TI-36X Pro—Replace the batteries or just get a new one?

[Steve Simpkin]

(01-20-2019 07:45 PM)pier4r Wrote:  

(01-19-2019 09:37 PM)ijabbott Wrote:  Test 6 - VBlogMag's \( e^{x^3} \) integration test

This is an integration test from VBlogMag's calculator benchmark video: https://youtu.be/DHRsvSTGiBc?t=584
\[ \int_0^6 e^{x^3} dx \\
\\
\begin{array}{c|r}
\text{Model} & \text{Time (s)} \\
\hline
\text{TI-30X Pro MP} & 8.6 \\
\text{TI-36X Pro} & 89.3 \\
\text{Casio fx-991EX} & 24.4
\end{array} \]
[/align]

Nice work, thanks for sharing and great that you put the link to the sources!

For reference this took just over 2 minutes on my Casio fx-115ES Plus (aka fx-991ES Plus).

[lrdheat]

Haven't checked, but think I misunderstood the trial limit from o through 41 trials on binomial pdf/cdf's that the 36X Pro manual refers to what can be asked for display in a table form (related to # data points allowed for statistical data). If this is so, the 30X Pro MathPrint likely has a 50 trial limit. On both machines, there is no small limit on "n" number of trials as to calculating probability of "x" successes given "y" probability of success on a given trial.

[Matt Agajanian]

Hi all.

I was wondering something.

These benchmarks and tests cases seems quite confusing.
Quite honestly, since the calculations and calculators in question each produce both varied answers and take different lengths of time to yield an answer, it serms like you have to own all the calculators at once rather than invest in a single calculator and be content and trust the calculations.

Are you saying that one should own all the calculators just to achieve a trustworthy calculations by comparing each model’s accuracy?

[lrdheat]

There is no perfect calculator (and what constitutes the perfect calculator varies from person to person). The various tests, and description of available functions is useful for a person in deciding which one might satisfy their needs best.

[Matt Agajanian]

(01-22-2019 07:59 PM)lrdheat Wrote:  There is no perfect calculator (and what constitutes the perfect calculator varies from person to person). The various tests, and description of available functions is useful for a person in deciding which one might satisfy their needs best.

Thanks. That helps.

[lrdheat]

Another item that I like about the TI-30X Pro MathPrint is that an equation entered in ""table" as f(x) can be used in solve and in d/dx and in integral as f(x) instead of having to re-enter the equation in those operations as required by the CASIO 991EX. This is also true with the 36X Pro. The 30X Pro MathPrint also allows the same with g(x). I mostly leave g(x) permanently defined as d(f(x))/dx in table so that I can find candidate locations of extremums of f(x) very quickly in table, and then use g(x)=0 in solve to find the extremum to a high degree of precision. I can then put g(x), f(x), and x on consecutive lines to have f'(x), f(x), and x labeled and displayed on consecutive lines.

[Csaba Tizedes]

(01-29-2019 03:18 AM)lrdheat Wrote:  Another item that I like about the TI-30X Pro MathPrint is that an equation entered in ""table" as f(x) can be used in solve and in d/dx and in integral as f(x) instead of having to re-enter the equation in those operations as required by the CASIO 991EX. This is also true with the 36X Pro. The 30X Pro MathPrint also allows the same with g(x). I mostly leave g(x) permanently defined as d(f(x))/dx in table so that I can find candidate locations of extremums of f(x) very quickly in table, and then use g(x)=0 in solve to find the extremum to a high degree of precision. I can then put g(x), f(x), and x on consecutive lines to have f'(x), f(x), and x labeled and displayed on consecutive lines.

Hmm, this is really good news and very good feature. The fx-991nnn is annoying. Frankly speaking, the real solution is an Equation List - which is I know - not allowed in any exam, but I do not want to throw my calculator after my studies.

What is the possible best way?

Use a WP-34? Thank you, I dont want to write and solve my equations like on 41xx. I do not want to remember the R01 is the pressure at Point1, R02 is the temperature at the stagnation point, and so on, I want to write the Bernoulli like P1+RHO/2×V1^2+RHO*g*Z1=P2+RHO/2×V2^2+RHO*g*Z2+PLOSS and I don't care the SAT, FAT, MAT, MET, etc... idiot three letter abbrevations.

As I know some official guy is here, and I (and many people) cry here for years, but nobody want to produce a real beating calculator. Why? Because the market is very thin.

I dont want more limited calculator anymore. I want a 32SII looks like a 15C and capabilities like a 48xx with more memory, more speed, more connection possibilities, more sensor. Yes, I want play my MP3s on my calculator, I want to measure the concrete slope with it, put the measurement into my equations and I want to calculate on go. I have no time to learn 5-7-9 different platforms to do my job on the site, I dont want to use a half-brick graphic calculators, I dont want to write overcomplicated Java / Python / C codes on Linux/Windows/Android to calculate something. And I need more memory, I want to log my measurements, I want a real instrument what is designed by real engineers to real engineers.

I dont want more garage projets with offended coders, who thinks that their 'child' is the best and try to push out to many users. I dont want programming tricky ways because I am not a hacker, I am an engineer, who is not idiot, but do not want to play with a tool. The tools are for to use them. Not to play with them. And these garage boys do not understand this.

Is it really important to calculate to 32 decimal digits something? I think much better to calculate something with a given error, eg. I want to calculate with the Runge-Kutta in a given point at +/-0.1% relative error. I don't care how the programmer solve it, but I want it. I don't want to figure out how I(!) can calculate it, because this is not my job. They can implement a code which can calculate 32 digits, but cannot implement a RK which can calculate 0.1% error, this implementation is useless.

I hope you can understand the difference. I am clever, but this is not my job. I want to use it only.

[pier4r]

(01-29-2019 09:43 AM)Csaba Tizedes Wrote:  And I need more memory, I want to log my measurements

Then I don't understand why you say here: but show me somebody who need more than 10-15 . It sounds inconsistent to me.

Quote:I want

Honestly? Good luck with that. You describe an instrument really non trivial to make that most of your fellows wouldn't care to buy and it would be pretty expensive to produce.

Also I disagree with the ideas that you try to push about "the scope of the engineer". If the engineer needs to, the engineer is not afraid to learn more tools and to devise new ones (I include little programs here) by himself. Otherwise it is someone equipped with little ingenuity, that instead should be part of being a good engineer (or problem solver of sorts).

And what if you were born in the time were at most slide rules were available? Would you have said "sorry I cannot do the work alone, I need someone that helps me manipulating numbers. Manipulating numbers is not in the scope of the engineer, I need better tools" ?

I, for one, am happy that we have a vast array of calculators still available. Although they have their limits because the target audience is what it is. The target audience will never play a mp3 on a calculator (nor compute anything intensive on it). The audience would find the idea weird.

I am happy we still have programmable calculators although the people that use them for programming nowadays are only an handful compared to the target audience to which calculators are sold.

I am happy we have people making custom firmware for calculators and sharing their knowledge. Whatever limits those firmware have.

[lrdheat]

Yet another plus concerning the TI-30X Pro MathPrint (and I'm guessing 36X Pro)...when looking for d/dx=0 for sqrt(abs(x^2 - 5)) in order to find a max or min, I had success with the 30X, but not with the CASIO 991EX which could only find an extremum at x=0, even if I chose an x very close to the -/+sqrt(5) value. I thought I would have better luck with the CASIO fx-CG50, but even with restricting the range to examine about sqrt(5), no success. The WP-34S was successful.

[lrdheat]

Another plus for the TI 30X Pro MathPrint...if one desires greater accuracy than the default 1E-5 epsilon on derivatives and integrals, 2 extra choices were added to the math button. Templates for derivative and integral are provided with mathprint entry where epsilon can be easily changed to a smaller vallue such as 1E-9.

[Csaba Tizedes]

My TI-30X Pro MultiView (this is the older model) arrived from Germany just now and I have tested the SOLVE and YES!!! the num-solv CAN handle integrals and differentials. So I do not need to upgrade to the brand new MathPrint version. In my priority this function is the first, so I am very satisfied with this older model. It was only 1.5 EUR and the shipping 7. EUR - good deal I guess.

Csaba

[jlind]

(01-20-2019 07:45 PM)pier4r Wrote:  

(01-19-2019 09:37 PM)ijabbott Wrote:  Test 6 - VBlogMag's \( e^{x^3} \) integration test

This is an integration test from VBlogMag's calculator benchmark video: https://youtu.be/DHRsvSTGiBc?t=584
\[ \int_0^6 e^{x^3} dx \\
\\
\begin{array}{c|r}
\text{Model} & \text{Time (s)} \\
\hline
\text{TI-30X Pro MP} & 8.6 \\
\text{TI-36X Pro} & 89.3 \\
\text{Casio fx-991EX} & 24.4
\end{array} \]
[/align]

Nice work, thanks for sharing and great that you put the link to the sources!

Resurrecting this thread with a footnote after watching his video of this integral test . . .
The original integral interval was from -6 to +6, which he alludes to briefly at the beginning stating he had a problem with the HP-50g and changed the interval to half the original from 0 to +6. Had to replay the beginning of his video to spot the original interval on one of his calculator screens. I ran interval he had originally intended and it took over 17-1/2 minutes on the HP-50g versus the 1:05 he clocked for the modified interval from 0 to 6. As a test of this I ran the integral on a TI-Voyage 200 (about 3/4 the clock speed of a TI-89 Titanium) and clocked it at about 14 seconds using the 0 to +6 video interval and about 15.5 seconds with the -6 to +6 interval he originally intended to use. The anomaly among his fleet was the HP-50g and mine ran the 0 to +6 interval at almost exactly what his did. I suspect there's something in its (default ??) settings that consumes enormous clock cycles running in circles performing this integral test, especially over the original interval he had intended to use.

Nspire and Prime performance:
His video is 5 years old and these two had major updates last year (2018). The ARM processor in the latest Nspire CX II CAS released last year is cumulatively about 3x faster than than the CX CAS he used. Likewise the Prime G2 (model 2AP18AA, aka Rev D) is also about 3x faster than the Prime "G1" in the video. They were near instantaneous as-is. AFAIK, the Prime G2 is still only being distributed officially in Europe and hasn't been released to US distributors yet.

Thanks for sharing the timing tests. They have some interesting results, and if anyone runs them on multiple calculators, compare their numeric results as well. For me it's not just sheer speed. Decent precision is also important. A test run of these on some vintage HP and TI calculators would be interesting, which would take a bit of programming to set up.

TI-58 Benchmark:
Ran it on a TI-58 using Master Library Program 09, a Simpson approximation using intervals. Requires programming in the equation, invoking the library program, setting upper and lower bounds, and then the number of intervals. Tried 100 intervals but the precision was too far off. This integral has enormous area under it across that interval (f(-6) ~ 1.6 x10^-94, and f(6) ~ 6.4 x10^93). Ran it with 600 intervals for 0 to +6 which evaluates it with 0.01 spacing from 0 to +6. Took about 15 minutes (approximate). Still not happy with the ~2% precision of the answer (6.0nnnn x10^91). Churned away with it set to 1200 intervals, which took about a half hour and had 0.1% precision, about 1 part in 1,000 accuracy. With a TI-58's 4-bit uP you can make a pot of coffee with plenty of time to grind the beans beforehand, come back and have two cups while it's still churning away. Grumbling about the HP-50g but keeping in mind that all of the calculators he tested are orders of magnitude faster than the ones some of us used 40 years ago. :-)

SwissMicros DM42 Benchmark:
Set up similar program for f(x) and used the DM42's (Free42) definite integral function to calculate it from 0 to +6 with 1 x10^-11 set as the accuracy factor. Took about 14 seconds. Reset the lower bound to -6 and it took about 14.5 seconds. The definite integral routine in Free42 isn't a straightforward Simpson using a specified number of intervals. It keeps refining the intervals where needed to achieve the accuracy factor given. The DM42 has two clock speeds, one on internal battery power and substantially higher one when using external USB power. Plugged it in to a USB port and ran it again. Times dropped to ~5.5 seconds for 0 to +6 and just under 6 seconds for -6 to +6, more than twice as fast. From -6 to -1 for this function, there is near zero area under the curve compared to the monstrous area from about ~1 to 6. Plot f(x) and you'll see how devilish this function is from -6 to +6 which puts f(x) very near some calculator limits in smallest and largest values. ;-)

Edit:
Regarding the OP's original question . . .
I trust he has either replaced the battery or the calculator by now (I'd have gutted it and replaced the battery, posting photos of its open heart surgery on Fakebook). Regarding precision and speed, there's plenty of data on the Internet for (nearly) all the major calculators' makes and models going back to the early 1970's. The discussion about the TI-30X Plus MathPrint has piqued my interest. I need another scientific pocket calculator like another hole in my head. If it were about 3/4" shorter I'd be more likely to buy one.

John

[rprosperi]

(08-25-2019 08:42 AM)jlind Wrote:  AFAIK, the Prime G2 is still only being distributed officially in Europe and hasn't been released to US distributors yet.

No longer the case, the Prime G2 has been available from several US sources including BestBuy stores (and online) for about 6-8 weeks, there is a thread about it in the Prime section.

[ijabbott]

(08-25-2019 08:42 AM)jlind Wrote:  The discussion about the TI-30X Plus MathPrint has piqued my interest. I need another scientific pocket calculator like another hole in my head. If it were about 3/4" shorter I'd be more likely to buy one.

If you do, make sure you get the Pro version rather than the Plus version. (The "Pro" version is feature compatible with the TI-36X Pro and TI-30X Pro MultiView. The "Plus" is the cut-down features version.)

[jlind]

(08-25-2019 01:49 PM)rprosperi Wrote:  

(08-25-2019 08:42 AM)jlind Wrote:  AFAIK, the Prime G2 is still only being distributed officially in Europe and hasn't been released to US distributors yet.

No longer the case, the Prime G2 has been available from several US sources including BestBuy stores (and online) for about 6-8 weeks, there is a thread about it in the Prime section.

Thanks, my brother will want to know this as he wants one. Scoured the Internet for the G2 and got one from a gray market seller on Rakuten while they (Rakuten) were offering a 20% discount. Baffled me why HP was holding back on the North American market. Just looked at Best Buy to check their price; they've got the "G1" on clearance now.

John

[jlind]

(08-25-2019 01:56 PM)ijabbott Wrote:  

(08-25-2019 08:42 AM)jlind Wrote:  The discussion about the TI-30X Plus MathPrint has piqued my interest. I need another scientific pocket calculator like another hole in my head. If it were about 3/4" shorter I'd be more likely to buy one.

If you do, make sure you get the Pro version rather than the Plus version. (The "Pro" version is feature compatible with the TI-36X Pro and TI-30X Pro MultiView. The "Plus" is the cut-down features version.)

Thanks. I noticed the Pro version on a Swiss seller's site and looked into it. Agree that it's the preferred one. Their price difference between the two is a pittance.

John

[jlind]

(08-25-2019 01:56 PM)ijabbott Wrote:  

(08-25-2019 08:42 AM)jlind Wrote:  The discussion about the TI-30X Plus MathPrint has piqued my interest. I need another scientific pocket calculator like another hole in my head. If it were about 3/4" shorter I'd be more likely to buy one.

If you do, make sure you get the Pro version rather than the Plus version. (The "Pro" version is feature compatible with the TI-36X Pro and TI-30X Pro MultiView. The "Plus" is the cut-down features version.)

Just ordered one from Amazon Germany - lower total price than Amazon UK - and much lower than Amazon Global was offering it for on Amazon US - which is actually Amazon UK selling stuff through Amazon US. Almost always costs less to buy it directly from Amazon UK and often a bit less from Amazon Germany. I'm blaming you for this. :-D

Edit:
I do have a need for a calculator like this one - no possible programming or storage of equations, connectivity, etc. Certain professional certification exams like the NCEES only allow the HP-33S/35S or TI-30X/36X calculators - or the couple of current Casio equivalents.

John

[jlind]

(01-19-2019 09:37 PM)ijabbott Wrote:  Test 6 - VBlogMag's \( e^{x^3} \) integration test

This is an integration test from VBlogMag's calculator benchmark video: https://youtu.be/DHRsvSTGiBc?t=584
\[ \int_0^6 e^{x^3} dx \\
\\
\begin{array}{c|r}
\text{Model} & \text{Time (s)} \\
\hline
\text{TI-30X Pro MP} & 8.6 \\
\text{TI-36X Pro} & 89.3 \\
\text{Casio fx-991EX} & 24.4
\end{array} \]
[/align]

(01-20-2019 09:48 PM)pier4r Wrote:  VBlogMag got also some setups messed up (50g). It happens often on youtubers that wants to cover too much with too little time.
Or also when they do not realize subtleties. Like comparing programming environments and the fact that if the algorithm is different on two machines, it is not really a good comparison.
Or also on the integral test, it depends with which precision one works. With my sharp el 506w I can decide the subdivision interval and it can get from very quick and imprecise to very slow and precise.

I understand that is better for viewers to keep it simple. But ok one could create "response" videos to refute some approaches.

[deleted correction it was fixed]

Regarding 50g performance with this integral . . .
Wanted to replicate what VBlogMag did and attempt to replicate what one of the comments claimed. I was able to immediately replicate the 1:05 VBlogMag reported. Ran the integral with lower bound set to -6 and the upper set to 6 which is what VBlogMag had originally wanted to do before the 50g kept churning away forever. It took over 17.5 minutes (close to 17:45). CAS settings were left alone. Neither "Numeric" or "Approximate" were checked. Most important, "Number Format" in the Calculator Modes was set to "Standard", the usual default. I could shorten the time only by changing the "Number Format" to Scientific or Engineering and letting the number of decimal places to display for those options default to zero. Doing so drastically affects the precision of the calculation. Doing this is, in effect, cheating. Set to Engineering with 11 places to display, the answer is 5.939....E91, identical with other calculators returning the same number of significant digits, and the time required doesn't change from the video's. Set to 0 places to display, the answer returned in just a few seconds is 6.E91. When the concealed digits in this answer are revealed, it becomes 6.2419...E91, a very clear and extreme sacrifice in precision of about 5% (or 1 part in 20). Set to 6 digits, the time required increases radically again but it's not the time it required for 11 digits. It's clear to me the "number of digits to display" setting for Scientific or Engineering number format drives the algorithm tolerance to quit when it has enough to display as an approximation. I tried it set to 2 places, and that's exactly what happened. Took a bit longer and precision still sucked in the hidden digits after the 2 places it displayed. If some other setting radically decreases the time required without sacrificing precision, I'd like to know what it is. The person commenting on the video claiming he was able to reduce time to a few seconds stated he did so by changing the numeric display to "Engineering" and setting CAS to "approximation". Came to the conclusion he changed it to Engineering and let the displayed digits remain at the default 0, which results in the abysmal precision I cited. It's also how I got the calculating time he claimed. The CAS setting to "approximation" doesn't make any difference.

Improving -6 to +6 lower and upper bound performance without sacrificing precision . . .
I was able to get the time required for calculating the integral over -6 to +6 down to 1:19 by splitting the integral into two parts and summing them, a trick I learned eons ago for integrating around a point of discontinuity, but didn't recall immediately. The first one evaluated the equation from -6 to 0, and the second from 0 to +6. The two were summed in the equation writer and evaluated as one equation. This lops off over 16 minutes of the time required to evaluate it as one integral over -6 to +6, and it returns the same answer. Changing from "Standard" to "Scientific" with 11 digits doesn't change the time required. It's the same.

My conclusions (thus far):
There's something going on in the 50g numeric integration routine that chokes on an equation of this type. When f(x) is graphed, there's near zero area under the curve until you get to about x=-2 as f(x) becomes infinitesimally small when x < -2. At x=0, f(x)=1. Area under the curve becomes stratospheric with x > 2 as f(x) grows very nearly without bound.
From -6 to 0, total area ~0.8.
From 0 to 6, total area ~5.9E91
From -1 to 1, total area ~2.1
From -2 to 2, total area ~278
That's the fiendish characteristic of this integral as f(x) produces numbers near the smallest and largest numerical limits of some calculators.

I'm not planning on pursuing this further at this point. Looked through the 50g documentation and couldn't find any obscure "tolerance" setting for numeric integrals (including using text searches of the PDF).

John

[pier4r]

Nice findings! Thanks for taking the time and sharing your experience.

[jlind]

Re: TI-30X Pro MathPrint . . .
The calculator that was pointed out here as a good alternative to the TI-36X Pro with dead batteries. Links for those that want to play with TI's emulator for it. Fly before you buy. :-) Had to ferret these out using Google. TI's site for GB-Ireland keeps them well hidden. You'd think they were the Crown Jewels or the recipe for CocaCola . . .

Instruction Manual:
https://education.ti.com/download/en-GB/...ook_UK.pdf

The emulators are good for 90 days without a paid license . . .

Emulator for Windows PC:
https://education.ti.com/download/en/ed-....0.699.exe

Emulator for Macintosh:
https://education.ti.com/download/en/ed-....0.699.dmg

English Emulator Instructions:
https://education.ti.com/download/en-GB/..._EN_GB.pdf

John
PS
My in the flesh real one arrives today.