Courses Which instrument would be a better tool for advanced physics courses?

AI Thread Summary
When choosing between the TI INSPIRE CX - CAS and the TI 89 TITANIUM for a linear algebra course, both calculators are recommended by professors, but opinions vary on their necessity. Some users suggest opting for a less expensive, high-end non-graphing calculator, like the Sharp EL-516 or Casio fx-991ES, which can handle most non-symbolic tasks effectively for under $20. They argue that for complex calculations or visualizations, computer software is often preferred over handheld devices. The CAS CX is noted for its ease of use and utility in checking calculations, particularly for physics students, while the TI 89 TITANIUM may not offer significant advantages for upper-level courses. Ultimately, the choice should consider future needs in engineering physics, with many advocating for a balance between cost and functionality.
cesaruelas
Messages
51
Reaction score
0
This question may be in the wrong section and quite irrelevant for many of you. Anyway, I need to buy a new calculator for my linear algebra course to deal with matrices and that stuff... which would you recommed I buy between the TI INSPIRE CX - CAS and the TI 89 TITANIUM? These are the ones my professor recommends but IDK which of these will be a better... investment for future courses (engineering physics) (they both cost the same in my country, around 200 us dollars) since I wouldn't want to buy one only for this course and then have to buy another one.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In my experience, get the cheapest one possible. Anything that requires computation in upper level courses does not require an advanced calculator.
 
Jorriss said:
In my experience, get the cheapest one possible. Anything that requires computation in upper level courses does not require an advanced calculator.

On top of this, it has been my experience that if a complex calculation or visualization of results is needed, then a computer package is often preferred in place of a handheld calculator device.
 
Calculators that are capable of symbolic calculation (integration, etc.) carry a hefty price premium. These days it doesn't make any sense to pay that premium unless you need to have those functions in a small portable package.

Really, just buy a high-end non-graphing calculator like the Sharp EL-516 or Casio fx-991ES for under $20.
http://edu.casio.com/products/ntd/fx991es/
http://www.sharpusa.com/forhome/homeoffice/calculators/elw516b.aspx

Both can do just about any non-symbolic task a calculator needs to do.

Anything they can't do, use wxMaxima (it is free).
http://maxima.sourceforge.net/download.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxima_(software )
This will be sufficient to check your Linear Algebra homework.

Later, if you are doing serious numerical computation, you can use something like Octave (similar to Matlab).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'd go with CAS CX. There seems to be a lot of stubborn "pencil and paper or matlab, no in between" on these forums.

I have a CAS CX, and it's main utility is just to check if I'm wrong, or to make a calculation without access to a computer easier. I'm not always in front of mathematica or matlab, so I need to use a calculator to check if an integral is correct. And the utility and simplicity of the input of the CAS CX is unrivaled.

I sold my 89 Titanium and bought the CAS CX when it came out... best purchase I've made as a physics student.
 
TL;DR Summary: I want to do a PhD in applied math but I hate group theory, is this a big problem? Hello, I am a second-year math and physics double major with a minor in data science. I just finished group theory (today actually), and it was my least favorite class in all of university so far. It doesn't interest me, and I am also very bad at it compared to other math courses I have done. The other courses I have done are calculus I-III, ODEs, Linear Algebra, and Prob/Stats. Is it a...
I’ve been looking through the curricula of several European theoretical/mathematical physics MSc programs (ETH, Oxford, Cambridge, LMU, ENS Paris, etc), and I’m struck by how little emphasis they place on advanced fundamental courses. Nearly everything seems to be research-adjacent: string theory, quantum field theory, quantum optics, cosmology, soft matter physics, black hole radiation, etc. What I don’t see are the kinds of “second-pass fundamentals” I was hoping for, things like...
Back
Top