CASIO Graph Lite and Graph Math+

[Csaba Tizedes]

So, this means CW was a crap - and they know. I hope they realize the TI's concept the only feasible solution, every application connected together, stupid MODEs removed - but make it cheap like CASIO did.

[Steve Simpkin]

Very interesting...
A bit more information:

cemetech.net:
https://www.cemetech.net/forum/viewtopic...98&start=0

tiplanet-org:
https://tiplanet-org.translate.goog/foru...r_pto=wapp

[StephenG1CMZ]

Interesting.

Following those links I saw a hint of 4 episodes on Youtube with a 5th due in March...
But using a Chromebook (and some pages translated to English), all I get is a "Before you go to Youtube...Cookies" page which lacks any Accept/Refuse buttons. (Or a page requiring a French school name if you are a teacher).
https://www-youtube-com.translate.goog/w...r_pto=wapp

In video: All I've actually seen so far is a 2-second video of the 2 calculators, one of which has Python.
(just to be clear, there is more detail in the text in the links)

[This might save you wasting time looking - I guess I'll have to be patient]

[Eddie W. Shore]

I am following the series "La Bonne Equation" (The Good Equation), which shows the new Graphing calculators in details.

https://tiplanet-org.translate.goog/foru...pp#p274727

I'm thankful to Google Translate because I'm not fluent in French.

The Graph Lite is a non-programmable graphing calculator that seems to be in the style of the Classwiz series (sorry, Csaba). For a very rough comparison, the Graph Lite is a combination of the fx-991CW and fx-6200G, with a four-gray-scale detailed screen.

fx-6200G:
https://casio.ledudu.com/pockets.asp?lg=eng&type=419

The Graph Math+ seems to be a successor to the Graph 90+E in France (fx-CG 50 to the rest of us). Gone are the fixed-length soft menu labels in favor of menus and variable-sized soft menu labels. The ALPHA key makes a return appearance (yay!). Also gone are probably the spreadsheet and BASIC programming language, leaving just Python. I hope that at least numpy and other modules are coming soon to calculators. There is also a Python module creator on the Math+.

I would love to see more than 8 colors that can be used on graphs, though I expect the functions of the fx-CG 50 to come to the Graph Math +. More to come.

The timeline seems to be the beginning of the 2024 school year (subject to change).

Assuming the graphing calculators eventually go worldwide, I'm in on the Graph Math+ to add to my collection.

Will Texas Instruments follow with a graphing version of the TI-30X Pro Math Print/TI-36X Pro?

[carey]

(03-02-2024 09:43 AM)Csaba Tizedes Wrote:  So, this means CW was a crap - and they know.

While discussed in other threads, here and here, since brought up again, I share neither quoted opinion. I find the CW a greatly improved $20 calculator with much tested educational research that went into its development, and Casio seems quite proud of it. The new enhanced models seem more a sign of success of the platform than failure. The CW (and the new models that build upon it) adopt a more consistent and more standard math convention approach to calculating than its predecessors.

Over-hyped CW criticisms:
1) Multi-statement removal. A multi-statement was a calculator method that was not part of standard math notation. The CW can solve the same math problems for which multi-statements were used, often more elegantly. Note also that CW's composite functions, which are part of standard math notation, are a powerful tool that can solve some math problems at a higher level of abstraction than some previous methods. If one keeps in mind that the CW aims to use standard math notation to solve problems that otherwise would require programming methods e.g., using Σ to reduce the need for loops and counters, the CW becomes more understandable.
2) Removal of buttons (e.g., S<->D, Calc, etc.). Same functionality in CW, but organized, often with more options.
3) But those menus! This is a long-standing calculator debate (e.g., 32S vs 32Sii). The argument of slower operation due to menus doesn't seem to apply to the CW, because, not only are CW menus shallow, but CW key travel is so shallow that it's closer to the zero travel, near instantaneous key press on a touchscreen than to the key travel on, say, HP's classic buttons (where each key press is a slow, deliberate, and momentous event! :) and is offset by having more options.

(03-02-2024 09:43 AM)Csaba Tizedes Wrote:  I hope they realize the TI's concept the only feasible solution, every application connected together, stupid MODEs removed

Nope, modes are still there! Calculators that use modes on the home screen to organize calculator features still usually allow connected functionality in programming mode. Moreover, some modes are interconnected in the CW (e.g., tables and functions). It's interesting that Apps with customized environments, introduced on the HP38g and used on its many successors, including the Prime, are examples of modal behavior that help organize calculator features.

The new Classwiz Graph Lite and Graph Math+ models reduce the need for relatively bulky intermediate level calculators (e.g., Casio CG50, TI-84 CE) for many students. Will the only surviving educational calculator genres become small scientific calculators (w/ and w/o graphics) and flagship graphing calculators?

[lrdheat]

I agree with your analysis. The only cons that come to mind are history gone when calculator is powered off, and random numbers are calculated to only 3 digits.

[carey]

Yes about lack of persistent memory on Casio 991 models, including the CW. One small improvement Casio made in that regard for the CW is to provide a 60 min shutdown option in addition to the previous 10 min shutdown time.

Thanks for informing about the 3-digit random number calculation limit. I just tried setting the display to 4 digits and, yes, the 4th digit is always 0. Three random number digits are probably sufficient for the built-in MathBox coin tossing and dice roll simulations and most other purposes on this nonprogrammable, e.g., summing 1000 random numbers takes around 20 seconds, so large simulations that need high precision random numbers would be impractical.

[klesl]

You can get more than 3 random digits by multiplying 2 random numbers - Ran#×Ran#

[Valentin Albillo]

(03-03-2024 04:54 PM)klesl Wrote:  You can get more than 3 random digits by multiplying 2 random numbers - Ran#×Ran#

But then you won't get a uniform distribution in [0,1)

V.

[carey]

(03-03-2024 07:13 PM)Valentin Albillo Wrote:  

(03-03-2024 04:54 PM)klesl Wrote:  You can get more than 3 random digits by multiplying 2 random numbers - Ran#×Ran#

But then you won't get a uniform distribution in [0,1)

Yes, the product of two uniformly distributed random numbers between 0 and 1 will cluster around lower values, so the result will be a distribution skewed towards 0.
An alternative to obtain more digits while maintaining uniformity might be concatenation. The 1st random # could give digits 1-3 and the 2nd random # could give digits 4 to 6.
Perhaps a way to concatenate the two random numbers on the CW might be to multiply the 2nd random number by 1E-3 to shift it to the right 3 decimal places and then add the two random numbers.

[Csaba Tizedes]

(03-02-2024 07:03 PM)carey Wrote:  Over-hyped CW criticisms:

1.) Multi-statement removal. (...) The CW can solve the same math problems for which multi-statements were used, often more elegantly.

2.) Removal of CALC - Same functionality in CW, but organized, often with more options.

3.) Modes are still there! Some modes are interconnected in the CW (e.g., tables and functions).

4.) (...) reduce the need for relatively bulky intermediate level calculators

-----------------------------------------------------------
First of all: removing useful functions very dangerous: try to imagine an engineer when bought his first 41C. "OK, let's do some stat, there is SUM+" Type-type-type... Fine. "Do Linear Regression: Hmm... XEQ LR - NONEXISTENT, hmm, XEQ LINEAR - NONEXISTENT, ehh, XEQ SLOPE - NONEXISTENT, OK, maybe XEQ RGRSSN (o.O) NONEXISTENT, damn..." RTFM (0.0) there is SUM+ SUM- MEAN SD SUMX SUMY, etc, but NO L.R.?!?!?!?!? That was me. And thats why I traded all my 41C/41CX with tape, video modulator, printer, etc for a 200LX + 95LX, because this level of stupidism kill my mind.

So, your points:

1.) If you can implement this Bisection method on CW, you're a magician (yes, my favourite and most complex example). Multi statement was the only possibility to implement complex calculations without programming: Bisection method on fx-991CEX using CALC (IF~THEN~ELSE structure without IF)

2.) CALC is the most important tool, if you want to make step-by-step calculations repetitively if you want to choose input values by yourself, eg. check this example of iterative solution of calculating settling velocity of gold particles: Settling velocity on fx-991CEX using CALC

3.) MODEs are focusing on differences of data types and not on similarity. Try to imagine a HP48SX or GX with MODEs. You will throw them to the wall. A matrix and a real number same if you want to make an addition. There are rules, of course, but the calculator can handle and that is why error trap and error messages there are. If you think MODE is a great thing, solve a linear equation system with complex matrices on CASIO (basic electrical engineering problem). When you enter into Matrix mode, the complex numbers are gone. If you enter into Complex mode, matrices are gone. BUT: you can solve eg. a 2x2 system in Complex mode with Cramer rule with complex variables. Stupidism at max level.

4.) You never hold in your hand a TI-84 Python edition (yes, that France version). Thin, elegant, small.


If you think the CASIO did a good job with CW:
- show me, how you can implement a CALC (my examples above)
- show me, how you can implement a multistatement "more elegantly" as you wrote
- you like the new SOLVE with f(x) and g(x)? Type in an equation into f(x), eg. f(x)=A+x, then jump to SOLVE, type in f(x)=0 and SOLVE for A, if x=5.

Grab ANY CASIO graphing (NOT ClassPad) and
- make a differentiation by any variable which is not X - why those lots of implemented functions are if they are useless? Hint, you can check: grab a TI-30X/36X Pro (the old one is good enough), set Classic mode in Setup and you can differentiate by ANY variable (not only X). On the most powerful CASIOs below ClassPad there is only! d/dx(). How you will calculate propagation of uncerteanity? Directional derivative?
- same for integration....

... and lots of similar "glitches" makes CASIOs the greatest "meh".

[carey]

Thank you for your detailed reply!

1) It's possible that my point was missed when I wrote: "The CW can solve the same math problems..." The math problem solved by the bisection method is root-finding. The CW has built-in root-finding and also allows a transparent and elegant implementation of Newton's method (demonstrated in your excellent video and in previously cited threads.). One might say, "but that's Newton's method -- not the bisection method!" Is the goal root-finding or to learn the bisection method? If the goal is root-finding, the CW does this. If the goal is learning the bisection method, a non-programmable calculator is pedagogically the wrong tool. (Even back in 1977, in Peter Henrici's Computational Analysis with the HP-25 Pocket Calculator, he opted for a programmable to teach numerical analysis).

Yes, your calculator-specific multi-statement trick to implement conditionals on a non-programmable is truly clever! However, as mentioned, the non-programmable CW appears to represent a shift towards using transferable math conventions over calculator-specific tricks. In my opinion, a student in a class where a teacher demonstrates a calculator-specific trick ends up learning more about the calculator than the math topic. (Many can recall advanced math classes where the instructor solves a problem with an obscure, one-of-a-kind, substitution and the class was none the wiser for having seen it). The bisection method is anything but transparent using multi-statements and the conditional trick, however clever it is, but bisection becomes pedagogically transparent on any programmable with its built-in conditionals. It's a matter of selecting the right tool for the job.

2) Re: CALC, unfortunately I can't comment on the video you linked as I'm unfamiliar with the language and there weren't CC or auto-translate options. The video looks quite interesting, but without audio or text, the sometimes displayed calculator didn't provide enough to go on to comment.

(03-03-2024 08:19 PM)Csaba Tizedes Wrote:  3.) MODEs are focusing on differences of data types and not on similarity.

3) Actually both. In programmables, modes serve more to organize functions than to limit data types. Your example of losing the complex data type in matrix mode doesn't apply to Casio's CG50 and CG500 modal models, so the issue isn't inherent in modes but in how they're implemented in particular models. I hope Casio adds complex data types to matrices in the CW model. It's possible to appreciate the mode-less design of RPL models while still acknowledging the convenience of modes in other models, e.g., Classpad (again, programming is mode-less).

(03-03-2024 08:19 PM)Csaba Tizedes Wrote:  4.) You never hold in your hand a TI-84 Python edition (yes, that France version). Thin, elegant, small.

4) Actually I own a French TI-82 Advanced Edition Python calculator (see thread) which includes a slightly abridged Python implementation than the full-size French TI-83 CE Python (functionally equivalent to US TI-84 CE Python -- French models use different numbering). However, bringing up the French TI-82 Advanced Edition Python may be moot. Consider that TI's excellent TI-30X Pro Mathprint, introduced in 2018, still hasn't made it to our shores (U.S), I won't hold my breath that the TI-82 Advanced Edition Python ever makes it here.

It's interesting that Casio is enhancing and enlarging its successful Classwiz platform while TI is reducing size and features of its successful 84 platform -- all meeting in the middle! If past history applies, when TI shrunk the 92/Voyage models to the TI-89/Titanium, the tiny font and display made the 89 models difficult for aging eyes. So Casio's bottom-up enhancements are likely to result in more pleasant to use models than TI's top-down scrunching of a UI built for a larger form factor into a smaller one.

Finally, I agree with you about Casio's frustrating limitation on differentiation variables (on models below Classpad)!

Thanks again!

[Csaba Tizedes]

(03-04-2024 08:22 AM)carey Wrote:  Thank you for your detailed reply!

So, if we want to summarize: I don't like them.

BUT: I've checked again, and I woke up today with more sunshine in my head, maybe the CW was the worst iteration step and from now - glad to French teachers - the design and software headed into right direction.

Your final words about a small, slim, but durable scientific calculator with customizable graphics features is can be a good product line - maybe the new generation, which lacks the programmability, shift the calculator back to "calculator" and places programming back to the "computers".

Thanks for the discussion, it is always fruitful for me to see opposite opinions!

[Dave Britten]

I'm rather intrigued by these, but an fx-CG50/fx-9750GIII replacement that doesn't include Casio Basic would be of little use to me. Python is a nice language, but it's clumsy for calculator programming, and - if past Casios are any indication - not particularly well integrated with the calculator's built-in functionality.

I wouldn't mind grabbing a Graph Lite if it's essentially an fx-991CW Plus, though we'll have to see if that one comes out in the US. Most schools and teachers here are so accustomed to telling everyone to buy TI-84s for any math classes that require graphing. I'm not sure how much market penetration Casio would achieve with something like this.

[critor]

Thank you for this rich topic about the new Graph Light and Graph Math+

(03-04-2024 02:50 PM)Dave Britten Wrote:  I'm rather intrigued by these, but an fx-CG50/fx-9750GIII replacement that doesn't include Casio Basic would be of little use to me. Python is a nice language, but it's clumsy for calculator programming, and - if past Casios are any indication - not particularly well integrated with the calculator's built-in functionality.

The Graph Light replaces the french Graph 25+E II (=fx-7400GIII).
Like the french fx-92 College, the Graph Light has both menus and key labels in French.
This usually implies it's a France-only model, and thus than no similar replacement is planned for the fx-7400GIII.

The Graph Math+ is different, it has key labels in English, like all other Casio graphing calculators for France. This usually implies that they will be equivalent models for the rest of the world. The fx-CG50 is likely to be replaced soon, maybe for back to school 2025.

Don't worry too much about Casio Basic, it's just that it's not used anymore in french schools ; the official taught programming language is Python.
Casio Basic may just have been removed (or hidden) for the french Graph Math+ firmware. It may still be available on the future fx-CG50 replacement.

(03-04-2024 02:50 PM)Dave Britten Wrote:  I wouldn't mind grabbing a Graph Lite if it's essentially an fx-991CW Plus

Sorry if I haven't been clear enough in my posts.

Compared to the french fx-92 College, the french Graph Light features some additionnal higher end functions.
But it remains far from doing everything the fx-991CW can do.

For example the Graph Light has vectors but not matrices.

Here is a comprehensive comparison :
https://tiplanet.org/compare/?glight,fx991cw

[Dave Britten]

Ahhh, okay, thanks for clarifying all of that. It does seem quite likely that we could see higher-end models based on these same hardware revisions, whether in France or in other regions. I'm looking forward to whatever shows up here in the US.

[Eddie W. Shore]

Observations of the Graph Math+:

* The Graph and Table modes are merged. I like this since bother are easily related.

* The Base mode returns (the early graphing calculators (i.e. fx-7700G) had this mode). On the fx-CG 50, the base mode was through SET UP. It will match the non-graphing scientific calculators.

* There is still no word of the Finance, Geometry, Graph 3D, or Periodic Table mode/app. Maybe the is in Suites mode?

* Will there be an international version of the Graph Math+, where the French version only has Python but the international offers both Python and classical Casio Basic? It wouldn’t surprise me given how Casio tailors similar models to the requirements of different countries.

* Knock on wood that numpy comes to calculator Python.

* I'm glad that the ALPHA key has returned!

I look forward to purchasing a Graph Math+ in the near future.

[Eddie W. Shore]

Additional thoughts after March 7's post from TIPlanet.org and Casio's 5th episode of La Bonne Equation:
https://tiplanet.org/forum/viewtopic.php...66#p274846

* I'm happy for whoever wins the trip to Tokyo. If I was a math teacher in France, I would volunteer to test the Graph Math+ out.

Graph Light:

* There are no screws in the battery compartment. Thank you, Casio.
* With the deletion of the Scratch app, expect the fx-92+ College to be a collector’s item, and very expensive.
* The Graph Light seems to be a battery-operated fx-991CW with functional graphing. If someone is going from the Graph 25 (fx-7400GIII), it seems like the polar, parametric, and inequality graphs are gone. Not even plotting tools (line, points, circles) seem to be present.
* There is a units converter mode, but its limited to speed and temperature units.

Graph Math+:

* Again, no screws required to open the battery compartment.
* I wish a USB-C cable would have been included, fortunately, this cable is widely available.
* It is possible that finance functions will be moved to the TOOLS key. Also, apps that didn't make it from the fx-CG 50, such as Physium, Geometry, and Sim Prob might be added in future updates.
* It's going to be interesting working with the two double arrow keys to navigate context menus, instead of the F1 through F6 keys.

[StephenG1CMZ]

It just might be a coincidence, but my local WHSmith retailer in the UK no longer has a Casio cg50.
(For the previous few years, it had a card that one can take to to the cashier to order one, but not one in stock if you needed one immediately. And it seemed to be old stock without any mention of Python, judging by the in-store card)

So -
Coincidence?
About to get some new CG50 cards now with Python?
Already running out of CG50's in anticipation of these new models?

[StephenG1CMZ]

As those CG50 sales cards have not reappeared, I enquired of the staff for an explanation.
Apparently, it's nothing to do with reducing stock prior to introducing the new models (be that ones with Python, or the new math+).
The local shop had one in stock for a long time, and that one has now sold.
Which is mildly infuriating, as there was no clue that there was one that I might have purchased and walked out of the shop with, in order to instantly discover whether or not it actually had Python.
When I had tried that years ago, it wasn't in stock and there was nothing to suggest that it had ever been available without waiting a few days for collection.