digits in x - Printable Version +- HP Forums ( https://www.hpmuseum.org/forum)+-- Forum: Not HP Calculators ( /forum-7.html)+--- Forum: Not quite HP Calculators - but related ( /forum-8.html)+--- Thread: digits in x ( /thread-5183.html) |

digits in x - ggauny@live.fr - 11-22-2015 04:29 PM
hi, In many programs, I need to know how many *digits* are in reg x. For instance : 88209 are 5 digits, 81 are 2 and 5 are only one digit. Me I do like this (for ex 88209) : g LG give me 4,9455.... f IP give me 4 and 1 + give me the number of the digits of the reg x. I have readed all manuals that people said me to read, but not a such function is. I think it would be good to put it in a future firmware, may be ? Regards d. RE: digits in x - Didier Lachieze - 11-22-2015 04:58 PM
On the WP 34s you can do: g LG CEIL (in h X.FCN) RE: digits in x - ggauny@live.fr - 11-22-2015 05:22 PM
(11-22-2015 04:58 PM)Didier Lachieze Wrote: On the WP 34s you can do: g LG CEIL (in h X.FCN) Yes it is very tricky, thre steps economised ! Thank you RE: digits in x - fhub - 11-22-2015 05:40 PM
(11-22-2015 04:58 PM)Didier Lachieze Wrote: On the WP 34s you can do: g LG CEIL (in h X.FCN)Not correct for powers of 10: 10, 100, 1000 ... Franz RE: digits in x - Marcus von Cube - 11-22-2015 05:43 PM
(11-22-2015 05:40 PM)fhub Wrote:Good catch! You can still do g LG IP INC X(11-22-2015 04:58 PM)Didier Lachieze Wrote: On the WP 34s you can do: g LG CEIL (in h X.FCN)Not correct for powers of 10: 10, 100, 1000 ... RE: digits in x - Dieter - 11-22-2015 05:46 PM
(11-22-2015 04:58 PM)Didier Lachieze Wrote: On the WP 34s you can do: g LG CEIL (in h X.FCN) Sure you can do this – but you'll get the wrong result for all integer powers of 10. #-) 10000 LG gives 4, and CEIL(4) is ....4 again. Remember: CEIL is not just IP+1. But there is another way that does not require logs at all: EXPT. The number of digits (again, for x≥1) is simply EXPT+1. So EXPT INC X does it. Or SDL 1 EXPT. EXPT also is faster than methods with logs. And, more important, there are no problems with cases where roundoff errors may spoil the result. Try 9,999999999999999 in SP mode and LG returns a plain 1 (which is correctly rounded up) so that even the 1+IP(LG x) method will fail. So EXPT is the way to go. That's why this command exists. As well as its companion MANT. ;-) Dieter RE: digits in x - Dieter - 11-22-2015 05:49 PM
(11-22-2015 05:43 PM)Marcus von Cube Wrote:(11-22-2015 05:40 PM)fhub Wrote: Not correct for powers of 10: 10, 100, 1000 ...Good catch! You can still do g LG IP INC X ...and get errors due to roundoff errors for x very close to integer powers of 10. The 34s has a better option: EXPT, cf. my respective post which I wrote before Franz and you responded. #-) Dieter RE: digits in x - Marcus von Cube - 11-22-2015 05:51 PM
(11-22-2015 05:49 PM)Dieter Wrote: The 34s has a better option: EXPT, cf. my respective post which I wrote before Franz and you responded. #-) I just read your post and must admit that I could have known... RE: digits in x - Didier Lachieze - 11-22-2015 05:56 PM
(11-22-2015 05:43 PM)Marcus von Cube Wrote:(11-22-2015 05:40 PM)fhub Wrote: Not correct for powers of 10: 10, 100, 1000 ...Good catch! You can still do g LG IP INC X Yes, I overlooked the powers of 10... Here is another solution in two steps: EXPT INC X RE: digits in x - ggauny@live.fr - 11-22-2015 06:33 PM
(11-22-2015 05:56 PM)Didier Lachieze Wrote: Here is another solution in two steps: EXPT INC X I adopte this, economy of one step, your are cunning like a Sioux, we say in french ! I was not thinking in 10 powered, because in Kaprekar number it is not possible (I think). My solution was walking with 10 powered, but one step is one step. Once upon a time, when machine has no mutch memory, we search to short routine. RE: digits in x - fhub - 11-23-2015 11:58 AM
(11-22-2015 06:33 PM)ggauny@live.fr Wrote: I was not thinking in 10 powered, because in Kaprekar number it is not possible (I think).You're right, powers of 10 are no Kaprekar numbers by definition. BTW, here's my final version for Kaprekar numbers - different to my first version that I've sent you via PM (with 22 steps, optimized for size), this version is MUCH faster, but has 37 steps (now also showing the first number 1, without 1 you could even save 3 more steps 0004-0006). Code:
Franz RE: digits in x - ggauny@live.fr - 11-23-2015 04:48 PM
Hi, I'm close to finish mine, I'll put after. BTW congratulations, as usual ! RE: digits in x - ggauny@live.fr - 11-24-2015 09:34 AM
(11-23-2015 11:58 AM)fhub Wrote: BTW, here's my final version for Kaprekar numbers - different to my first version that I've sent you via PM (with 22 steps, optimized for size), this version is MUCH faster, but has 37 steps (now also showing the first number 1, without 1 you could even save 3 more steps 0004-0006). Hi, Very impressive celerity even for numbers up after 999.999 ! I love your fashion to do because if a number is Kaprekar you stop and display it, and if it is not one you display the follow that is. Well done, mine say only "yes" or "no". And many steps for this ! I have to master flowcharts and greats functions of our WP34s. "Damned !" you win again (LOL) ! Your fully. RE: digits in x - ggauny@live.fr - 11-24-2015 11:05 AM
I was telling : on the emulator, of course a bit slowly on the truth WP34s, but it retire nothing of what I said. :-) RE: digits in x - fhub - 11-24-2015 12:07 PM
(11-24-2015 11:05 AM)ggauny@live.fr Wrote: .. of course a bit slowly on the truth WP34s, ..Yes, a calculator is just not the right tool for running longer programs. Although I've already reduced the tested numbers by 80% (because only numbers n with n MOD 9 = 0 or 1 can be Kaprekar numbers), but up to 1 million this still makes 200000 numbers which have to be checked - a hard task for a real calculator. BTW, removing the 2 labels LBL 00/01 and replacing the GTO 00/01 by BACK xx, you can even save 2 more steps ... (just in case you're a fan of minimalistic programs) Franz RE: digits in x - ggauny@live.fr - 11-24-2015 07:03 PM
(11-24-2015 12:07 PM)fhub Wrote:(11-24-2015 11:05 AM)ggauny@live.fr Wrote: .. of course a bit slowly on the truth WP34s, ..Yes, a calculator is just not the right tool for running longer programs. Yes I understand now why you MOD by 9, I was not understood ! Yes too with my olds calculators, they say vintage now, as it is my way, I even today search for shorter routine, a old way for me. In this moment I try to ported for WP34s a old program I love again to day, it is "Moon Roket Lander". With because of you and others I learned in good programmation, I think I bet. Only miss me an instruction that is "PAUSE" in hp67, surely she exist in WP34s and I read IOP, at this moment,to catch she. I use complex store, Locr and local flags, and I am sure in few days I will... I hope. (I don't have said my last word, it is a sentence french, no know if have a sens in english) Have a good evening, here it is GMT+1 = 20h02 at my watch relied atomic center Frankfurt (Thank Dieter and Sylvain). RE: digits in x - ggauny@live.fr - 11-24-2015 07:39 PM
Franz, I have finded, it is the same name "PSE" but in ticks, well, well I have what missed me. I know what tick is, I only multiplicate to have one second or many. I think that "relied" is no english, I was think of "linked" yes ? I have modified your program : 1/- 3 steps 2/- with back, it remember HP67 gto i, with i negative Thank my freund. |