Re: A better calculator, for what?
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: A better calculator, for what?
You said no one-liners, but I have one with a good argument: More
functions. You can do more faster with newer calculators.
Ladnor Geissinger wrote:
>
> I have just been on the CALC-TI mail list for a few weeks, but I'm
> struck by the number of questions about what calculator should you buy,
> and should you upgrade to a 85,86,89,92 etc. Also there are those who
> proclaim with certainty that you should get an 89,or ... These
> exchanges are curious because there is almost no context provided,
> except sometimes the statement that you are taking calculus or precalc,
> and there are no reasons given (something more than a word or two, a
> thoughtful argument with enough details to be understandable if not
> believable) for why certain calculators are being recommended. I have
> used an 81, 82, and 83, but not a lot, and I don't see why I should
> suggest to my calculus students that they really should have an 86 or 89
> or whatever. For the occasional need for more power or bettter graphics,
> or to use interactive math workbooks, of course one turns to a computer
> algebra system with a reasonable size monitor.
>
> I would like to hear from those who make strong recommendations in favor
> of the 86 or 89 or 92 - and not just one-liners, but carefully thought
> out, detailed responses. And don't tell me about games, I'm only
> interested in arguments about calculator use for learning and doing math
> in school and college. (Well, I might listen if you spin a serious
> thesis about the role of certain kinds of games.) What more is it that
> you want that the 82 or 83 doesn't provide, and why? And why wouldn't
> this "more" be better provided by a CAS on a PC?
>
> --
> Ladnor Geissinger, Prof of Mathematics
> Mathematics Dept, CB 3250 Phillips Hall
> Univ of North Carolina, Chapel Hill NC 27599 USA
Follow-Ups:
References: