by ArcanaNoir
Tags: calculator, favorite
P: 2,504
 Quote by Ivan92 The best calculator ever!
I just calculated the 12th root of 2 to 9 places in a fraction of a second on my old TI-30Xa. Can your brain do that?
Emeritus
PF Gold
P: 7,337
 Quote by hotvette I'll always have a soft spot in my heart for my very first calculator - an HP35 I purchased in 1973 for $395. That was a huge amount of money back then but well worth it. Ha! I bought mine used for$175 in 1973, I also got a lot of use out of it. Right now it is in its hard case in my closet.

My current calculator is a HP 28s. This is the first graphing calculator, on the market in 1986.

Redbelly,
Sorry for the loss of your dad. I too "collected" HP calculators in the '70's . I had the 35, a 25, 33,34, 71b and the 28. I never owned the greatest HP calculator the HP41c.
P: 2,179
 Quote by SW VandeCarr I just calculated the 12th root of 2 to 9 places in a fraction of a second on my old TI-30Xa. Can your brain do that?
1.059463094 I think.
P: 1,035
 Quote by Jimmy Snyder 1.059463094 I think.
I just memorized this answer so my brain is able to do this next time.
P: 500
 Quote by Integral Ha! I bought mine used for $175 in 1973, I also got a lot of use out of it. Right now it is in its hard case in my closet. My current calculator is a HP 28s. This is the first graphing calculator, on the market in 1986. Redbelly, Sorry for the loss of your dad. I too "collected" HP calculators in the '70's . I had the 35, a 25, 33,34, 71b and the 28. I never owned the greatest HP calculator the HP41c. All of these old calculators seem incredibly tedious to operate. Sci Advisor HW Helper P: 2,284  Quote by SW VandeCarr I just calculated the 12th root of 2 to 9 places in a fraction of a second on my old TI-30Xa. Can your brain do that? 1 My brain was smart enough to remember that your final answer shouldn't have more digits than the original numbers that went into the problem in the first place. Since the square root of 2 is less than 1.5 and I know the answer can't get below 1 no matter how many roots you take, that answer was pretty easy. Getting 9 digit answers when the numbers in the problem only had 1 significant digit is one of the drawbacks of calculators. Ever since the introduction of electronic calculators, just about every math or science course now needs to start with a chapter about significant digits. P: 754  Quote by BobG 1 My brain was smart enough to remember that your final answer shouldn't have more digits than the original numbers that went into the problem in the first place. Since the square root of 2 is less than 1.5 and I know the answer can't get below 1 no matter how many roots you take, that answer was pretty easy. Getting 9 digit answers when the numbers in the problem only had 1 significant digit is one of the drawbacks of calculators. Ever since the introduction of electronic calculators, just about every math or science course now needs to start with a chapter about significant digits. Significant digits only count in science, not in math. Pi goes forever, and so does the square root of two, and every other irrational number. We can take them as far as we like in pure mathematics, regardless of the length of other numbers in a calculation. P: 2,504  Quote by ArcanaNoir Significant digits only count in science, not in math. Pi goes forever, and so does the square root of two, and every other irrational number. We can take them as far as we like in pure mathematics, regardless of the length of other numbers in a calculation. Yes. There's also a practical value to taking the 12th root of 2 to a desired level of precision. It's the constant multiplier of the fundamental frequencies across an "octave" (actually 12, not 8 tones). So taking a base frequency B and using $B*2^{x/12}$ where x is an integer $0\leq x\leq 12$, gives the fundamental frequency of the tones across the "octave". HW Helper P: 6,189  Quote by ArcanaNoir Significant digits only count in science, not in math. Pi goes forever, and so does the square root of two, and every other irrational number. We can take them as far as we like in pure mathematics, regardless of the length of other numbers in a calculation. Exactly, so in pure math we never need a calculator to calculate digits! *Sigh*  Mentor P: 12,074 When pi comes up in mathematics or theoretical physics, it is represented as $\pi$. In engineering or experimental physics, 3.14 usually suffices. In neither case is an infinite number of digits required. HW Helper P: 925  Quote by Integral Ha! I bought mine used for$175 in 1973, I also got a lot of use out of it. Right now it is in its hard case in my closet
Wow, good price. I didn't even consider used. I unfortunately sold mine in 1984 for $5 in a garage sale (including original hard case, leather soft case, charger, and manuals). Big mistake. P: 347  Quote by stringy Aww you beat me to it... Thanks to it, I don't know how to solve integrals by myself anymore. ==  Admin P: 21,915 HP-41CX. I bought that during grad school, ca. 1982, and I still have and use it. Before 1982 I had a TI-SR51 and TI-58C.  P: 754 I've always been partial to Sharp calculators. The first calculator I ever had was a TI (natch). They were the only ones available when handhelds first came out - they had those awful red LED displays. In college, I found a Sharp EL-512 which was around$30 and was programmable. That was the beginning of my love affair with Sharp calculators. I have yet to find an inexpensive (< $20) calculator that I like that beats a Sharp. They have plenty of functions and (more importantly) their keyboards are generally laid out better than those of other companies. Later in college, I found that many of the "rich" students were using HP calculators with RPN. I found those intriguing and ended up buying an HP 32SII (also for around$30). It, too, is programmable, allowing for much more complex programs (albeit, with greater difficulty). After college, I found a newer Sharp to replace my trusty old EL-512 which had broken. I got an EL-520W for around $20 which has become my new favorite. It does everything I need (including complex numbers) and even does simple derivatives and integrals. A co-worker had this horrible Casio calculator that was extremely difficult to use (even for simple calculations). I bought him a Sharp EL-531X which is very similar to my EL-520 (lacking some of the more complicated functions) for$10 at Office Depot.
 Admin P: 9,709 I used to have that Sharp in the first image zgozvrm! Good times!
 PF Gold P: 1,160 My calculator: When I'm not on a computer, I have a Ti-84, though I just bought an HP-50 to replace it.
 P: 345 My HP-28S has been serving me well for the past 23 years and has been my favourite calculator to use. Recently acquired a second one off ebay so that I'd have one for work and for home
 P: 66 Scientific calculator: TI-30XS MultiView™

 Related Discussions General Discussion 0 General Discussion 71 General Discussion 18 General Discussion 33 General Discussion 24