ticalc.org
Basics Archives Community Services Programming
Hardware Help About Search Your Account
   Home :: Archives :: News :: TI-89/TI-92+ SDK 1.0 Released

TI-89/TI-92+ SDK 1.0 Released
Posted by Eric on 14 January 2002, 21:48 GMT

TI has released the first official (non-beta) version of their TI-89/TI-92+ SDK. Not much has been added since the beta versions, but it does allow all freeware applications to be loaded into the emulator. It's free, so all you developers out there...give it a whirl.

 


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.


e^(pi*i)
I a  Account Info
(Web Page)

Can somebody explain where the insanity in this problem has gone to?

e^(pi*i)+1=0
e^(pi*i)=-1
e^(2*pi*i)=1 (square both sides)
2*pi*i=0 (natural log of both sides)

2*pi*i=0? Help me solve my dilemma!

     14 January 2002, 22:30 GMT

Re: e^(pi*i)
pollpo

Are you feeling okay?

     14 January 2002, 23:39 GMT

Re: e^(pi*i)
ShivonM  Account Info

You gotta think about the complex coordinate system in polar coordinates, kinda hard to explain in a post like this. r*e^(theta*i), where r is the radius and theta is the angle. In this case, we are pointing to -1. If it were e^(2*pi*i), we would point to 1, and e^(1/2*pi*i) points to i.

     14 January 2002, 23:41 GMT

Re: e^(pi*i)
MathJMendl  Account Info
(Web Page)

It has to do with taylor polynomials, you can use them to derive that e^(pi*i)=-1.

Anyway, if that confuses you try these,

a=b
0=b-a
0/(b-a)=(b-a)/(b-a)
0=1

x^2 = x*x
x^2 = x+x+...x (x x's)
now, take the derivative..
2x = 1+1+...1 (x 1's)
2x = x
2x/x = x/x
2 = 1

I hope that clears things up for you.

     15 January 2002, 00:37 GMT


Re: Re: e^(pi*i)
Aier  Account Info

Man, you're 'problems aren't even difficult.

1)Dividing (b-a)/(b-a) isn't allowed in ordinairy maths because (b-a) = 0. Or, in other words, 0/0 is quite a mistake.

2)x^2^=sum(i=1..x,xi)
but d(x^2,x)<>d(sum(i=1..x,xi),x)

So, you're less interesting than you probably hoped for.

Greetings

     15 January 2002, 21:16 GMT

Re: e^(pi*i)
MathJMendl  Account Info
(Web Page)

On a second thought, when you square things it can add roots, at least if there is a polynomial. And, since ln(-1) exists as i, maybe that is why it gets screwed up, since you tried to square it before taking the natural log.

e^(pi*i)+1=0
e^(pi*i)=-1
e^(2*pi*i)=1 (square both sides)

instead of this last line we can say

e^(pi*i)*e^(pi*i)=-1*-1

So

ln(e^(pi*i)*e^(pi*i)) = ln(-1*-1)

2ln(e^(pi*i)) = 2ln(-1) (since ln(a^2) = 2ln(a))

And, ln(-1) clearly does not exist in the rational field, but this is equivalent to what you are trying to do. Maybe you just shouldn't mix all these complex numbers with normal ones.

     15 January 2002, 00:41 GMT


Re: Re: e^(pi*i)
hdyf  Account Info

Puzzles resolved (sort of):


exp(pi*i) = -1 ==>(implies) 2pi*i = 0

This is wrong because in general, exp(pi*i*(2n+1)) = -1 (for n an integer)
So if you use this more general expression, you end up with:

4*pi*i*n = 0

for n=0, the beginning and ending equations agree. Why it doesn't work for all n still puzzles me. See below for another puzzle which is basically the same thing.


a=b
0=b-a
0/(b-a)=(b-a)/(b-a)
0=1

This one is easy. b-a = 0, and you can't divide by zero.


x^2 = x*x
x^2 = x+x+...x (x x's)
now, take the derivative..
2x = 1+1+...1 (x 1's)
2x = x
2x/x = x/x
2 = 1

I think the problem here is that the sum is only true for integer x and doesn't work when x is real. Since differentiation isn't defined on the integers, it doesn't make sense to differentiate a function on the integers.


exp(i*2*pi*n) = 1 (for n an integer)
e = e*1
= e*exp(i*2*pi*n)
= exp(1+i*2*pi*n)
= (exp(1+i*2*pi*n))^(1+i*2*pi*n)
= exp((1+i*2*pi*n)^2)
= exp(1+i*4*pi*n-4*pi^2*n^2)
= exp(1+i*4*pi*n)*exp(-4*pi^2*n^2)
= e*exp(-4*pi^2*n^2)
!=(not equal to) e (for n != 0)

Evil. I think where we use exp(a)^b = exp(a*b) is where things go wrong, in this puzzle and the first one.
To the guy who said we shouldn't mix "normal" numbers with complex ones: every real number is a complex number, i.e. a = a + i*0, but you probably knew that. Real numbers are "unreal" just as imaginary numbers are. Think about how you can get infinite precision on the reals. You obviously can't do that to anything in real life. The reals just have properties that make them closer to common sense than imaginary numbers, but they're still completely abstract and exist only in the mind.

Sorry for the long off-topic post, but I'm new here, so it's not my fault. Where is this mythical math forum?

jk

     15 January 2002, 10:32 GMT


Re: Re: Re: e^(pi*i)
hdyf  Account Info

I'm sure nobody cared then and even fewer people care now, but I have the definitive answer to the puzzle.

Like I said above, if you remember the fact that the complex exponential is periodic, you get this:

exp(2*pi*i*n) = 1 ==> 2*pi*i*n = 0
(the 4 was a goof on my part)

It seems like this is only valid for n = 0, but then I remembered an obscure fact about the logarithm: it's multi-valued. In general,

ln(z) = ln(r) + i*(theta + 2*pi*n)

Where z is a complex number, r is its modulus, theta is its argument, and n is an integer. This is fairly obvious if you write z as a phasor (z = r*exp(theta*i)) before taking its logrithm. If you don't know, the modulus is like the radius and the argument is like the polar angle in polar coordinates. So for z = 1 + 0*i,

ln(z) = ln(1) + i*(0 + 2*pi*n) = 2*pi*n*i

and the paradox is resolved.

     20 February 2002, 07:53 GMT

Re: e^(pi*i)
MathJMendl  Account Info
(Web Page)

I just noticed that this is offtopic. You should post this in a math forum.

     15 January 2002, 00:46 GMT

Re: Re: e^(pi*i)
no_one_2000_  Account Info

You just noticed, eh?

     15 January 2002, 02:10 GMT


Re: Re: Re: e^(pi*i)
MathJMendl  Account Info
(Web Page)

Hehe yeah well, I couldn't think of any other way to phrase that. I mean "oh and by the way, that was offtopic" might have sounded funny. I foresaw a comment such as yours, though.

     15 January 2002, 03:08 GMT


Re: Re: e^(pi*i)
lord_nightrose Account Info
(Web Page)

OH MY GOD an actual MATH-RELATED post on a calculator site!! Bravo!

     15 January 2002, 04:25 GMT


Re: Re: Re: e^(pi*i)
MathJMendl  Account Info
(Web Page)

Look at the type of article it is attached to, sherlock.

     15 January 2002, 04:42 GMT


Web Page
Bandersnatch Account Info

Dude, your web page is cool but weird

     22 January 2002, 04:05 GMT

Re: TI-89/TI-92+ SDK 1.0 Released
acr34  Account Info
(Web Page)

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I GOT A TI-89!!!!!!!!! NOW I CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

of course... I'll have to learn asm all over, or maybe I'll join the dark side of C

     15 January 2002, 00:06 GMT

Re: Re: TI-89/TI-92+ SDK 1.0 Released
kb9wte Account Info

What's wrong with C? Why learn assembly for a single processor when you can learn C for which there is a compiler for practically every computer system on the face of the earth?

     15 January 2002, 00:24 GMT

Re: Re: Re: TI-89/TI-92+ SDK 1.0 Released
Joel Smith  Account Info

Cause assembly is cool. If a person codes assembly, it tends to run a little faster than a computer converting C into assembly.

That's why people learn assembly.

     15 January 2002, 02:35 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: TI-89/TI-92+ SDK 1.0 Released
Markus Gasser  Account Info

>>it tends to run a little faster than a computer converting C into assembly.

Right, but this is only true if you are an advanced programmer in asm because the compilers and linkers become better and better. And since he wants to start it would be better when he starts with C, that's much easier.

     15 January 2002, 17:46 GMT

Re: Re: Re: TI-89/TI-92+ SDK 1.0 Released
Achorny  Account Info

Yeah? Is there one for the TI-83+?

     15 January 2002, 13:22 GMT


Re: Re: Re: TI-89/TI-92+ SDK 1.0 Released
Samuel Stearley
(Web Page)

Assembly is fun.

Also most of the sofware written for the calc is so diesigned for the calc that I do not see it being useful on other platforms.

-Samuel

     15 January 2002, 18:09 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: TI-89/TI-92+ SDK 1.0 Released
lalu

It depends. A purely numeric program (that doesn't use the estack) should be portable.

     17 January 2002, 03:46 GMT


Re: Re: TI-89/TI-92+ SDK 1.0 Released
Kevin Kofler
(Web Page)

You should try TIGCC (at http://tigcc.ticalc.org, or just click the Web Page link above) instead, it has a few more features:
- Global and static variables are allowed in RAM programs with TIGCC.
- Programs can be automatically compressed with TIGCC. This also allows RAM programs of up to 64 KB of uncompressed size rather than just 24 KB.
- TIGCC is given with a static library called TIGCCLIB which contains functions like most ANSI stdio.h and stdlib.h functions, grayscale and sprite routines and many more.
- Programs written with TIGCC also run on AMS versions lower than 2.04 without having to install a memory resident emulation program.
- Programs written with TIGCC also work on AMS 1, while SDK programs often fail to work even with an emulation program because they use ROM_CALLs available on AMS 2 only. SDK programs even sometimes use ROM_CALLs only introduced in AMS 2.04 or 2.05.
- TIGCC is a port of GCC 3, so you get GCC specific features such as GNU C extensions with it.
- TIGCC supports third-party static libraries, and a few of those have already been written, like ExtGraph by Thomas Nussbaumer.
- TIGCC also allows you to program in assembly (not just inline assembly), and you even have the choice between 2 different assemblers.
- TIGCC also allows you to write kernel-based programs, including dynamic libraries and programs which use them (even though I do not recommend to use this feature).

     15 January 2002, 03:06 GMT

Re: Re: Re: TI-89/TI-92+ SDK 1.0 Released
MathJMendl  Account Info
(Web Page)

Hehe listing all its features, eh? I think it's inherently obvious that TI-GCC is the best compiler around, even without that.

     15 January 2002, 08:19 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: TI-89/TI-92+ SDK 1.0 Released
Kevin Kofler
(Web Page)

Not all its features. Only those the SDK doesn't have.

     15 January 2002, 18:29 GMT

Re: Re: Re: TI-89/TI-92+ SDK 1.0 Released
Martin Klein-Hennig  Account Info
(Web Page)

The only good thing about the TI-SDK is the Developer Guide TI offers, it contains a lot of material about the calculators' architecture.

     15 January 2002, 09:54 GMT


Re: Re: Re: TI-89/TI-92+ SDK 1.0 Released
cybernesto
(Web Page)

> - Programs can be automatically compressed with TIGCC. This also allows RAM programs of up to 64 KB of uncompressed size rather than just 24 KB
Hey, but in SDK there´s no size limit at all!.

     15 January 2002, 10:39 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: TI-89/TI-92+ SDK 1.0 Released
Markus Gasser  Account Info

>>Hey, but in SDK there´s no size limit at all!.

Wrong! There is a size limit.
With the TI-GCC you can only develop RAM-Apps, not Flash-Apps. You also can develop RAM-Apps with the TI-SDK, but the size is limited to 24k(TI-GCC->64k!) due their anti-piracy mechanism. Also Flash-Apps have a size limit, but it's at 4M, wich is about five times the Flash-ROM available on a TI-89/92+.

     15 January 2002, 17:53 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: TI-89/TI-92+ SDK 1.0 Released
Kevin Kofler
(Web Page)

Yes, and you cannot get the FlashApps signed, so currently you cannot actually develop a FlashApp which works on a real calculator, not even with the SDK. Unsigned FlashApps only work on TI's simulator.

     15 January 2002, 18:28 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: TI-89/TI-92+ SDK 1.0 Released
dietsche Account Info
(Web Page)

Which, is one more reason (if i may) why I think that this version 1.0 of FS should still be called a beta :)

     15 January 2002, 19:37 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: TI-89/TI-92+ SDK 1.0 Released
lalu

You can, actually, but to do that the app needs to be submitted in one of TI's app contests (until the freeware key is released).

     17 January 2002, 03:51 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: TI-89/TI-92+ SDK 1.0 Released
Markus Gasser  Account Info

In an e-mail TI written to me, they already have released the freeware key with the version 1.0.
But I didn't find anything, so I think it isn't true.

     17 January 2002, 17:25 GMT

1  2  3  

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