Ti now also has EQW!!! :(
Vincent Rubiolo
I was wondering if EQW (the name) wasn't copyrighted by HP...
The Ti-borgs are waking up once again :)
Bye,
Vincent
--
------------------------------------------
|Vincent Rubiolo |
|1st year student at the engineering school|
|Ecole des Mines de Nantes (France) |
------------------------------------------
Lopez de la Fuente, Jose Manri
> Check out at http://triton.towson.edu/~bbhatt1/ti/eqw.htm
>
> I was wondering if EQW (the name) wasn't copyrighted by HP...
>
> The Ti-borgs are waking up once again :)
And it can edit/create lists and matrices,... Ups, I think EQW
from HP is now a step behind ...Boys it's time to bring "balance
to the force".
One question... Is there any EQW for PC? Any C code that could be
linked with giac (C++ CAS made by B.Parisse) or similar, to have
a powerfull calc in any PC??? Why a PC? Why not a Palm PC? Am I
dreaming again?
J.Manrique
CdU de la ETSIIG
http://www.etsiig.uniovi.es/asociaciones/clubusu
Roger Metcalf
"Lopez de la Fuente, Jose Manri" <zz92...@opalo.etsiig.uniovi.es> wrote in
message
>... Is there any EQW for PC? Any C code that could be
> linked with giac (C++ CAS made by B.Parisse) or similar, to have
> a powerfull calc in any PC??? Why a PC? Why not a Palm PC? Am I
> dreaming again?
>
> J.Manrique
> CdU de la ETSIIG
> http://www.etsiig.uniovi.es/asociaciones/clubusu
Jose: Buenos noches, como estas? In Mathematica 3 and 4 you can input
equations in "pretty" form instead of command line...I'm not sure if you can
do so in "regular" Maple or not (by the way, has ANYONE seen the Casio Math
Extender with Maple WinCE software on a compact flash card? Is this
vaporware?), though the Scientific Workplace and Scientific Word frontends
for Maple do use "pretty" notation....
Cheers,
Roger
Arlington, Texas
Disclaimer: The University of Texas System does not
necessarily represent my views about anything
Lopez de la Fuente, Jose Manri
> "Lopez de la Fuente, Jose Manri" <zz92...@opalo.etsiig.uniovi.es> wrote in
> message
>
>>... Is there any EQW for PC? Any C code that could be
>> linked with giac (C++ CAS made by B.Parisse) or similar, to have
>> a powerfull calc in any PC??? Why a PC? Why not a Palm PC? Am I
>> dreaming again?
>>
>> J.Manrique
>> CdU de la ETSIIG
>> http://www.etsiig.uniovi.es/asociaciones/clubusu
>
>
> Jose: Buenos noches, como estas? In Mathematica 3 and 4 you can input
> equations in "pretty" form instead of command line...I'm not sure if you can
> do so in "regular" Maple or not (by the way, has ANYONE seen the Casio Math
> Extender with Maple WinCE software on a compact flash card? Is this
> vaporware?), though the Scientific Workplace and Scientific Word frontends
> for Maple do use "pretty" notation....
Thanks for your answer,
I knew it about Mathematica, but I was asking about something..
"cheaper" ...
And that Maple WinCE have disappear from the map...
Perhaps new MuPAD 2.0 will come with a EQW (I have seen some
screenshots of something similar, but it's not in the beta that I
have)..
I keep on dreaming..
J.Manrique
CdU de la ETSIIG
>
Scott Guth
I have, however, already found a Serious Bug in this software. After typing
MINEISBETTER then Simplify, nothing happens!
;-)
Bye,
Scott Guth
p.s. Seriously, it's very nice to see a quality application for a TI calc.
It is, however, painfully similar to our own beloved HP49 EQW.
"Vincent Rubiolo" <vrub...@eleve.emn.fr> wrote in message
news:3AA37A70...@eleve.emn.fr...
Lopez de la Fuente, Jose Manri
> Very nice!
>
> I have, however, already found a Serious Bug in this software. After typing
> MINEISBETTER then Simplify, nothing happens!
>
> ;-)
Yeah, that's why I love hp calcs.. they easter eggs are really
nice.
>
> Bye,
>
> Scott Guth
>
> p.s. Seriously, it's very nice to see a quality application for a TI calc.
> It is, however, painfully similar to our own beloved HP49 EQW.
>
Just similar, our beloved hp49 eqw doesn't admit matrices,
lists,..
J.Manrique
CdU de la ETSIIG
>
>
>
>
Phillip Hendrickson
On 6 Mar 2001, Lopez de la Fuente, Jose Manri wrote:
> In article <9836h9$r31v$1...@hades.csu.net>, "Scott Guth" <sguth....@mtsac.edu> writes:
> > Very nice!
> >
> > I have, however, already found a Serious Bug in this software. After typing
> > MINEISBETTER then Simplify, nothing happens!
That's too bad :-(
> >
> > ;-)
>
> Yeah, that's why I love hp calcs.. they easter eggs are really
> nice.
>
> >
> > Bye,
> >
> > Scott Guth
> >
> > p.s. Seriously, it's very nice to see a quality application for a TI calc.
> > It is, however, painfully similar to our own beloved HP49 EQW.
hehe....that's the kind of ironic part of it all. EQW is so similar to
HPs that I thought the author had emulated the HP equation writers, but I
found out that he never looked at an HP while he was writing EQW. He
explained to me that the way the TI handles expressions and functions
internally is very similar to the way HP's do (in RPN), and so that is the
reason for the similarities. Interesting....TI and HP both use similar
internal forms.... :)
> >
>
> Just similar, our beloved hp49 eqw doesn't admit matrices,
> lists,..
yes...but it does have a matrix editor, just as the TI does :-P
Jean-Yves Avenard
Yeah.. Right..
The selection process is exactly the same and it's not something you see
everyday.
Also if you look at the people who wrote the documentation, they are both
HP49 user, and they even post here from time to time..
The 2 EQW are too similar (e.g. identical) to believe that the author never
looked at the HPs one.
But that's good, it means it's a good design isn't it ??
Jean-Yves
"Phillip Hendrickson" <phen...@aludra.usc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.21.01030...@aludra.usc.edu...
Phillip Hendrickson
ok...well, I'm just repeating what I was told. Maybe E.W. has seen the HP
EQW (he didn't specifically say that he hadn't), but he did say
specifically that he did not base his EQW on HP's. I don't know: it seems
like the foundational way that the program selects expressions really is
based on the TI AMS (it makes sense because of the structure of the
expression stack), but maybe he did, in small ways, emulate HP.
With regard to the manual writers, while it's true that they did also test
the program, all of the comments and suggestions I am aware of related to
bugs the program had, or suggestions on how to improve input methods for
specific functions. I don't believe they said anything about the overall
operation of EQW (which, I think, is the point you were trying to make).
I can see how you're sceptical. I might be too if I saw a new program
that worked suspiciously like mine did without knowing a lot about
it. All I'm saying, though, is that the author himself told me that he
did not base his program on HP's equation writer.
ta ta :)
Phillip Hendrickson
Neill McKay
>
> Hello
>
> Yeah.. Right..
>
> The selection process is exactly the same and it's not something you see
> everyday.
> Also if you look at the people who wrote the documentation, they are both
> HP49 user, and they even post here from time to time..
>
> The 2 EQW are too similar (e.g. identical) to believe that the author never
> looked at the HPs one.
> But that's good, it means it's a good design isn't it ??
Nice of them to include documentation with it... they're one up on HP.
:)
Neill McKay
Steen Schmidt
Yes, and what documentation. It's worth for HP doc writers to take a gander
at I think :-)
Regards
Steen
Scott Guth
> The 2 EQW are too similar (e.g. identical) to believe that the author
never
> looked at the HPs one.
> But that's good, it means it's a good design isn't it ??
That's exactly right. The HP49 EQW is, in my opinion, brilliant (written by
G. Squelart, no?), and has always been my argument for convincing students
to go HP instead of TI. When we do math, we live inside of EQW for as long
as possible. The HP49 EQW is soooooo fast too. It's really fantastic.
After working with HP49-EQW for so long, I don't enjoy using the TI command
line for executing mathematical operations.
If TI is smart, they will consider licensing the TI-EQW software from it's
author, and bundling it in their next TI89/92 ROM. I hope they don't (as I
have an HP bias), but we'll see. Maybe they will not be as open as HP has
been regarding the licensing of existing software like Metakernel and
Erable.
Best regards,
Scott Guth
Mathematics Dept.
Mt. San Antonio College
Jean-Yves Avenard
Jean-Yves
"Steen Schmidt" <SSch...@nospam.dk> wrote in message
news:Bsdp6.756$uQ5....@news010.worldonline.dk...
Bernard Parisse
> hehe....that's the kind of ironic part of it all. EQW is so similar to
> HPs that I thought the author had emulated the HP equation writers, but I
> found out that he never looked at an HP while he was writing EQW. He
> explained to me that the way the TI handles expressions and functions
> internally is very similar to the way HP's do (in RPN), and so that is the
> reason for the similarities. Interesting....TI and HP both use similar
> internal forms.... :)
There is however one subtle difference in the HP EQW: if you have to
represent a+b+c for example, in RPN you will have 2 levels of +
a b c + + or a b + c +
as in the EQW you have only one level (try uparrow and rightarrow
or leftarrow) which means the EQW does not use the RPN representation
of symbolics. It is well known that TI use the same internal
representation
for symbolic objects, so the natural question is does E.W. EQW use
at 2 level + like the internal representation or a flat representation
(multiargs +)?
BTW, it's interesting to see that peoples are transforming there TI like
the HP49 software: EQW, Symbolic math guide (aka step by step), ...
Maybe the ideas inside the HP49 software were good, it's just that
we don't have enough speed for these guys...
Steen Schmidt
Yes, that's also exclusive documentation. I was referring to the HP49G
manual - it's not you who wrote that, right?
Regards
Steen
Steen Schmidt
> we don't have enough speed for these guys...
That's the exact problem.
Even most TI guys admit that the HP49G software is grade A - the calc is
just too slow.
Regards
Steen
Vincent Rubiolo
I do totally agree
David Haguenauer
calc.
>> It is, however, painfully similar to our own beloved HP49 EQW.
>Just similar, our beloved hp49 eqw doesn't admit matrices,
>lists,..
I don't really see the point of being able to edit matrices or lists. On a
HP49, each element can be EQW-edited from MTRW, which I think is
sufficient (the screen would quickly need scrolling anyway).
I suppose that the EQW program for the TIs uses the built-in
prettyprinter, which makes it somehow easy for it to display limits
properly. I would like to have limits diplayed properly on the HP49, as
well as being able to put indices, but the people at HP don't seem to want
to do it.
David Haguenauer
http://zap.to/hsimpson
Jean-Yves Avenard
Just so that you know.
The EQW has been written in the idea of being able to edit anything. So
adding matrix or list capabilities of editing is not only possible, not too
difficult. Just time consuming.
Remember also that doing the job on the TI is a little bit easier than on
the HP as the TI doesn't have all these wierds objects and the flexibility
like graphics etc... So you have much more case to handle on the HP.
The EQW currently support even RPL program, matrix and list. It can just
display them for the moment (which is the biggest job)
Jean-Yves
"David Haguenauer" <hsam...@lemel.fr> wrote in message
news:9865un$1ka$1...@front2m.grolier.fr...
Gerald Squelart
Just a detail you might find interesting: the HP49 EQW already has matrix
editing (and much easier to navigate than on TI), but it's disabled, because
you would be able to create illegal matrices, I admit it was a bit too
difficult to check these beasts (as JY says, there's so many combinations
possible)! And as David points out, you would rapidly have to scroll, so
it's better to use the Matrix Editor anyway.
Oh, and I originally picked the idea to move up and down the RPN tree, and
left and right on arguments, from Derive...
(I hope I won't get into trouble :-)
But there are other programs doing that as well, and I think that it's a
pretty straight forward way to move in an expression.
So please don't blame E.W. EQW for doing this... I believe the author
Of course, EQW is better because + and * are not 2-argument functions, and
other reasons too (like: It's my baby! :-)
Somehow it feels good to see someone finally trying to do this on the TI...
about 8 years after I started mine :-)
(and don't forget RainEQ, good job too!)
But I wish them success, because I know what it takes to build something
like this! (at least, I want you to think that it's difficult :-)
Thank you all for your support...
And just a quick survey, while I'm here:
How much would you like an EQW that 'feels' more like the Word equation
editor (Mathtype)? It would be easier to move around, especially for
newbies...
I don't promise anything! I just want to know if you think it would be
useful...
Have a good day,
Gerald.
Jean-Yves Avenard <j...@NOSPAMbigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:k0Ap6.1921$0N3....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Al Arduengo
-Al
"Gerald Squelart" <sque...@hotmail.com> writes:
--
-Al Arduengo
------------
"Take everything in stride. Trample anyone who gets in your way."
Vincent Rubiolo
I'd like to know how to edit symb matrices through the EQW without
having to press edit inside MTRW, select the expression, copy it to the
clipboard, open EQW and paste it in.
I strongly suppose it is not in the Hp49 docs, perhaps in the MK ones (I
have not read them yet). Can sb help me?
Have a nice WE
Regards,
Vincent
David Haguenauer
>The EQW has been written in the idea of being able to edit anything. So
>adding matrix or list capabilities of editing is not only possible, not
too
>difficult. Just time consuming.
As I said, these aren't functions that I expect to see implemented,
because I don't think I would ever use them. But if the prettyprinter
interpreted limits in a special way (even if only for stack display), I
think it would look more "professional". I wouldn't mind seeing indices,
as with EQStk, but it isn't really a feature that, by its absence,
cripples the products.
David Haguenauer
http://zap.to/hsimpson
Gerald Squelart
keypresses to get it working on any 49. We would have to release a new
ROM...
As I said, it would be too risky to do it at the moment, we're trying to
have a stable ROM, and enabling edition of matrices and lists is way too
unstable, and to make it stable would require a long time, which I don't
have...
You should ask Eric to do it in RainEQ (there's more chances of this
happening :-)
Regards,
Gerald.
Al Arduengo <ex...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:87n1au7...@cs6668173-150.austin.rr.com...
> How about sharing the info on how to use this aspect of the eqw?
>
> -Al
[... editing matrices in EQW...]
John
That implies some sort of competition that is not a concern
for most users. "Wanting features that the 49G has" may be
more applicable. The TI89/92+ programs written that emulate
(is that the right word?) 49G features are, imho, written to
empower the users.
A vocal few TI users brag and flame, not the majority. A
calculator is, after all, just a tool. What good is a
program that is never used? That's akin to having a
motorcycle that you polish but never ride.
You are certainly correct about the 49G software, it is
superb; and that's why its features are emulated. Now we
need selective simplification, configurability, Risch, ...
SGuth
>And as David points out, you would rapidly have to scroll, so
>it's better to use the Matrix Editor anyway.
I know that this will not happen, but I don't agree that using MTRW is
"better" in every circumstance.
For example:
It would be very nice to edit matrices in EQW... I could create a matrix
"A", then subtract lambda*I, highlight the difference & simplify. Next I
could take the determinant, set it equal to zero, then use the solver to
solve
this equation, thus finding all of the eigenvalues of the matrix without
ever
leaving EQW.
It would not be possible to come close to this using only MTRW. I *am* able
to do this in the TI EQW.
>Oh, and I originally picked the idea to move up and down the RPN tree, and
>left and right on arguments, from Derive...
Right, of course... I used Derive for DOS quite frequently in the past. I
should have recognized that the HP49 EQW had the same selection process.
Great job!
>(I hope I won't get into trouble :-)
Ha. Well, Derive for DOS is basically dead software, and the Windows
version
now uses the mouse for selections. Of course, we must remember that TI now
owns Derive... So who's copying whom??? I'm confused now. ;-)
>How much would you like an EQW that 'feels' more like the Word equation
>editor (Mathtype)? It would be easier to move around, especially for
>newbies...
Gerald, as I've said previously in this thread. I feel that the current
HP49
EQW is brilliant, and I would hate to see you change something that is
already
terriffic to a different interface which, in my opinion, is not as logically
consistent. I really don't like the Mathtype logic -- to me it seems quite
illogical.
Steen Schmidt
> having to press edit inside MTRW, select the expression, copy it to the
> clipboard, open EQW and paste it in.
Leftshift EDIT.
Regards
Steen
Steen Schmidt
> It would be very nice to edit matrices in EQW... I could create a matrix
> "A", then subtract lambda*I, highlight the difference & simplify. Next I
> could take the determinant, set it equal to zero, then use the solver to
> solve
> this equation, thus finding all of the eigenvalues of the matrix without
> ever
> leaving EQW.
>
> It would not be possible to come close to this using only MTRW. I *am*
able
> to do this in the TI EQW.
If you need to operate on an entire matrix, you'd use the RPN stack.
Having your "A" matrix on the stack, do the following;
'lambda' OVER IDN * - SIMPLIFY (stop here to see the simplified matrix) DET
'lambda' SOLVE
Even easier than in the TI EQW.
Regards
Steen
SGuth
Yes of course, but you missed my point. I know how to do this from the
stack,
but I want to do it in EQW (for classroom presentations - EQW looks nicer
than
the stack). TI-EQW allows this, HP-EQW doesn't.
Steen Schmidt
> than
> the stack).
Why? You can remove the header and the stack shows prettyprint. What's the
difference?
Why classroom presentations on a calculator? It's too small, too slow and
not everybody has that calc. Why not use a PC? I can't grasp that - it's
very TI-esque (or is it the american educational system?).
Regards
Steen
Vincent Rubiolo
>
> [...]
> Having your "A" matrix on the stack, do the following;
> 'lambda' OVER IDN * - SIMPLIFY (stop here to see the simplified matrix) DET
> 'lambda' SOLVE
>
that it is basically TEXPAND followed by EXPAND but when I apply this on
cos(pi/2 - x ) for example, it does nothing whereas TEXPAND + EXPAND
gives sin(x) (moreover, I find it slower than TEXPAND + EXPAND)
Personnally, I would have used EXPAND to simplify the matrix...
Regards,
Vincent
Vincent Rubiolo
>
> [... editing matrices in EQW...]
Sorry, Gerald, we misunderstood... :)
What I was asking for was just the key-comb Steen gave (thanks!), that
is what to press for editing _the element_ in the matrix with EQW
without having to paste it in the clipboard...I got it so I'm glad ^_^
BTW, If I had to choose btw the indices in EQW and the well-displayed
limits, I would choose the second one because I don't think indices are
so important (they would be nevertheless very cool)...
Thanks for this cool tool EQW is!
David Haguenauer
and
>left and right on arguments, from Derive...
>(I hope I won't get into trouble :-)
I find this explanation is far better than that of the user's guide. At
least HP should mention motion in a binary tree in the description of the
use of EQW.
>And just a quick survey, while I'm here:
>How much would you like an EQW that 'feels' more like the Word equation
>editor (Mathtype)? It would be easier to move around, especially for
>newbies...
I don't know how it works (could we have a description, or maybe a link to
the product specifications), but the current entry mode seems very good.
David Haguenauer
http://zap.to/hsimpson
Jean-Yves Avenard
Well this explanation is completely describe in the HP49 manual... It's
obviously incomplete, but at least it's there !
You see ! You don't even read it :)
Jean-Yves
"David Haguenauer" <hsam...@lemel.fr> wrote in message
news:98kos6$9mb$2...@front7m.grolier.fr...
Vincent Rubiolo
>
> Hello
>
> Well this explanation is completely describe in the HP49 manual... It's
> obviously incomplete, but at least it's there !
> You see ! You don't even read it :)
>
> Jean-Yves
>
>
I do have read it and it was mentioned in the UG in the pages about EQW.
There was also an example given with a graphical representation of the
tree.
David Haguenauer
>Well this explanation is completely describe in the HP49 manual... It's
>obviously incomplete, but at least it's there !
>You see ! You don't even read it :)
My first hypothesis was that you had sneaked into my house to add the
missing pages. But now I remember that I had seen the tree the day I
bought the HP49G. I even remember what I thought before quickly turning to
the next page: "binary tree?!? I didn't buy a TI, let's talk RPN!".
Now, after some experience with the new EQW, it's obvious that thinking
about the expression tree helps.
Since no message is complete without a little whine, I have to add this:
Inside EQW, addition is indeed variadic, but there is no such thing as
subtraction; if the expression 'X-Y+Z' is typed, moving left or right
doesn't allow 'Y' to be selected (because the expression is +(X,-Y,Z)).
David Haguenauer
http://zap.to/hsimpson