HP35S Trig accuracy???
Zeno
of 89.999 degrees in degree mode??
Gene
> Can someone that has a new HP35S tell the answer it gives for the Tan
> of 89.999 degrees in degree mode??
57,295.7795401
GWB
> Can someone that has a new HP35S tell the answer it gives for the Tan
> of 89.999 degrees in degree mode??
According to Gene Wright's review ( http://www.hpcc.org/datafile/V26Special/the35s.pdf
, pg 10) the COS bug still remains.
Gerson.
GWB
The good old HP-32SII returns 57,295.7795073. Even my RPN program for
the 12C Platinum returns the correct 10-digit answer: 57,295.77951
(57,295.7795071 internally).
Perhaps HP should revised this page:
http://h30094.www3.hp.com/product.asp?sku=3587762&pagemode=ca
"Have confidence that every time you turn on your HP calculator, every
calculation you make, results in dependable, worry-free performance
and accurate results."
I will get one just the same. I think I won't be able to wait for the
bug-free edition :-)
Gerson.
GWB
>
> Perhaps HP should revised this page:
>
Perhaps I should "revise" my post :-)
Well, let's hope Gene's been using a pre-production HP-35s...
Paul Schlyter
GWB <gerson.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
Your HP-35s may turn out to be more valuable than a more bug-free
35s many years from now. Somewhat like an old mis-printed stamp....
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/
Paul Schlyter
Gene <gene....@gmail.com> wrote:
Ouch!
My cheap Sharp EL-501V gives 57,295.7795077 (the two last digits are
invisible in the display but are stored internally - they get visible
if you e.g. subtract 57295 from the result), which is too high by 5
in the last (12th) digit. The correct result is:
57295.77950726455670336557673692926714230029179474968519524911......
Rodger Rosenbaum
GWB
>
> My cheap Sharp EL-501V gives 57,295.7795077 (the two last digits are
> invisible in the display but are stored internally - they get visible
> if you e.g. subtract 57295 from the result), which is too high by 5
> in the last (12th) digit. The correct result is:
>
> 57295.77950726455670336557673692926714230029179474968519524911......
>
The original HP-35 gives 57296.55162. However, the HP-67 introduced
only four years later gives 57295.77951.
Gerson.
Tom Lake
>
> http://h30094.www3.hp.com/product.asp?sku=3587762&pagemode=ca
>
> "Have confidence that every time you turn on your HP calculator, every
> calculation you make, results in dependable, worry-free performance
> and accurate results."
>
> I will get one just the same. I think I won't be able to wait for the
> bug-free edition :-)
The first version of the original 35 had math errors too
http://www.classiccmp.org/calcmuseum/HP35errata.txt
and look how much one of those goes for these days!
Tom Lake
GWB
> The first version of the original 35 had math errors too
>
> http://www.classiccmp.org/calcmuseum/HP35errata.txt
>
> and look how much one of those goes for these days!
Surely, but there was a recall as soon as the bug was discovered.
In the case of the HP-67, an addendum to the manual was included.
Just an excerpt:
"Page 92, Trigonometric Functions. Add the following paragraphs:
There exist several specific argument values for which sin^-1 (and to
a lesser degree, cos^-1) are in error to an extent that could be
excessive for some applications. However, these arguments are very
small in magnitude and thus infrequently encountered by most users.
The six specific arguments affected and the resulting errors for
sin^-1x are: x = 0.000003000 (0.6%), 0.000004000 (2.5%), 0.000005000
(4.0%), 0.000006000 (7.0%), 0.000007000 (9.0%), 0.000008000
(11.5%), No other values are affected. Notice that changing the
magnitude of the above arguments by as little as +/-0.00000001
eliminates the larger-than-normal error."
By the way, my HP-67 (1709A00099) returns 0.000511078 for
arcsin(0.000008) instead of the correct 0.000458366. How much is it
worth ? :-)
Gerson.
Zeno
My HP50G gets 57295.7795073 wich is more accurate. Both cals claim to
use 15 digits internally, so I presume the new 35S uses a different
less accurate algorithm for trig functions.
Joe Horn
> And, what does it get for SIN(3.14159265358) in radians mode?
9.79323846264 E-12
-Joe-
GWB
> ... so I presume the new 35S uses a different
> less accurate algorithm for trig functions.
Apparently the new 35s uses the same old 33s trig algorithm, as
discussed here:
http://www.hpmuseum.org/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/hpmuseum/archv016.cgi?read=103989
Both calculators give the same answers to SIN(3.14159265358) in
radians mode!
Gerson.
Zeno
<pau...@saaf.se> wrote:
> Ouch!
>
> My cheap Sharp EL-501V gives 57,295.7795077 (the two last digits are
> invisible in the display but are stored internally - they get visible
> if you e.g. subtract 57295 from the result), which is too high by 5
> in the last (12th) digit. The correct result is:
>
> 57295.77950726455670336557673692926714230029179474968519524911......
And even better we have......
57295.779507264556703365576736929267142300291794749685195249112998500120
666114920655076157988655907809292668340590864833306288678931875119223967
221544992224481414570462680812484128975634455256275571824988781939392462
51761969058580872207032369732652173
:)
"I love the smell of extra decimal digits in the morning."
neutral_insomniac
What program did you use to calculate that? Out of curiosity.
Zeno
neutral_insomniac <obrie...@gmail.com> wrote:
Mathematica 6.0
I could have gone to extremes but I held back ;) ;)
Mathematica 6 is very very fast in computing Pi by the way. Its as fast
as many AGM programs, but they can only compute Pi to a power of 2,
where Mathematica can compute to any given decimal place. Not sure how
Mathematica 6 computes Pi though.
Joel Kolstad
news:1184422037.4...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> According to Gene Wright's review (
> http://www.hpcc.org/datafile/V26Special/the35s.pdf
> , pg 10) the COS bug still remains.
Sheesh. That's really sad -- definitely an artifact of the "new" HP; I can't
imagine the guys back in Corvallis not fixing such well-publicized bugs from
one calculator release to the next.
Of course I'm still getting a 45s. :-)
Bob
> Sheesh. That's really sad -- definitely an artifact of the "new" HP; I
> can't imagine the guys back in Corvallis not fixing such well-publicized
> bugs from one calculator release to the next.
>
> Of course I'm still getting a 45s. :-)
>
OMG! Now there's a 45s? I'm gonna go cancel my 35s order. Do you think I
should wait for the 65s?
Bob
Damir
I am waiting for 50GX. :-)
markb
> On Jul 14, 10:27 am, Zeno <zeno...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > Can someone that has a new HP35S tell the answer it gives for the Tan
> > of 89.999 degrees in degree mode??
>
> , pg 10) the COS bug still remains.
>
> Gerson.
If a person wished to wait to buy a 35s until this bug was corrected,
how would they know when it was fixed?
Matt Rohloff
> In article <1184421744.914710.299...@m3g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
I pulled out my TI-30X IIS... result: 57295.77950728
c'mon HP! You can do better...