Post Reply 
Casio fx-50F/fx-50FH programming
09-08-2019, 03:16 AM
Post: #1
Casio fx-50F/fx-50FH programming
I scored a dirt cheap Casio fx-50FH to play around with, and I've been seeing what I can do with its very limited programming capabilities. Here's some of the more noteworthy features (or lack thereof):

- Can store four programs, 680 bytes total
- NO subroutines; you can't call one program from inside another
- Has labels and goto, but also some structured programming: While and For loops with Break, and If/Then/Else, though you can't seem to nest loops
- Only 7 variables (A, B, C, D, X, Y, M), with no indirect addressing; can use M+ and M- to directly increment/decrement M
- No prompt messages; when getting user input, it displays a simple prompt like "X?"

I won't describe all its math capabilities - it's a pretty typical solar-powered Casio, with complex math, 1 and 2 variable stats, etc. - but it's worth mentioning that it has NO integer/fractional part functions. It does at least have a rounding function, which gave me enough to write a simple prime factor finder (trial division by 2 and sequential odd numbers, no mod-30 sieve here):

Code:
3→M
?→X
Fix 0
While X÷2=Rnd(X÷2)
X÷2→X
2◢
WhileEnd
Lbl 1
X=1⇒Goto 9
M²≥X⇒X→M
While X÷M=Rnd(X÷M)
X÷M→X
M◢
WhileEnd
2M+
Goto 1
Lbl 9
Norm 1

Replace the "Norm 1" at the end with your choice of display mode to return to after running the program.

This is definitely one of the least capable programmables I've seen from Casio; you're better off buying just about any other programmable model they've ever made. Smile
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
09-08-2019, 10:24 AM
Post: #2
RE: Casio fx-50F/fx-50FH programming
(09-08-2019 03:16 AM)Dave Britten Wrote:  IThis is definitely one of the least capable programmables I've seen from Casio; you're better off buying just about any other programmable model they've ever made. Smile

Still, it's better than the original, wallet-cased fx-50F, which only had 29 steps!

The Casio programmables (the traditional calculators, not the BASIC portables) went seriously downhill after the FX-602P for a few years. The wallet-cased programmables didn't catch up with the 602P until the fx-4000p.

I think of the fx-50F Plus as more like a souped-up fx-115ms, but with added formula library and programming capability inspired by the older fx-50F.

— Ian Abbott
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2019, 09:38 PM
Post: #3
RE: Casio fx-50F/fx-50FH programming
Here is my IRR program for fx-50FH. Try figure out how can I use ALL variables without change them and the program do loops, counts and do iterations for calculating IRR. This machine has hidden capabilities Wink





Check my chanel, you can find the program list, and if you check my 82ARX video about IRR you can find the math behind (better than the Wikipedia's iterative process Smile Wink )

My videos

Csaba
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2019, 10:03 PM
Post: #4
RE: Casio fx-50F/fx-50FH programming
It was earlier in one topic, but again: 13 steps secant method on CASIO fx-50F attached! I hope you enjoy it!

Csaba

Attachment - 13 steps secant method on CASIO fx-50F
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
09-15-2019, 01:14 PM
Post: #5
RE: Casio fx-50F/fx-50FH programming
(09-08-2019 03:16 AM)Dave Britten Wrote:  This is definitely one of the least capable programmables I've seen from Casio; you're better off buying just about any other programmable model they've ever made.

This is true, but as I know, no other company which manufacture programmable scientific model. Many schools there is only one limitation for the applicable calculators: text storage capability not allowed. That is why all the graphing calculators are banned from the exams (in Hungary) and scientific models are accepted. In this case the best is a programmable CASIO. Eg. a 3650P(II) or 50FH. HP35S is also looks good, but that calculator out of the market, but CASIOs are available.

Csaba
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
09-25-2019, 04:22 PM (This post was last modified: 09-25-2019 06:35 PM by Csaba Tizedes.)
Post: #6
RE: Casio fx-50F/fx-50FH programming
SIGN(var) on CASIO: (var>0)-(var<0)
I really like how CASIOs are evaluates logical expressions.

Csaba
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
09-25-2019, 07:28 PM
Post: #7
RE: Casio fx-50F/fx-50FH programming
(09-25-2019 04:22 PM)Csaba Tizedes Wrote:  SIGN(var) on CASIO: (var>0)-(var<0)
I really like how CASIOs are evaluates logical expressions.

Csaba

Yeah, I think Casios started treating (in)equalities as mathematical operators rather than special conditional constructs somewhere around the 9750 and 7400. Since there were also no logical operators before then, you had to chain conditions to do an "and": X>0=>X<10=>Goto 3

It's also a useful technique for graphing stepwise functions.

I believe TIs have done the same since at least the 82. I don't think the 81, 82, or 80 have any logical operators, so you have to do addition on the comparison results to get the same effect: If (X>0)*(X<10):Goto 3
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
09-26-2019, 07:34 AM (This post was last modified: 09-26-2019 07:36 AM by ijabbott.)
Post: #8
RE: Casio fx-50F/fx-50FH programming
(09-25-2019 04:22 PM)Csaba Tizedes Wrote:  SIGN(var) on CASIO: (var>0)-(var<0)
I really like how CASIOs are evaluates logical expressions.

Csaba

A similar trick can be used to determine the ordering of two numbers:

\( (a > b) - (a < b) \)

That yields -1, 0 or 1 depending on the ordering.

That's what I usually do to calculate the return value for comparison functions for use with the qsort() (quicksort) function in the C programming language standard library. In that case, the comparison function is allowed to return any integer because only the sign is used to determine the sort order of its two parameters. But using the above trick avoids arithmetic overflow and works for both signed and unsigned numbers. It is easy enough to modify the expression to reverse the ordering.

It doesn't necessarily generate the tightest binary code, but is pretty close to generating the tightest code, and it looks pretty.

— Ian Abbott
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
09-30-2019, 05:58 AM
Post: #9
RE: Casio fx-50F/fx-50FH programming
(09-15-2019 01:14 PM)Csaba Tizedes Wrote:  
(09-08-2019 03:16 AM)Dave Britten Wrote:  This is definitely one of the least capable programmables I've seen from Casio; you're better off buying just about any other programmable model they've ever made.

This is true, but as I know, no other company which manufacture programmable scientific model. Many schools there is only one limitation for the applicable calculators: text storage capability not allowed. That is why all the graphing calculators are banned from the exams (in Hungary) and scientific models are accepted. In this case the best is a programmable CASIO. Eg. a 3650P(II) or 50FH. HP35S is also looks good, but that calculator out of the market, but CASIOs are available.

Csaba

Here in Hong Kong we have a restriction where dot-matrix displays are forbidden... The fx-50FH (II) is pretty much the best approved calculator here. It is the only calculator sold here in Hong Kong with programming capabilities and no dot matrix display. Oh and no graphing calculators, of course. Even the Casio fx-MS models are banned for some reason.

By the way, the H in fx-50FH stands with for "Hong Kong", because the exam board here, the HKEAA (who sticks "approved" labels on calculators they approve... Does any other exam board do that?) didn't like the 50F plus' ability to show built-in formulas.

Also, Casio makes another non-graphing programmable calculator, the fx-5800P, which is pretty nice. The programming is certainly better than it is on the fx-50FH though, but not by much.

By the way, how common are fx-50F(H)/fx-3650P IIs outside Hong Kong? Pretty much everyone has one here but I don't see that much demand for a calculator like this other than exam requirements.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
10-03-2019, 02:06 PM
Post: #10
RE: Casio fx-50F/fx-50FH programming
(09-30-2019 05:58 AM)ddd Wrote:  Here in Hong Kong we have a restriction where dot-matrix displays are forbidden... The fx-50FH (II) is pretty much the best approved calculator here. It is the only calculator sold here in Hong Kong with programming capabilities and no dot matrix display. Oh and no graphing calculators, of course. Even the Casio fx-MS models are banned for some reason.

By the way, the H in fx-50FH stands with for "Hong Kong", because the exam board here, the HKEAA (who sticks "approved" labels on calculators they approve... Does any other exam board do that?) didn't like the 50F plus' ability to show built-in formulas.

Also, Casio makes another non-graphing programmable calculator, the fx-5800P, which is pretty nice. The programming is certainly better than it is on the fx-50FH though, but not by much.

By the way, how common are fx-50F(H)/fx-3650P IIs outside Hong Kong? Pretty much everyone has one here but I don't see that much demand for a calculator like this other than exam requirements.

The fx-5800P is actually quite a bit more programmable than the fx-50F, and very close to what the graphing models are capable of (without the graphing). It's not nearly as fast as they are, though. Plus you can save user-defined formulas, and you can feed them into the solver if you only use single-letter variable names.

The fx-50F and fx-3650P/fx-3950P are pretty much non-existent in North America, since Casio doesn't release any of their non-graphing programmable models here. They're pretty easy to find on ebay, though.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2019, 12:33 AM
Post: #11
RE: Casio fx-50F/fx-50FH programming
I don't know why Casio doesn't sell the fx-50FH or the fx-3650P in the United States, they should consider it.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




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