TI 36X Pro data pair limit...

[zeno333]

Just got a TI 36X Pro, and it can only handle up to 42 pairs of data points for 2 variable stats...You kidding me TI...Wow, lame...(My first calculator I ever had was one that my parents bought me for Christmas 1975, the TI Sr50A...) Surely they can put in more memory to input more that 42 date sets...Geesh...

[zeno333]

The TI SR51 from 1976 could handle 99 data pairs...Geesh...and the 36X Pro just 42?...

[ijabbott]

FWIW the new(-ish) TI-30X Pro MathPrint increases the maximum list length from 42 to 50. Only a small improvement. There are still three non-volatile lists L1, L2 and L3.

For comparison, Casio fx-991EX supports a 1-variable list length of 160, or a 2-variable list length of 80, but the data is volatile.

[Maximilian Hohmann]

Hello!

(01-16-2019 12:38 AM)zeno333 Wrote:  The TI SR51 from 1976 could handle 99 data pairs...Geesh...and the 36X Pro just 42?...

Maybe because in 1976 people would actually have used a pocket calculator to process this kind of data? And the number of data points may have been a selling argument. Today these calculators are used mainly for teaching at schools. When teaching statistics it does not matter how many points are typed in. More then 10 data pairs would be a waste of classroom time (in my opinion). Students do not need to be taught how to press keys. They know that already. They need to be taught the theory and the methods. And for real life statistical calculations with large amounts of data there are better suited tools. Things that can import and export the numbers, store them permanently and allow fast editing (versus typing oneself to death on the calculator keyboard). A smartphone running a spreadsheet app for example.

Regards
Max

[pier4r]

My sharp El 506w from 2002 supports 100 single data points. Even if the space is not used by v everyone it is not bad to have it.

To run statistics on the bank account instead of setting up a spreadsheet or the like I find it easier to type the data (not that is difficult: number plus one button, maybe easier than Excel where formatting may be annoying) and then get all the major stats.

My point being: yes, for intensive tasks there are other tools, but life is full of micro useful tasks where a calculator is more practical. Checking one's balance is quite important but micro in size (50 points per month). With a calculator one is quickly done, rather than waiting to setup the computer or even worse: having to fight a touchscreen.

I can understand keeping small memory to extend battery life, but I would have expected that today high end scientific calculator would match or destroy the 506w. Instead it seems I bought a perl then.

Edit: checked and while the sharp gets almost no mentions its jewels are still out there. http://www.sharp-world.com/products/calc...index.html
And they costs next to nothing! 18 Euros.

The memory is still 100 data points but there are a couple of neat feature like "macros".
Also Canon still has good scientific calculators.

[Albert Chan]

(01-16-2019 09:25 AM)ijabbott Wrote:  For comparison, Casio fx-991EX supports a 1-variable list length of 160, or a 2-variable list length of 80, but the data is volatile.

Really?

Both my Casio FX-115MS and FX-3650P retains the data unless MODE switched.

BTW, FX-3650P memory pool is shared, like the HP-12C.
Unless you sacrifice programming area, you have very little space for statistics.

With my setup (program steps almost all used up), I can only do 17 data points

Correction:
Casio FX-3650P had an EditOFF feature that allow adding unlimited points.
The downside is inability to edit old entries.
Correction is still possible, using M- to delete data.

[Maximilian Hohmann]

Hello!

(01-16-2019 08:21 PM)pier4r Wrote:  To run statistics on the bank account instead of setting up a spreadsheet or the like I find it easier to type the data (not that is difficult: number plus one button, maybe easier than Excel where formatting may be annoying) and then get all the major stats.on still has good scientific calculators.

As much as I would like to do that (I'm constantly looking for reasons to justify having 1000+ calculators piling up around me ;-) ) I can see no reason to do statistics on my bank account.
And even if I wished to, it is only three simple mouse clicks away from Excel: My online banking allows me to download my transacations for any period between now and 5 years ago (more on request) with three simple selections: Start date, end date and chosen data format. Select csv and import in in Excel and by the time you have typed last weeks account movements into your calculator I can show you a finished graph with the ups and downs (more of those) of mine. Without touching a single key. After all, we live in the year 2019 now.

Regards
Max

[pier4r]

Sure, I can get the csv too (although only the last 6 months). But again I have to start the pc, excel, and so on (I don't like to keep the systems running unless they are servers). It is easier for the mind to use a calculator and the printouts (that in any case I get from Sparkasse) . After working with the computer all the day having a pause from retro illuminated screens is not bad too. It is a bit like crafting, and it takes max 10 minutes if I don't get too fancy.

There are several factors why some tool may be appropriate than another.

If I would be one keeping his mac/pc always running idle, because who cares about the energy consumption, and without the need to have a pause, say, using paper, then yes the calculator would be redundant.

Have you ever tried to draw a graph by hand (sure you did, but I mean recently)?
It is not only pleasant, at least for me I notice patterns better while I draw the thing. Spending a bit more active time on an action sometimes is positive. The computers can do a lot but insights come from active manipulation of data.
For example not only the sum of the expenses is interesting, but also the sum of the squares. The sum of the squares shows quickly if one spent a lot of money in few purchases instead of many little ones. I didn't realize this before computing it on the calc.

Anyway I still think that having too many registers may drain the battery faster and since few use them, the producers don't see the need to go past 100/200 registers. Indeed the old calculators, although more capable, use also more energy if I am not mistaken. Still 42 or 50 data points seems quite a little. The ti-34 from the 1987 keeps only the totals, but one can process how many data points one likes and then gets the stats back at least.

I mean graphing calculators can do way more but there is no way they can be powered by a micro solar cell.

[Maximilian Hohmann]

Hello!

(01-17-2019 01:54 PM)pier4r Wrote:  If I would be one keeping his mac/pc always running idle, because who cares about the energy consumption, ...

My MacBook Pro boots in less then 15 seconds since I installed a solid state disk. That's 14,5 secsonds slower than the calculator, but from then on I have all the power of four processor cores working for me :-) BTW: I always turn it off completely when not in use, even if in sleep mode it consumes only a fraction of a Watt of electricity.

(01-17-2019 01:54 PM)pier4r Wrote:  Have you ever tried to draw a graph by hand (sure you did, but I mean recently)?

One day per week I teach ground school to student airline pilots. I do lot of it in the old style and actually draw a lot of graphs on the black board. So the answer is yes (I did it recently) and yes (I enjoy doing it) :-)

(01-17-2019 01:54 PM)pier4r Wrote:  It is not only pleasant, at least for me I notice patterns better while I draw the thing. Spending a bit more active time on an action sometimes is positive. The computers can do a lot but insights come from active manipulation of data.

That is true of course. Working with the data yourself gives much more insight than looking at computed results. But I still don't see a reason for doing statistics with my bank account. I mostly spend money because I have to and there is nothing I can do about it. With obe exception being my collectibles (calculators mainly) and there again you have to take it when it comes up because there may not be another one coming... (I just got a box containing my last missing LED calcaulator from HP in the mail, an HP-29C. I have not dared to open the box yet...) Would I have passed on this auction I might not have got another chance for years to come - at least not within my financial limitations - therefore I had to take it regardless of my account statistics!

(01-17-2019 01:54 PM)pier4r Wrote:  I mean graphing calculators can do way more but there is no way they can be powered by a micro solar cell.

Not directly, but indirectly. Recently I bought a LiIon powerbank with an integrated solar cell for ridicuolsy little money on eBay. You keep it lying on a window sill during the day and every night you can recharge you phone(s) and tablets and complex calculators from it. So I can now say that all my rechargeable gizmos are solar powered.

[pier4r]

(01-17-2019 02:59 PM)Maximilian Hohmann Wrote:  But I still don't see a reason for doing statistics with my bank account.

and that is fine! If you see no reason it doesn't mean that there is none. I can say that tracking efforts/trend helps me to be more conscious and disciplined about some activities. It may not work for everyone but it works for me. Like this guy:
https://hackernoon.com/how-data-forced-m...df76064903

I did the stats once just to use the ti-34 and then I realized it was useful to know what was going on over months. Especially if one is not exactly wealthy.

(01-17-2019 01:54 PM)pier4r Wrote:  Not directly, but indirectly. Recently I bought a LiIon powerbank with an integrated solar cell for ridicuolsy little money on eBay. You keep it lying on a window sill during the day and every night you can recharge you phone(s) and tablets and complex calculators from it. So I can now say that all my rechargeable gizmos are solar powered.

Yes. I had the same idea but it doesn't work (also the calculator should accept the usb charge. Not all have it). For other devices it is fine (especially ebook readers).

http://www.hpmuseum.org/forum/thread-804...l#pid71284

[Maximilian Hohmann]

Hello!

(01-17-2019 03:25 PM)pier4r Wrote:  Like this guy:
https://hackernoon.com/how-data-forced-m...df76064903

Not a good example because he uses Excel (just like me) and not a pocket calculator for his self-improvement scheme ;-)

I didn't really try to understand his logic, but I don't believe for a second that the number of minutes spent meditating every day (around 5 or so in his case) have the impact on his gerneral achievements that he shows in one of his graphs. If it were so easy I would just meditate 6 minutes every day and outperform Robbie Williams on stage (as "singing in front of a big audience" is one of everybody's goals in life according to the author)...

[pier4r]

Well I wanted to convey that tracking data helps some (me and that guy). Then people are different and the placebo effect is a thing.
If it doesn't work for you, it doesn't mean it doesn't work in general.

Another point is to do something every day that for you is positive. You can try it even just to confirm your doubts and say "yes, it doesn't work on me". Maybe you can use the data points in a scientific calculator =) (hint: let's go back to topic)

[ijabbott]

(01-16-2019 11:56 PM)Albert Chan Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 09:25 AM)ijabbott Wrote:  For comparison, Casio fx-991EX supports a 1-variable list length of 160, or a 2-variable list length of 80, but the data is volatile.

Really?

On closer examination, the statistics data is retained when the calculator is turned off, but is cleared when switching modes (even when switching between 1-variable and 2-variable modes within the Statistics mode). Not all the modes retain data when powering off. For example, the Spreadsheet mode clears the data when powering off (even for automatic power off) or when switching modes. (I suppose Spreadsheet mode has its uses, but its volatility limits its usefulness somewhat!)

Quote:Both my Casio FX-115MS and FX-3650P retains the data unless MODE switched.

Similar to the fx-991EX then, except that one has a lot more modes to switch between.

Quote:BTW, FX-3650P memory pool is shared, like the HP-12C.
Unless you sacrifice programming area, you have very little space for statistics.

Both the fx-991EX and TI-3x multi type calculators are non-programmable, so there is no programming space to sacrifice.

The non-programmable fx scientifics may share the same data space between the different modes since it clears the data when switching modes.

As far as I can tell, the TI-3x multi type calculators do not share storage between the different modes, and the data for each mode is retained when switching back to that mode.

Quote:With my setup (program steps almost all used up), I can only do 17 data points

Correction:
Casio FX-3650P had an EditOFF feature that allow adding unlimited points.
The downside is inability to edit old entries.
Correction is still possible, using M- to delete data.

The early Casio scientifics only support summation based statistics (and only supported 1-variable statistics), storing the sum, the sum of squares, and the number of data, but not the individual data. This is like the EditOFF feature you mentioned. It saves storage space as only a few registers are needed to accumulate the data. It's enough to do standard deviation calculations, but there is no way to do any quantile calculations on the data.

[Dan]

(01-17-2019 01:23 PM)Maximilian Hohmann Wrote:  I'm constantly looking for reasons to justify having 1000+ calculators piling up around me.

I've got 14 and was starting to think I have too much stuff. Now I realise I have nothing.

How much room do they take up?

Have you contacted the Guinness Book of Records? EDIT: Just did a search and it seems you need about 3000 more to beat your fellow countryman from Solingen

[pier4r]

(01-18-2019 12:13 AM)ijabbott Wrote:  On closer examination, the statistics data is retained when the calculator is turned off, but is cleared when switching modes (even when switching between 1-variable and 2-variable modes within the Statistics mode). Not all the modes retain data when powering off. For example, the Spreadsheet mode clears the data when powering off (even for automatic power off) or when switching modes. (I suppose Spreadsheet mode has its uses, but its volatility limits its usefulness somewhat!)

Same with sharp models. If one doesn't change mode the data is there (I know no stats mode losing data due to power off). The reset on change is due, I suppose, a design assumption: one has the registers used and assumes that if a user wants to switch, the data is not needed.

No idea about the spreadsheets mode as my calc doesn't have that functionality.

Quote:The early Casio scientifics only support summation based statistics (and only supported 1-variable statistics), storing the sum, the sum of squares, and the number of data, but not the individual data. This is like the EditOFF feature you mentioned. It saves storage space as only a few registers are needed to accumulate the data. It's enough to do standard deviation calculations, but there is no way to do any quantile calculations on the data.

the ti-34 from 1987 can do summation based statistics but on the sharp I didn't find away to emulate the same behavior. So for some edge cases (over 100 entries) the ti-34 can and the sharp can't. See how the design can affect functions.

(01-18-2019 07:04 AM)Dan Wrote:  I've got 14 and was starting to think I have too much stuff. Now I realise I have nothing.

Have you contacted the Guinness Book of Records? EDIT: Just did a search and it seems you need about 3000 more to beat your fellow countryman from Solingen

Impressive! What I was thinking is: those devices stored with love, will go waste when the other dies? I'll open a thread about it.

[Maximilian Hohmann]

Hello!

(01-18-2019 07:04 AM)Dan Wrote:  How much room do they take up?

Hard to say. They are spread around the house in drawers, shoe boxes and heaps on the floor in my "home office". Some desktop calculators (of which I have very few) are in the garage. A dozen or so on my desk at any time, mostly the new additions. In total I would say about half a small room. As I am not really interested in getting and preserving the original boxes the amount of space is still reasonable. If I get a boxed one I will keep the box of course, but I wouldn't pay extra for that. But I really think I will have to reduce the amount pretty soon. Get rid of doubles and stuff I'm not really interested in (basically everything with an LCD - with a few exceptions).

(01-18-2019 07:04 AM)Dan Wrote:  Just did a search and it seems you need about 3000 more to beat your fellow countryman from Solingen

I think the Guinness Book does not know everything... We have someone on this forum ("HP-Collection") who might have more than that. Or the owner of the datamath.org website. And even a few others.

Regards
Max

[Eddie W. Shore]

(01-18-2019 07:04 AM)Dan Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 01:23 PM)Maximilian Hohmann Wrote:  I'm constantly looking for reasons to justify having 1000+ calculators piling up around me.

I've got 14 and was starting to think I have too much stuff. Now I realise I have nothing.

How much room do they take up?

Have you contacted the Guinness Book of Records? EDIT: Just did a search and it seems you need about 3000 more to beat your fellow countryman from Solingen

I'm nowhere close, I have about 150 calculators.

[Dan]

Thanks for sharing Max and Eddie. This has probably come up on other threads, but I'll ask anyway: Do you each have a favourite calculator and why?

(01-18-2019 10:30 AM)pier4r Wrote:  What I was thinking is: those devices stored with love, will go waste when the other dies? I'll open a thread about it.

Sadly you can't take it with you when you go, but maybe family and friends will appreciate them.

[Maximilian Hohmann]

Hello!

(01-20-2019 05:02 AM)Dan Wrote:  Thanks for sharing Max and Eddie. This has probably come up on other threads, but I'll ask anyway: Do you each have a favourite calculator and why?

There have of course been several "favourite calculator" threads over the years, but I will try to give an answer that fits inside this topic :-)

If I would have to choose a single favorite calculator it will always be the Ti 59. Because of my personal attachment to this calculator: It helped me through my final year at school (where I was in the mathematical/natural science section) and through university (aerospace eng.). These were the years when I really needed a calculator and the Ti59 was the only affordable one that could do everything that was required then. All HP calculators of the late 1970ies/early 1980ies were insanely expensive in my part of the world, and could not do anything that a Ti 59 wasn't also capable of. Mine still works nicely after 40 years, so build quality of Ti can't have been as bad as one often reads on the internet. At least not for the high-end models. And I also like Ti's algebraic entry logic very much. I was never afraid of ( ) and = keys.

And regarding the topic: With it's normal inbuilt statistics functions the Ti 59 did not store data pairs. It used summation based statistics instead like most calculators now and then. Using the "Applied Statistics Module" of 1977 a Ti 59 could store up to 69 data points (according to the manual available for download at datamath.org - I can not verify this because I don't have the module).

Could I choose five favorite calculators instead (from my collection - there may be others that I don't have seen yet) these would be, in no specific order:
Ti 59
HP-25
Aristo M27
HP-71B
Ti Voyage 200

Regards
Max

[pier4r]

(01-20-2019 05:02 AM)Dan Wrote:  Thanks for sharing Max and Eddie. This has probably come up on other threads, but I'll ask anyway: Do you each have a favourite calculator and why?

you can bump the "top 3 calculators" thread. http://www.hpmuseum.org/forum/thread-10433.html