. Had, in the allimportant period between 1975 and 1985, HP sold their RPN calculators at the same price level as Ti, Casio and everybody else, then maybe today high school students would use HP. The question "which one is better" never mattered. Regards, Max NB: And I still fail to see why, using an RPN calculator, one solves a problem exactly as one does with paper and pencil. Not me. Maybe because I learnt how to do calculations with pen and paper from teachers who never could afford RPN calculators themselves? 

« Next Oldest  Next Newest »

User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)