Re: HP48 vs TI-92
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Mark P. Wilson wrote
>You are the first professional scientist or engineer I have seen singing the
>praises of the Ti-92. What exactly is your line of research? Your job title
>does not give a very specific impression of what you do.
>
I do experimental and theoretical research on semiconductor lasers,
mainly high speed lasers.
You can find more information on
http://www.ele.kth.se/FMI/research/semlas/HighSpeedLaser.htm
I have also a homepage (not very fancy)
http://www.ele.kth.se/FMI/staff/RichardHomepage.htm
>
>I somewhat agree with you only in that if you require a fairly functional
>symbolic integration or algebra device, yes, it is useful. In my professional
>life as an engineer, symbolics are nice but useless. The vast majority of
>problems I face are either simple algebraics, were the ability to solve an
>equation for a specific variable is important, or unslovable symbolically, in
>which case numeric approximations are used. In this regard, the exceptionally
>powerful programming environment of the Hp-48 clearly outclass the weak
>programming options of the Ti-92.
Well, for engineering purposes you are probably correct. But in
scientific research you want to have analytical formulas that are
more general and give insight into your problem; a formula says more
than thousand numbers. It is difficult to write a scientific paper
without the use of formulas. And sometimes it is also advantageous
in terms of speed to be able to simplify an expression before you
use it. For example, if you want to plot the integral of a function
it is better to get an analytical expression for it first than to
solve it numerically for each point.
>You are confusing simplicity with functionality. I would rather have the
>option of checking in a handbook to remember the syntax of Runge-Kutta numeric
>integration, then not have the ability at all. Quite simply, the Hp-48 has
>about ten times the number of commands that the Ti-92 does. Not all of those
>commands are math functions, but the general point is that the Hp-48 has a
>broader range of functionality built in than the Ti-92.
Yes, I agree that I miss both a symbolic and numerical solver for
differential equations that I assume you mean (the TI-92 solver for
numerical integration is powerful since it uses Gauss' quadrature
formula). But my point was that the high functionality on the HP48
is difficult to use mainly because its small screen and non-QWERTY
keyboard. I also doubt that the number of commands is a good measure
of functionality. It is better with few general commands than many
specialized. But I agree that for numerical calculations the HP-48
is superior to the TI-92.
>For its very specific and narrow focus, yes, the Ti-92 is well done. And
there
>is no question it is better (in speed and functionality) than the Hp-48 at a
>few things. However, it cannot compete with the Hp-48 in a much larger way
>than the Hp-48 cannot compete with it.
>
I needed an easy-to-use calculator for symbolic math, complex
arithmetic and simple graphing. And the TI-92 is good at these
things. And I don't doubt that the HP-48 is a better choice for you
as an engineer. I hope and believe that we have come to consensus
now.
Regards
Richard
References: