Re: A better calculator, for what?
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: A better calculator, for what?
I think that they all have there good sides, but one of the main
reasons I choose the 86 over at least the 85 is the deep recall, being
able to look back over what you did. Over the 83, I choose it because
of the larger memory and more calculas functions. I also didn't want
to spend the money for a 92, and the 89's weren't available when I
bought it. On the effects of games, you could always say that they do
have a relaxing effort, and the calculator's portability does make
this a good thing to think about when you are on the run and want to
relax. Also, some people buy the 89 for the flash rom that can be
updated.
On Tue, 29 Sep 1998 23:42:06 -0500, Dan lauber <jlauber@execpc.com>
wrote:
>I would always reccomend the newer calcs over the old ones, like the 83,86 and
>89 not an 81, 83 or 85. The newer versions of the older calcs are better
>because TI learned from the older ones. As far as which to buy, an 83, 86, 89
>or 92, depends what you are going to need it for. For more info, go to TI's
>site on their calcs.
>
>Tucker wrote:
>
>> 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
>
>--
> _____ _____
> / __) (__ \
> / (__|_________________________________________________|__) \
> / | | \
> / | Dan Lauber - amateur web developer and promoter | \
>/ | jlauber@execpc.com | \
>\ | The Unofficial Simpsons Page | /
> \ | http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/7524/index.html | /
> \ | __________________________________________________ | /
> \ | Freedows98, the next big OS! | /
> \__| http://www.freedows.org |__/
> | It's free and better than Windows98! |
> |_______________________________________________________|
>
>
References: