WP 34s Complex operation

[lrdheat]

Out of curiosity, I was wondering why the 34s requires typing in the imaginary portion of the complex number 1st. (Now that I have that down, I'm used to it, and I'm not getting confused.) I like the simultaneous view of the real part and the imaginary part now offered!

I like the HP 15C's methodology...it is simpler, and I don't have to worry about going in and out of complex mode while working with complex numbers. On the 34s, simple operations such as raising a complex number to a real power, or multiplying by a real number requires typing in both the imaginary part (which would be zero) and then the real part before tapping the complex key and performing the operation.

In any case, the WP 34s is quite a shirt pocket tool!

[orcinus]

I imagine because the imaginary (heh) part has to be in register Y.
So typing it first, then the real part, puts Re onto level X and Im onto level Y.

The order of input seems reverse, but is in line with the RPN logic i guess.

[Thomas Klemm]

(04-10-2014 09:05 PM)lrdheat Wrote:  Out of curiosity, I was wondering why the 34s requires typing in the imaginary portion of the complex number 1st.

You can do it similar to the HP-15C. Just use the [x<>y] key instead of [I]. It might help that J is written below that key.
Here's how to enter \(2+7i\):

HP-15C: 2 [ENTER] 7 [f] [I]
WP-34s: 2 [ENTER] 7 [x<>y]

Just counting the key strokes you need even less. But I agree that handling complex numbers is cumbersome with the WP-34S.

HTH
Thomas

[walter b]

(04-11-2014 12:21 AM)Thomas Klemm Wrote:  Here's how to enter \(2+7i\):

HP-15C: 2 [ENTER] 7 [f] [I]
WP-34s: 2 [ENTER] 7 [x<>y]

Just counting the key strokes you need even less.

Simply nice!

Quote:But I agree that handling complex numbers is cumbersome with the WP-34S.

That's all we could (and can) do without data types - which aren't viable for space reasons on the HP-30b HW. Sorry for that. It will become easier and better with the 43S.

d:-)

[Tugdual]

You may also read this
http://www.hpmuseum.org/forum/thread-938.html

[Paul Dale]

You could always take the 34S source code and implement the 15C complex handling instead of what we provided. It would be a long hard path.

Personally, I'd follow Thomas's suggestion and use x<>y instead of I.


- Pauli

[walter b]

(04-10-2014 09:05 PM)lrdheat Wrote:  Out of curiosity, I was wondering why the 34s requires typing in the imaginary portion of the complex number 1st.

A complex number x + i y is entered like a data point in 2D (x, y), thus y [ENTER] x. KISS.

d:-)

[Tugdual]

(04-11-2014 07:16 AM)walter b Wrote:  

(04-10-2014 09:05 PM)lrdheat Wrote:  Out of curiosity, I was wondering why the 34s requires typing in the imaginary portion of the complex number 1st.

A complex number x + i y is entered like a data point in 2D (x, y), thus y [ENTER] x. KISS.

d:-)

ha ha ha come on Walter

[lrdheat]

Thanks...I was just observing that HP 15 methodology allowed for a complex number to be operated on by a real number vs the 34s requirement of entering the zero i component, then the real component, declare it complex, and then perform the operation...say (3i4)*4...I would have to enter 0, then 4 then hit complex multiply.

I understand now that this was the best way to accomplish complex capability on the 34s, and I'm happy the capability is there regardless. Just took me a bit to get used to how to work it!

[walter b]

(04-11-2014 04:59 PM)Tugdual Wrote:  

(04-11-2014 07:16 AM)walter b Wrote:  A complex number x + i y is entered like a data point in 2D (x, y), thus y [ENTER] x. KISS.

d:-)

ha ha ha come on Walter

Is there any error in my post above? What's wrong with you? Does it hurt? TIA for enlightenment.

d:-?

[Paul Dale]

(04-11-2014 06:12 PM)lrdheat Wrote:  I would have to enter 0, then 4 then hit complex multiply.

CPX 4 works here. The CPX prefix can preceed a digit and it pushes that integer onto the stack along with a zero for Y.

Not the generality you were hoping for but sometimes useful.


- Pauli

[Tugdual]

(04-11-2014 06:19 PM)walter b Wrote:  

(04-11-2014 04:59 PM)Tugdual Wrote:  ha ha ha come on Walter

Is there any error in my post above? What's wrong with you? Does it hurt? TIA for enlightenment.

d:-?

So you were serious? How would you explain that when you need to calculate on 2 complex numbers the other one would be z+it?
I really thought it was humor, sorry, no offense.