Bug in Radians an Degrees (11226/10637)

01112017, 05:05 PM
(This post was last modified: 01112017 05:06 PM by slawek39.)
Post: #1




Bug in Radians an Degrees (11226/10637)  
01112017, 06:43 PM
(This post was last modified: 01112017 06:45 PM by Tim Wessman.)
Post: #2




RE: Bug in Radians an Degrees (11226/10637)
How should the system know that first number is meant to be a radian angular value and not just a plain number?
You have a regular number (~.78839...) minus an angular value of 45. Following conventions, the first item in the calculation takes precedence in determining what the result will be. I'm not sure why you are thinking this is a bug. TW Although I work for the HP calculator group, the views and opinions I post here are my own. 

01112017, 06:49 PM
Post: #3




RE: Bug in Radians an Degrees (11226/10637)
TI V200 gives 0 in such a situation


01112017, 06:56 PM
(This post was last modified: 01112017 07:03 PM by Tim Wessman.)
Post: #4




RE: Bug in Radians an Degrees (11226/10637)
Only when you are in radians mode, else it probably returns pi/445deg which is a bug in the TI methodology. What happens when you try it in degree/grads? Is that consistent with the behavior you are requesting?
Can you try .735398...45deg? Why doesn't it assume that is a numerical radian value in this case? Why should the system *assume* that plain untagged number is an angular value, let alone radians? I'm fine to make changes with good reason, but simply "TI does it that way" is not really a good reason. TW Although I work for the HP calculator group, the views and opinions I post here are my own. 

01112017, 07:46 PM
Post: #5




RE: Bug in Radians an Degrees (11226/10637)
For the record, we had a very complete discussion about this and other anglerelated issues not long ago in this thread.
No matter which convention you choose, there will be some flaws under some conditions. 

01112017, 08:20 PM
Post: #6




RE: Bug in Radians an Degrees (11226/10637)
(01112017 07:46 PM)Claudio L. Wrote: For the record, we had a very complete discussion about this and other anglerelated issues not long ago in this thread. Thanks. I definitely missed seeing that thread. Definitely highlights the problems with simply "making a change". TW Although I work for the HP calculator group, the views and opinions I post here are my own. 

« Next Oldest  Next Newest »

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