Well the lack of math/science programs could be because people like you won't release their programs. You stated, "I don't want to release my programs, because I know someone can make it better" Well thats a bunch of crap. If everyone did that we wouldn't have any programs. So in the future think of releasing your programs, so the archives will have at least something even if they are somewhat slow.

I also agree with the person above that said a lot of people aren't in really advanced classes. Well you are, so try programing something or learn asm (its not that hard) and then you will will stop complaining for everyone else to wipe your butt.

Good point. Sometime in the next 2 hours, I will transfer my program PRIME2 to my computer, and then off to the Ticalc.org archives.

I tottaly agree with this, but I think that mabey the auther could try to learn some programing language or team up with a programer to make programes for math and science more efficient.

The ONLY other language out there is assembler. And I don't think I'll have the free time to learn it, at least not for the next few months.
By the way, PRIME2 and NEWTON are uploaded - they should appear soon.

I totally disagree. Eric are you in Columbus? Reply to my e-mail if you get a chance or look me up. I am working at OSU now

eric I agree - its Kelly. Gotta learn some programing language. Reply back

I agree about the science, but I don't think the math programs are so bad. Since the science is lacking, I have been working on a couple of programs to help out. They are both in BASIC, but I bet they will get used a lot. One program will work out double displacement reactions for you. You enter the reactants, and it goes through the solubility rules(not just shows them), finds the results, tells whether it is aqueous,gas, or solid, and tells if the reaction will go to completion. It works more than 90% of the time at the moment, and I am adding things when I can to improve it. The other will give you the name and molecular formula of alkanes, alkynes, alkenes, and alcohols from just the number of C & H. It is only 841 bytes, and I plan on adding support for structural formulas as well. I have no other projects as of yet, but if anybody has some suggestions or wants a pre-release version of these, then just email me.

hello, please send me any chemistry programs you have for TI-92+

I dunno...I'd think that for all the really heavy math/science crunching out there, there would be either specific programs (or equipment, for that matter) for higher-powered machines...MathView for the PC/Mac is a nice example. And besides, I've always seen the TI calculator (except for the 89 and 92, that is) as being hyped up just for the kind of audience you mention (middle thru high school, maybe college applications)...I mean, I've never seen anyone really pushing the TI-83 as "the engineer's best friend."
And, even so, most of the programs that will be uploaded to an archive will have been written by someone for some specific instance (i.e. they needed to crunch some #'s for Newton's Method for a test), something that they think might be helpful to someone else somewhere, just maybe. You can't usually expect to find some all-knowing set of programs that can do everything under the sun...most people that write math programs don't have that broad a scope in mind when they write them...they just need the help for what they're working on just then.

P.S. Sorry for taking up so much space.

who really cares? I use my calculator for games, and programming experience, if you want math programs, make them yourself, dont complain about other people not doing it for you.

Sure...I would love to see you write your own games. I bet you will go crazy and get some that are written by others. This is the same for math and science programs. Not all of us know how to make the *best* program to do quadratic equations, but some of us can make a program that will do it, but each one's will use a different technique. I think that this article has a good point and one that should be followed. I know that some of us could use a faster and better optimized program that does many complex mathematical and science problems, and they are in need and will be welcomed by the users. For the other folk out there that only use their calc for games, I bet that you must not know how to do very complex things off the top of your head......

I agree. I've seen several articles in the last few weeks about what programmers "should" do. I can understand people wanting to help each other with meaningful suggestions, but it really comes down to what the programmer wants to do. We're all doing this as a hobby. When I'm involved in any hobby, including programming, I don't like being told how I should or shouldn't do it. The purpose for hobbies, as I see it, is to avoid such control. I make most of my programs on whims, not because someone else wants me to. Sometimes, I even do it for popularity. And that's what I think the article writers are really striving for, although they claim otherwise. I can't blame, them either. A little stardom is nice every once in a while.

I think many TI-BASIC programmers in middle or high school do it primarily for a very narrow purpose, and for popularity. This includes me, although unfortunately programmers are given very little stardom -- in my case, people report "bugs" that have to do with overflow errors and then they ditch my program because the think it's "unethical" to use it to speed up homework.

I always tought people would buy graphing cals bought them mainly to help them with there math. Hey if yea want games buy a game boy!!!

About the exact answer thing (by JimmyPop), my advice to you is to go buy a TI-92 or a TI-89. The default on those calculators is to keep things in fractions or in terms of pi or in terms of "i" and so on. But let me tell you, it is not a good a feature as it sounds. I personally would prefer the 12 decimal places to something like "7 (pi) / 2." Makes it easier to comprehend.

About chemistry programs: I took AP Chemistry last year (and scored a "5" on the exam, by the way). I wrote several computer programs along the way. I had a program to solve equations (gives you possible products when presented with the reactants, possible reactants when presented with the products, and balances). I also wrote database programs that could solve for every isomer of a particular compound. And so on. My point is that while programs will help you on homework (I do homework at home so I can use my computer programs), you still have to learn the methods for tests. Otherwise, why take chemistry? Programs to solve everything would take out the challenge.

About math programs. In tenth grade I wrote and used a math program to convert numbers between rectangular and polar form for a test. After I got the test back (with a dismal grade), I realized that my program had a small calculaton flaw. I have never used a math program in math class since then. This year I will use my TI-92+ in my math classes (AP Stat & Differential Equations). The TI-92+ does everything I could possibly need, so there is no real need for any math programs.

About the periodic table. I had the TI-92 periodic table program for AP Chemistry last year (the awesome one written by the French guy). I had no problems with precision. I think that the program had around eight digits precision. I don't really remember, though. In Honors Chemistry in tenth grade, I used a periodic table program for ZShell on my TI-85. That worked out really well too. Honors Chemistry does not require precision beyond two or three digits in my school.

Lastly, I would like to agree with James Rubingh. My calculators already have every function I need. The only thing it is really missing is games (which is why so many people write and post them). If you feel for some reason that there is a program which you need and is not on this site, you should write it yourself (or kindly ask that someone else do it for you). Complaining won't do a thing.

p.s. Clinton rules, Starr sucks

> 1.There need to be more math and science >programs (both
> TI-BASIC and assembly) for all the TI >calculators. (Granted, some

Then write them.

> cannot support the heavy-duty math >sometimes required, as in the
> NTH. No other calculator (except the >TI-89) could support that.)

They certainly could. Write them in assembly.

> 2.A programmer writing math/science should >get to know the subject
> in detail, to make a program that has >many useful features.

..yet you want them to produce mass volumes of programs, see your number 1 above.

> 3.Also, a programmer writing math/science >should go to extremes to
> provide precision. (This mostly applies >to science. I refuse to use a
> Periodic Table that gives Oxygen a mass >of 16. I'll consider using a
> Periodic Table that gives Oxygen a mass >of 15.9994.)

Holy shih-tzu! What the flock for? You need to spend some time around engineers. If there's one thing I've learned from having 3 engineers in my family, it's that 15.9994 = 16 for *all practical purposes*. Remember, we did send men to the moon using slide rules...

> 6.Programs should be made for really >complicated things. Now, while

Ok, then write them... seems kind of obvious to me...

> programs that do (say) quadratic >equations are useful in their own
> right for some/most people, there also

...that being the reason they were written and distributed...

>exists a need for heavy-duty
> math and science. (Probably the NTH is

And there exist people like you (presumably) to... shocker of all shocks! WRITE THEM!

> TI-BASIC math programs are for a 8th >grade Algebra I audience.
> And the TI-BASIC science programs are for >a medium high school

Suprisingly, because that's who buys TI-8x calculators! Really, what on earth did you expect?

> level. And the assembly programs are few >and far between.)

Because it's so damned inefficient to load number after number into registers and make eight hundred and three ROM calls when you can do it in BASIC in three lines.


Here's the bottom line: Most math and science programs are written by individual students for their local curriculum. They write them as quick shortcuts for checking math and science work and don't intend to make them convenient for others. Let me tell you... I've never written a math/sci program with others in mind... I write them for myself.

Which is what you should do, instead of whining at us. You should be ashamed. Your post is little more than a rant.

Let it be known, let it be said, that most anything I write is a rant. I've written hundreds of K of essays on my *ahem* (which, by the way, is not at www.fnal.gov - that's just a ploy to get you to a particle physics site!) and I've acknowledge that they're all, in one form or another, rants. Ranting is my way. By the way, I simply don't have the time to write the math programs I was talking about. By the way, a TI-85, in my opinion, is WAY more than what an Algebra I student needs. It's what a Calculus I student needs. (TI-92s are good for that, too.)

You need to shut your mouth STD. You have no time to write the programs you need, but you have all day to sit at your damn computer and chat on ticalc.org. I have also noticed that you seem to be extremely familiar and up to date with the archives; is that not time that could be better spent, say, WRITING YOUR OWN DAMN PROGRAMS!
Do you expect us:
1. To write these programs for you
2. To actually sympathize because you have no time, and
3. To take the destructive criticism you have put upon the friendly programming community in ticalc.org without a complaint???
NO
Of course we would not and many have stuck it in your face as to how wrong you are, me being one.

You have uploaded a program for prime numbers. I haven't downloaded it so I would not know how good it is. In total, you have uploaded 2 programs onto this website and one of them could take a novice programmer 2 hrs to program in Eratosthenes' Sieve into a program(a really novice programmer). No offense to the novice programmers, because the best of the best programmers in the world were novices at one time, but the effort required to create that is truly pathetic.

Maybe next time you can try a topic where you actually think on both sides of the argument, because you are surely losing on this one.

8)

I totally agree with you.
why the hell write

#include "ti86asm.inc"

.org _asm_exec_ram

call _clrLCD ; clear the screen
ld hl, $0000 ; stores $00 in h, $00 in l
ld (_curRow),hl ; stores 0 in _curRow, 0 in _curCol
ld hl, Hello ; hl points to string Hello
call _puts ; print the string
ld a, '!' ; load ! character in A
call _putc ; print '!'
call _newline ; go to next line
ret ; return from program

Hello:
.db "Hello world",0

.end

when you could write

:Disp "Hello World"
:End

who the heck would waste their time writing 803 rom calls (lol) for whine asses?

I totally agree with you.
why the heck write

#include "ti86asm.inc"

.org _asm_exec_ram

call _clrLCD ; clear the screen
ld hl, $0000 ; stores $00 in h, $00 in l
ld (_curRow),hl ; stores 0 in _curRow, 0 in _curCol
ld hl, Hello ; hl points to string Hello
call _puts ; print the string
ld a, '!' ; load ! character in A
call _putc ; print '!'
call _newline ; go to next line
ret ; return from program

Hello:
.db "Hello world",0

.end

when you could write

:Disp "Hello World"
:End

who the heck would waste their time writing 803 rom calls (lol) for whine asses?

In basic, you don't write "End" at the end of the program. you just leave it blank if it's the end of the program and if you're quitting there in the middle, you just write "Stop"

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooh, dis