ticalc.org
Basics Archives Community Services Programming
Hardware Help About Search Your Account
   Home :: Archives :: News :: Feature: A Modest Proposal

Feature: A Modest Proposal
Posted by Nick on 5 May 2000, 01:24 GMT

Our next somewhat late (*g*) feature is written by Ben Kalafut. It talks about what TI should include in their next calculator (or calculator update :P). In my opinion, he makes some good points and some I don't quite agree with (or they aren't vital to the functionality of said calculator), but it's still worth a read and some frank discussion of opinions.

So let's do just that. Many (many) people have complained about TI's "actions," especially since after Hardware 2.00 and AMS v2.03 came out for the 68K calculators. Talk amongst yourselves - as usual, I'll try to offer any input I can.


I have owned three different TI calculators, and I have run into frustrating "brick walls" in the use and programming of each one.
I use my calculator for math and sciences; I have no real interest in gaming or getting my calculator to make sound or bit-mapped graphics. Yet sometimes, the calculators are just as useful as a Gameboy.
Even the "powerful" TI-89 and 92 don't contain what I would like to see in a graphics calculator/computer algebra system. Symbolic manipulation is a nice feature, certainly, but programming all but the most elementary routines becomes time-consuming or impossible. Texas Instruments should probably put out programs to perform Fourier, Laplace, and Z transforms, partial fraction decomposition, tensor mathematics, functional analysis, etc, but they do not do so, and apparently, no third parties are interested.
The problem, in my opinion, is that Texas Instruments considers the graphics calculator to be merely an educational tool. This is evident in the software applications which are written, and the nature of their press releases and advertisements. TI does not seem to recognize the (potential) utility of their calculators to researchers, college students, mathematicians, and professionals.
Some improvements which I would like to see on a hypothetical calculator which TI would put out to replace the 89 are:

1) True updates. I expected a boost in functionality between AMS 1 and 2.03, and all that seemed to occur was an improvement in memory allocation. Extending the function library from time to time would be nice.
2) A faster processor. The 68000 can certainly handle numerics well, but seems to bog down on all but the simplest symbolic operations.
3) Ability to define a function with multiple outputs. For example, a Gaussian elimination decomposition should return both the reduced matrix and the "O" matrix by which one may multiply the original to change it to the reduced form.
4) A true 3-D engine. It is nice to be able to enter functions of two variables, but one should be able to view three-dimensional plots obtained from numerical methods of problem solving, view three-dimensional data plots, or plot space curves parametrically.
5) Vector field plots, Poincar‚ return maps, improved slope and direction field applications.
6) LaPlace and inverse LaPlace transforms.
7) Partial fraction decomposition.
8) Improved ability to program new symbolic functions. The "part" function is a step in the correct direction but is neither sophisticated nor specific enough to be truly useful.
9) Ability to handle tensors.
10) Ability to enter strings, matrices, lists, etc as elements of lists or cell arrays
11) Ability to overload user-defined functions, so that they may return either symbolic or numeric answers, for example. Also, the ability to input fewer than the specified number of parameters to a function and not get errors.

These are just a few suggestions. I'm sure that those who are more advanced in mathematics than I have many more. I don't expect TI to come out with a calculator that does everything that Maple or Mathematica do, but by focusing too much on secondary education it is neglecting a potential market.
TI or a third party should also put out a compiled language for the calculators. I'm impressed with TI-GCC, but TI, having a team of professional programmers, could probably develop the standard libraries and even more powerful interaction with the calculator's built-in features. TI also has the muLisp language, and could possibly release a version for graphics calculators.
Another thing that has struck me is the poor quality of programs in the math and science archives.
A lot of the programs do things that the calculators already do! Additionally, many have poor documentation and terse interfaces. User-friendliness is not a major concern. Neither is standardization or development of syntaxes which make sense to anybody but the user. For the sake of consistency I have been writing my programs so that they either state, clearly, what should be input (rather than specifying a variable name), or in the case of those for the 89 which take inputs from the command line, do so in an order and syntax which follows that of TI's built- in libraries.
The graphics calculator has great potential as a mathematical tool in the classroom, the lab, and even in the professional world, but it will never realize that potential until Texas Instruments chooses not to focus strictly on the secondary education market and programmers (perhaps at the expense of gaming) develop better, more powerful, more consistent mathematics and science software.

 


The comments below are written by ticalc.org visitors. Their views are not necessarily those of ticalc.org, and ticalc.org takes no responsibility for their content.


TI-92's cover some...
Binky  Account Info
(Web Page)

TI-92's cover some of these points:
You can do 3d graphing on a TI-92.
Matrices can be lists/cells or whatever you explained up there in one of your points.

A TI-92 is more powerful, and not everyone has reached the 'brick wall' in TI-92's. That, or they have become overcomed.
A TI-83/85 don't have merely as many functions, due to memory probably. The EOS for those calcs can't handle the TI-92 EOS's stuff.

     5 May 2000, 01:46 GMT

Re: TI-92's cover some...
Bennett Kalafut  Account Info

92 doesn't do any 3d graphing the 89 doesn't. Try doing parametric plots in 3 variables. There's no real 3d engine here, just the surface thing.

     5 May 2000, 03:08 GMT


Re: Re: TI-92's cover some...
Jxxh67  Account Info

I wish people would understand that there isn't any real functionality difference b/t the 89 and 92+...

     5 May 2000, 13:13 GMT


Re: TI-92's cover some...
Nathan Bollman Account Info

If you really think what your saying you obviously don't know your calculators. The 89 AND 92 arn't actually 3D graphs, they are a sad illusion created by multiple linear graphs... <Sigh>

     5 May 2000, 15:53 GMT


Re: Re: TI-92's cover some...
Bennett Kalafut  Account Info

Yeah!

People have been able to do the same thing on the 86--for my 2 var calc class a while back I was using Funk3D, which was just as good as the 89's, more or less.

     5 May 2000, 18:33 GMT

Re: Feature: A Modest Proposal
Sebastian Reichelt  Account Info

About CAS extensions: TI probably just can't put any extended operations, like function analysis, into their calculators (especially TI-89), because that means that TI-89s might lose the privilege of being allowed on AP Calculus tests. If you think of a calculator as a mathematical device (I do - mostly), you have to consider the fact that allowing too much operations enables everyone to cheat like crazy. That's why we are not allowed to take any programmable calculators to school in Germany, and I think it's a good thing.

If you are looking for some function analysis, by the way, check out 'Sebastian's Calculus Package' in the 'TI-89 BASIC Math Programs'. It is pretty good at some stuff, for example sign charts (even of discontinuous functions, derivatives of functions, and so on). I have a little update on sign charts, but I can't get it on my PC because my link cable broke. Anyways, it might be some of what you are looking for.

     5 May 2000, 01:56 GMT

Re: Re: Feature: A Modest Proposal
Nick Disabato  Account Info
(Web Page)

Or they're just planning to release Calc functions in the next Flash application.

See the catch here? They can release calculators lacking in functionality/content and release "updates" at a nominal fee.

--BlueCalx

     5 May 2000, 02:06 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Feature: A Modest Proposal
Sebastian Reichelt  Account Info

Then why didn't they do that yet? They've had enough time already to at least do something of that sort, even if it come's pretty close to Microsoft's techniques.

     5 May 2000, 02:15 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Feature: A Modest Proposal
Nick Disabato  Account Info
(Web Page)

Becuase they never realized that development for calculator programs would be so widespread.

Did ANYONE think ticalc.org - or any site remotely like it - would even EXIST five years ago?

--BlueCalx

     5 May 2000, 02:21 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Feature: A Modest Proposal
Jean Vásquez  Account Info
(Web Page)

If it means anything to anyone, I had an inklin that something like ticalc.org would happen at one time of another.....

     5 May 2000, 04:52 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Feature: A Modest Proposal
Sebastian Reichelt  Account Info

Yes, but I agree with Nick: Who would think that a so many young programmers would gather around a single website? Since I have only been among them for three months, I don't know a lot about ticalc.org's past. If I were a TI programmer in the present, though, I would be quite astonished at what has been done with those calculators. In fact, I was astonished when I first visited the site. Now it is clear to me how many people actually use TIs, but I am still quite astonished.

     6 May 2000, 02:46 GMT


Re: Re: Feature: A Modest Proposal
MathJMendl
(Web Page)

Lol, sounds like an unbiased opinion of calculus programs ("check out 'Sebastian's Calculus Package' in the 'TI-89 BASIC Math Programs'. It is pretty good at some stuff"). Maybe you should write reviews of your programs for ticalc. Seriously, though, I might check out your file soon for the AP Calc exam soon. My only worry would be that someone else's programs might have unchecked errors, as I have often found. Maybe I'll just see if there's anything I really need.

If you are looking for an objective opinion of a couple great programs, download Super Riemann Sums by Jonathan Mendelson or Super Cool Text by Jonathan Mendelson, which includes 4 modes of text animation including a scrolling Super Slope option that has the text bounce back and forth smoothly and quickly in an almost parabolic look (see http://ti89.n3.net/myprogs.html for a screenshot).

     5 May 2000, 05:14 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Feature: A Modest Proposal
Sebastian Reichelt  Account Info

You're right about that part of my item not being very objective. The first paragraph, though, has nothing to do with my program, so take those two as two seperate texts. Anyway, how am I supposed to get downloads if I don't have a chance for a news article. All articles are based on games, shells, or features; math programs don't have a place in there.

     6 May 2000, 02:40 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Feature: A Modest Proposal
MathJMendl
(Web Page)

That's a good point about only the games getting features. I bet it's possible to get a feature if you're releasing a large new non-game project. A circuit simulator even got a subdomain here. I honestly think there should be a better rating system. Maybe a simple thing where you could rate a program from 1-10 in a couple clicks would be nice, because reviews take far too long to write.

     6 May 2000, 09:35 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Feature: A Modest Proposal
Sebastian Reichelt  Account Info

The pity is that there is absolutely no feedback coming from people who actually really use the programs. The download numbers just tell you how well the program was distributed, and the reviews are probably not based on a month's experience with the program. Also, from my over 4,000 downloaders, there were exactly 3 people emailing me.

     6 May 2000, 17:35 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Feature: A Modest Proposal
Paulo Marques  Account Info
(Web Page)

Yeah, true... I personally don't write because I didn't have pop and writing online with hotmail is a hassle. But one of the most important aspects of freeware and open source is the the power to make the programs what we want and aknowledge the fact that someone had a great idea.
Also, a better rating system is a great idea. Basing it on the number of downloads will obviously bias it toward 'newsworthy' items, and not as much to practical ones. A simple 1-10 voting system seems fine. Also, keeping a full list of programs with reviews, notes,date of release/update, whatever for a particular calc so one could just check it out and randomly find a nice program.

Paulo Marques
aka
Cd_Slayer

     7 May 2000, 22:41 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Feature: A Modest Proposal
Ed Fry  Account Info
(Web Page)

Calc.org has a rating system similar to that, including user submitted reviews of programs. I think it's one of the best reviewing systems going right now.

     9 May 2000, 22:58 GMT

Re: Feature: A Modest Proposal
Vejita  Account Info
(Web Page)

Hey, those are all great suggestions. I like do a lot of stuff by hand but I wouldn't frown on improvements like that for automation. But, I would like to point out one thing: this is a calculator at a fair price. If we want big programs, huge prices, etc, then there are different mediums. If you ask me, they have done a great job on including what they can in a small portable system at a fair cost. They HAVE left room alone for us to utilize. If you want very nice programs, the computer is there. If you want portability with ability to help speed up functions and some advanced capability, thats what they give. And about the programming and stuff, its assembly. They aren't going to write in abilty to easily code in C or something to that extent, too much time and resources wasted(and even if not, why do it just for fun).

-Corey Taylor

     5 May 2000, 02:13 GMT


Re: Re: Feature: A Modest Proposal
Sebastian Reichelt  Account Info

C _is_ easy. At least with my IDE... :)

     5 May 2000, 02:17 GMT

Re: Feature: A Modest Proposal
Chris Wong  Account Info

I definitely agree with the things Ben points out. My current calc is a TI86, and as a grade 13 student (yes, grade 13) it has been a lifesaver on several occasions. However, I am familiar with the capabilities of the 89/92 series and I have to believe that there is more TI can do to create a calculator platform designed with high-level mathematics and engineering in mind. Yes, we could all use Mathematica if we really needed zillions of functions, but its cost and reliance on a computer are limitations in that it is not a portable system. What TI needs to do is take everything they have learned from creating graphing calcs and bump it up a few notches so that the result is a calc that is suitable for use in industry and not just secondary school. Processor speed and how many KB (megs?) of RAM are tertiary issues; what is needed is a calc with actual applications in the working world.

     5 May 2000, 02:19 GMT


Re: Re: Feature: A Modest Proposal
Bennett Kalafut  Account Info

I couldn't agree more. Keeping a line of educational tools is nice (and as somebody pointed out earlier, it keeps calculators legal on standardized tests) but they fall short in the professional world. I don't think the price would be too high; TI could take the best features of its products and add features comparable to those of the HP 49, plus a little extra. They already have the DERIVE package to work from and supposedly a C compiler in the works for the 68K...

I'm not sure if such a calculator would be profitable...but from what I hear, people would like to see something intermediate in power between the calculators and computer software.

     5 May 2000, 03:13 GMT

1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  

You can change the number of comments per page in Account Preferences.

  Copyright © 1996-2012, the ticalc.org project. All rights reserved. | Contact Us | Disclaimer