Re: Various notes about the TI 92
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Aaron Bergman wrote:
> Well, substitution works in all other cases for continuous
> functions, so it's not horrid. They just forgot about this
Of course it works in all cases for continous functions; in
fact, Ellis and Gulick define a function as being continous at a if
lim x->a of f(x)=f(a). ["A function is continous at a number a in its
domain if lim x->a f(x)=f(a)"]
By saying it was a horrible way to evaluate limits, I thought
it was understood I wasn't speaking about continuous functions.
I concede that it was a bad choice of words on my part.
The point here is that the 92 gives a blatantly false result, which was
what was said in the first place.
> What I find interesting here is how this reflects on how the calc
> stores the number. Obviously, it must be storing 0 differently
> from 0^2. I'm not quite sure why they would do that. They must be
> storing 0^2 as 0+, I guess.
Yeah, that is pretty interesting. As a consequence, you can make the
calculator say 1/0=1/0 is true on one line, and 1/0=1/0 false on the
next. :)
> Well, the theory's easy. What's the maximum integer size on the
> 92? It'd be pretty easy to come up with something that would work
> somewhat slower than molasses in winter.
The max. integer size on the 92 is about 10^614, if I'm not mistaken
(which I wouldn't count on).
- Paul
paulp@televault.com
References: