Re: Who's Responsible For The 49+ CAS?
- From: "John H Meyers" <jhmeyers@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 15:32:29 -0600
On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 14:36:16 -0600, Samuel Stearley wrote:
Shouldn't you be able to take a 48g program put it on the 49g
and have it work with symbolic input.
No; the CAS has undertaken to implement a wide set of functions,
but has not undertaken to automatically accept symbolic input
for any function whatsoever.
For example, the FIX command (set number of decimal places
for display roundoff) does not accept a symbolic formula,
but if you want to evaluate a formula and then supply
its value to FIX, you can write 'formula' \->NUM FIX.
If the formula can not be resolved to a number,
then there is no point even trying to use it for FIX,
because the numerical display function is applicable
only to numeric input, and it has to be given
a definite number (of places to round off).
It so happens that \->V3 is also a function
which is concerned only with the display and entry
of numeric coordinates -- it is there so that you can conveniently
do the same thing as when you type [ number \<)angle number ]
(when in CYLINdrical coord display mode)
or [ number \<)angle \<)angle ] (when in SPHERE - spherical coords),
to enter "3D" numeric coordinates in any of three styles,
but with \->V3 you can have the program supply the three
numeric values on the stack instead of in the command line,
and the calculator will then proceed to convert to internal
coordinates and create the same final object (a vector).
If you have not been posting only to troll, but actually
to solve a problem or get useful information for yourself,
then the useful information we offer is that you have
mistaken one command's purpose for another; the \->ARRY command
is what exists to perform the task you said you wanted to do;
the \->V3 command can easily be mistaken for that,
unless one looks it up in the manual,
but that just isn't what it's for; \->V2 and V\-> likewise can be
mistaken for something that really calls for \->ARRY or ARRY\->,
but it's simply a common confusion, hopefully resolved
by what I believe to be a suitable explanation.
[r->] [OFF]
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Who's Responsible For The 49+ CAS?
- From: John H Meyers
- Re: Who's Responsible For The 49+ CAS?
- References:
- Who's Responsible For The 49+ CAS?
- From: sebasg1980
- Re: Who's Responsible For The 49+ CAS?
- From: Bruce Horrocks
- Re: Who's Responsible For The 49+ CAS?
- From: Steen Schmidt
- Re: Who's Responsible For The 49+ CAS?
- From: Samuel Stearley
- Re: Who's Responsible For The 49+ CAS?
- From: John H Meyers
- Re: Who's Responsible For The 49+ CAS?
- From: Samuel Stearley
- Re: Who's Responsible For The 49+ CAS?
- From: John H Meyers
- Re: Who's Responsible For The 49+ CAS?
- From: Samuel Stearley
- Who's Responsible For The 49+ CAS?
- Prev by Date: Re: Real to Complex shortcut on an HP49g+
- Next by Date: Re: Ann: New FileSystem library for HPGCC
- Previous by thread: Re: Who's Responsible For The 49+ CAS?
- Next by thread: Re: Who's Responsible For The 49+ CAS?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|