It takes too long to do 9^9^9.

After the first 9^9, you have 9 and 387420489. If you don't swap those two values, you are doing 9^387420489 instead of 387420489^9.

Is that what Reverse Polish Notation is? For 9^(9^9), You have to press 9, enter, 9 enter, ^, 9 enter, ^. Some enters can be left out, but you get the idea.

On my TI-83 Plus, it takes less than 1 second to calculate. 9^9^9 = 1.966270505E77

youre probably entering it as 9^9^9 which translates to (9^9)^9, which isnt nearly as big as 9^(9^9), which is what you get when you enter 9^9^9 in rpn.

Well, it handels a googol (10^100) pretty well, but googolplex 10^(10^100) taxes out the memory. I guesse it should, though. My link gives more info on what a googol and googolplex is.

That would be really hard to get a calculator to display a googolplex. That's a huge number.

incedentally, a google has 100 0s and a gooleplex has a google 0s

google is the search engine. _googol_ is the number. Coincidentally, Google (the search engine) is named after googol (the number). There was an article on slashdot and ars techinica about it, but im too lazy to link to it.

I know. A googol= 10^100, and a googolplex = 10^(10^100). (As stated above)

So exacty how many 0's is that?

that is a 1 followed by
1, 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000

zeroes. In other words, a few more zeros than the calculator can fit into it's memory :)

too many zeroes, oops. It's really

1 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000

guess I should think before hitting "post"

googol =
10 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000

i had the guy who invented it come to our school i think(the google)

Which school? I heard that a seven-year-old created "googol." Is this true? Also- what school do you go to?

Crap... made a mistake. Ignore the duplicate question about your school; I didn't mean to type that twice.

Also, I don't remember where I heard that. Maybe I should research it.

the guy got the name for it from his kid, i duno how old he was though

>>The fast routines in this program allow it to make calculations at more than twice the speed of the TI-89.

Allow me to bite. The ti89s problem with big integers is only in the slow display. I've written routines that can do the display 18x faster than the os can. It was developed for the Hail expression writer, but the routine has been isolated as a seperate program for benchmarking purposes (above link)

Using my code the ti89 can do 298! in 2.0 seconds.

In about 25 seconds, the ti-89 was able to display texpand(sin(100x)) with 2397 characters. I did ans(1), and it took about 21 seconds to display it again. This means it took only around 5 seconds to calculate. There must be a better way then displaying than the way they do.

Texpand? What's that? *gets calc*

*types in texpand(sin(100x)) into the TI-89*

Oh, this is taking a long time... *waits* My batteries are kinda low. No wonder. *waits some more*

Ooh- wow, that is huge. I think I get it. Too bad I didn't know about that function before :-\ That could have really helped me. Oh well, I guess I know what they always say-- RTFM. :)

There is a slight error in the logic. ans(1) is not an instantaneous operation.

On my hw1 texpand(sin(100x)) takes 28 seconds to compute and 3 seconds to display. ans(1) took 30 seconds to compute as the CAS tried to simplify the expression. it was unable to simplify, so it returned the origional expression which again took 3 seconds to diplay.

Yeah, the slow way that the TI-89 displays large numbers is a pain. Guess that's the fault of the OS.

The only thing is- if the TI-89 IS capable of doings thigns so much faster (as we've seen, like with 3D Graphing, calculating and displaying large numbers, etc.), then why must it go so much slower in the OS? Was the OS poorly programmed, or is there some behind-the-scenes reason for this?

if ur writing faster-than-tios routines for 89, u should give them (or allow him to use them) to the guy who wrote pedrom for use in future versions

I might. As it is I've already talked with PpHd about a couple optomizations in other areas.

Has anyone actually released a 3D graphing program that uses faster routines than the OS's for a TI-89? If so, WHERE?! I WANT IT!!!

If someone can get the sourcecode for AMS, which is written in C, and compile it in TIGCC, rather than the TI Flash Studio, it would probably work better, from what ive heard....

Then again, it's VERY unlikely that TI will release the sourcecode for AMS, and anyway, I know shit about programming the TI89 (even in BASIC)

I was referring to Graph^3 (for teh TI-83+). I meant that if a program could be written to run faster on a TI-83+, then a program optimized for the TI-89 would go even faster, which really makes the OS look slow.

keep in mind the 83+ has a smaller screen