Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.misc > #2682 > unrolled thread

Calculator Accuracy

Back to article view | Back to comp.misc

Contents

  Calculator Accuracy Gordon Henderson <gordon+usenet@drogon.net> - 2014-05-08 07:00 +0000
    Re: Calculator Accuracy David Hume <David.Hume@example.com> - 2014-05-08 08:39 +0100
    Re: Calculator Accuracy Andy Burns <usenet.feb2014@adslpipe.co.uk> - 2014-05-08 09:14 +0100
      Re: Calculator Accuracy Andy Burns <usenet.feb2014@adslpipe.co.uk> - 2014-05-12 19:02 +0100
    Re: Calculator Accuracy "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-05-08 09:43 +0100
      Re: Calculator Accuracy Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-05-08 09:53 +0100
        Re: Calculator Accuracy "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-05-08 10:22 +0100
          Re: Calculator Accuracy David Hume <David.Hume@example.com> - 2014-05-08 12:17 +0100
            Re: Calculator Accuracy RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-05-08 14:09 +0000
              Re: Calculator Accuracy David Hume <David.Hume@example.com> - 2014-05-08 16:04 +0100
              Re: Calculator Accuracy Rich <rich@example.com> - 2014-05-08 16:49 +0000
                Re: Calculator Accuracy Rich <rich@example.com> - 2014-05-09 00:03 +0000
              Re: Calculator Accuracy Rich <rich@example.com> - 2014-05-09 00:10 +0000
                Re: Calculator Accuracy RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-05-09 21:32 +0000
                  Re: Calculator Accuracy Rich <rich@example.com> - 2014-05-10 03:30 +0000
              Re: Calculator Accuracy "G. Paul Ziemba" <paul+usenet@w6yx.stanford.edu> - 2014-05-09 03:43 +0000
      Re: Calculator Accuracy David Hume <David.Hume@example.com> - 2014-05-08 10:55 +0100
        Re: Calculator Accuracy "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-05-08 11:23 +0100
        Re: Calculator Accuracy Hils <hils@saynotospam.net> - 2014-05-08 12:09 +0100
          Re: Calculator Accuracy Hils <hils@saynotospam.net> - 2014-05-08 23:02 +0100
            Re: Calculator Accuracy Marc Auslander <marcslists@gmail.NOSPAM.com> - 2014-05-08 19:51 -0400
              Re: Calculator Accuracy Will Honea <whonea@whonea.net> - 2014-05-08 18:19 -0600
          Re: Calculator Accuracy Eric Pozharski <whynot@pozharski.name> - 2014-05-09 15:19 +0300
            Re: Calculator Accuracy David Hume <David.Hume@example.com> - 2014-05-09 19:06 +0100
              Re: Calculator Accuracy Eric Pozharski <whynot@pozharski.name> - 2014-05-10 08:38 +0300
                Re: Calculator Accuracy Eric Pozharski <whynot@pozharski.name> - 2014-05-12 09:30 +0300
            Re: Calculator Accuracy David Hume <David.Hume@example.com> - 2014-05-10 00:00 +0100
        Re: Calculator Accuracy Rich <rich@example.com> - 2014-05-08 11:40 +0000
    Re: Calculator Accuracy Rich <rich@example.com> - 2014-05-08 11:32 +0000
    Re: Calculator Accuracy Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> - 2014-05-08 20:20 +0300
      Re: Calculator Accuracy Gordon Henderson <gordon+usenet@drogon.net> - 2014-05-08 17:40 +0000
        Re: Calculator Accuracy David Hume <David.Hume@example.com> - 2014-05-09 08:43 +0100
          Re: Calculator Accuracy Rich <rich@example.com> - 2014-05-09 10:42 +0000
          Re: Calculator Accuracy Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2014-05-09 21:56 +0100
        Re: Calculator Accuracy Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> - 2014-05-12 13:50 +0100
    Re: Calculator Accuracy Caecilius <nospam@spamless.invalid> - 2014-05-08 19:34 +0100
    Re: Calculator Accuracy Caecilius <nospam@spamless.invalid> - 2014-05-08 19:38 +0100
      Re: Calculator Accuracy Hils <hils@saynotospam.net> - 2014-05-08 22:06 +0100
    Re: Calculator Accuracy Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-05-10 21:24 +0200
    Re: Calculator Accuracy Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-05-11 16:22 +0000
      Re: Calculator Accuracy Will Honea <whonea@whonea.net> - 2014-05-11 15:41 -0600
        Re: Calculator Accuracy Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-05-11 23:02 +0100
    Re: Calculator Accuracy David Harmon <source@netcom.com> - 2014-05-12 18:20 -0700
    Re: Calculator Accuracy Yeechang Lee <ylee@pobox.com> - 2014-07-25 20:26 -0700

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#2682 — Calculator Accuracy

The BASIC is 50 thread, having diverged into floating point issues has
reminded me of a standard test that wa applied in all the schools where
I lived to determine if a calculator would be suitable for school use.

Put calculator into degrees mode, enter 45, then push SIN, COS, TAN,
then the inverses - INV-TAN, INV-COS and INV-SIN - then subtract 45 and
see what the result is.

With that, you do expect some rounding, but a lot of calculators were
so far off the mark it was quite incredible.

No-longer having a desktop scientific calculator (that works), I've
just tried it with gcalctool under my Linux desktop and given up. It's
a bloody calculator for goodness sake, not something I want to TYPE at!!!

Doing it using my RTB BASIC (standard IEEE 64-bit doubles), I end up
with -3.606714927e-11.

Gordon

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#2683

Gordon Henderson <gordon+usenet@drogon.net> writes:

> Doing it using my RTB BASIC (standard IEEE 64-bit doubles), I end up
> with -3.606714927e-11.
>
> Gordon

xcalc returns

-3.59605e-11

I tried pgcalc but it defaulted to radians and I couldn't see a degrees
button.

emacs calculator:

1:  6.129e-7

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2684

Gordon Henderson wrote:

> The BASIC is 50 thread, having diverged into floating point issues has
> reminded me of a standard test that wa applied in all the schools where
> I lived to determine if a calculator would be suitable for school use.

My ancient Casio fx510 says ... its batteries have finally died!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2766

Andy Burns wrote:

> Gordon Henderson wrote:
>
>> The BASIC is 50 thread, having diverged into floating point issues has
>> reminded me of a standard test that wa applied in all the schools where
>> I lived to determine if a calculator would be suitable for school use.
>
> My ancient Casio fx510 says ... its batteries have finally died!

Actually after picking up a couple of 'watch' batteries for it, it says 
that *it* has finally died :-(

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2685

"Gordon Henderson" <gordon+usenet@drogon.net> wrote in message 
news:lkfa27$661$1@dont-email.me...
> The BASIC is 50 thread, having diverged into floating point issues has
> reminded me of a standard test that wa applied in all the schools where
> I lived to determine if a calculator would be suitable for school use.
>
> Put calculator into degrees mode, enter 45, then push SIN, COS, TAN,
> then the inverses - INV-TAN, INV-COS and INV-SIN - then subtract 45 and
> see what the result is.
>
> With that, you do expect some rounding, but a lot of calculators were
> so far off the mark it was quite incredible.
>
> No-longer having a desktop scientific calculator (that works), I've
> just tried it with gcalctool under my Linux desktop and given up. It's
> a bloody calculator for goodness sake, not something I want to TYPE at!!!

My Casio fx-83 gives 1.2702e-9 degrees (difference from the original 45 
degrees).

(On this algebraic calculator it's entered as 
invsin(invcos(invtan(tan(cos(sin(45))))))-45.)

-- 
Bartc 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2686

In article <mtHav.235783$vM2.115843@fx18.am4>, BartC <bc@freeuk.com>
wrote:

> "Gordon Henderson" <gordon+usenet@drogon.net> wrote in message 
> news:lkfa27$661$1@dont-email.me...
> > The BASIC is 50 thread, having diverged into floating point issues has
> > reminded me of a standard test that wa applied in all the schools where
> > I lived to determine if a calculator would be suitable for school use.
> >
> > Put calculator into degrees mode, enter 45, then push SIN, COS, TAN,
> > then the inverses - INV-TAN, INV-COS and INV-SIN - then subtract 45 and
> > see what the result is.
> >
> > With that, you do expect some rounding, but a lot of calculators were
> > so far off the mark it was quite incredible.
> >
> > No-longer having a desktop scientific calculator (that works), I've
> > just tried it with gcalctool under my Linux desktop and given up. It's
> > a bloody calculator for goodness sake, not something I want to TYPE at!!!
> 
> My Casio fx-83 gives 1.2702e-9 degrees (difference from the original 45 
> degrees).

fx-83WA gives -1.376e-7

Os-X calculator gives -1.6136e-10

-- 
"Freedom is sloppy. But since tyranny's the only guaranteed byproduct of
those who insist on a perfect world, freedom will have to do." -- Bigby Wolf

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2687

"Tim Streater" <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote in message 
news:080520140953355455%timstreater@greenbee.net...
> In article <mtHav.235783$vM2.115843@fx18.am4>, BartC <bc@freeuk.com>
> wrote:

>> My Casio fx-83 gives 1.2702e-9 degrees (difference from the original 45 
>> degrees).
>
> fx-83WA gives -1.376e-7
>
> Os-X calculator gives -1.6136e-10

Mine's an FX-83 ES (I thought they all used a 10+2 display (I think 12+2 
internal)).

But the same calculation using radians gives a result of 0 (using pi/4 
instead of 45).

-- 
Bartc 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2693

"BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> writes:

> "Tim Streater" <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote in message
> news:080520140953355455%timstreater@greenbee.net...
>> In article <mtHav.235783$vM2.115843@fx18.am4>, BartC <bc@freeuk.com>
>> wrote:
>
>>> My Casio fx-83 gives 1.2702e-9 degrees (difference from the original
>>> 45 degrees).
>>
>> fx-83WA gives -1.376e-7
>>
>> Os-X calculator gives -1.6136e-10
>
> Mine's an FX-83 ES (I thought they all used a 10+2 display (I think
> 12+2 internal)).
>
> But the same calculation using radians gives a result of 0 (using pi/4
> instead of 45).

casio fx-330 -1.2747e-3

:(

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2698

On Thu, 08 May 2014 12:17:38 +0100
David Hume <David.Hume@example.com> wrote:

> "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> 
> > "Tim Streater" <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote in message
> > news:080520140953355455%timstreater@greenbee.net...
> >> In article <mtHav.235783$vM2.115843@fx18.am4>, BartC <bc@freeuk.com>
> >> wrote:
> >
> >>> My Casio fx-83 gives 1.2702e-9 degrees (difference from the original
> >>> 45 degrees).
> >>
> >> fx-83WA gives -1.376e-7
> >>
> >> Os-X calculator gives -1.6136e-10
> >
> > Mine's an FX-83 ES (I thought they all used a 10+2 display (I think
> > 12+2 internal)).
> >
> > But the same calculation using radians gives a result of 0 (using pi/4
> > instead of 45).
> 
> casio fx-330 -1.2747e-3
> 
> :(

I *just yesterday* threw away the HP15c I'd used since 1988 (sniff, sniff - really).  That was an awesome device reminiscent of the old HP back when it was a neat company.  For $9 I bought the 15CSciCalc app, which was well-appreciated by previous users.

97.0870e-5

But holy crap!  That's relatively unimpressive!  Does someone have a real HP15C so I can compare the hardware device's results to this app that is supposed to duplicate its circuitry? 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2701

RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> writes:

> I *just yesterday* threw away the HP15c I'd used since 1988 (sniff, sniff -
> really).  That was an awesome device reminiscent of the old HP back when it
> was a neat company.  For $9 I bought the 15CSciCalc app, which was
> well-appreciated by previous users.
>
> 97.0870e-5
>
> But holy crap!  That's relatively unimpressive!  Does someone have a real
> HP15C so I can compare the hardware device's results to this app that is
> supposed to duplicate its circuitry?

I am not sure the test is meaningful anyway. The output from sin(x) is
not an angle, so what sense is there in passing it into cosine? Working
in radians might affect the accuracy because sin(45)=0.85, 0.85 is a
larger angle in radians than it is in degrees.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2705

RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 08 May 2014 12:17:38 +0100
> David Hume <David.Hume@example.com> wrote:

> > "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> > 
> > > "Tim Streater" <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote in message
> > > news:080520140953355455%timstreater@greenbee.net...
> > >> In article <mtHav.235783$vM2.115843@fx18.am4>, BartC <bc@freeuk.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >
> > >>> My Casio fx-83 gives 1.2702e-9 degrees (difference from the original
> > >>> 45 degrees).
> > >>
> > >> fx-83WA gives -1.376e-7
> > >>
> > >> Os-X calculator gives -1.6136e-10
> > >
> > > Mine's an FX-83 ES (I thought they all used a 10+2 display (I think
> > > 12+2 internal)).
> > >
> > > But the same calculation using radians gives a result of 0 (using pi/4
> > > instead of 45).
> > 
> > casio fx-330 -1.2747e-3
> > 
> > :(

> I *just yesterday* threw away the HP15c I'd used since 1988 (sniff,
> sniff - really).  That was an awesome device reminiscent of the old
> HP back when it was a neat company.  For $9 I bought the 15CSciCalc
> app, which was well-appreciated by previous users.

> 97.0870e-5

> But holy crap!  That's relatively unimpressive!  Does someone have a
> real HP15C so I can compare the hardware device's results to this app
> that is supposed to duplicate its circuitry?

I do, assuming it's batteries are still working.  But it is at home,
and right now I am not.  So I'll test later.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2714

Rich <rich@example.com> wrote:
> RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 08 May 2014 12:17:38 +0100
> > David Hume <David.Hume@example.com> wrote:

> > > "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> > > 
> > > > "Tim Streater" <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:080520140953355455%timstreater@greenbee.net...
> > > >> In article <mtHav.235783$vM2.115843@fx18.am4>, BartC <bc@freeuk.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>> My Casio fx-83 gives 1.2702e-9 degrees (difference from the original
> > > >>> 45 degrees).
> > > >>
> > > >> fx-83WA gives -1.376e-7
> > > >>
> > > >> Os-X calculator gives -1.6136e-10
> > > >
> > > > Mine's an FX-83 ES (I thought they all used a 10+2 display (I think
> > > > 12+2 internal)).
> > > >
> > > > But the same calculation using radians gives a result of 0 (using pi/4
> > > > instead of 45).
> > > 
> > > casio fx-330 -1.2747e-3
> > > 
> > > :(

> > I *just yesterday* threw away the HP15c I'd used since 1988 (sniff,
> > sniff - really).  That was an awesome device reminiscent of the old
> > HP back when it was a neat company.  For $9 I bought the 15CSciCalc
> > app, which was well-appreciated by previous users.

> > 97.0870e-5

> > But holy crap!  That's relatively unimpressive!  Does someone have a
> > real HP15C so I can compare the hardware device's results to this app
> > that is supposed to duplicate its circuitry?

> I do, assuming it's batteries are still working.  But it is at home,
> and right now I am not.  So I'll test later.

Genuine HP-15C (real one from 1980's, not the new remade version):

-7.087E-5

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2716

RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 08 May 2014 12:17:38 +0100
> David Hume <David.Hume@example.com> wrote:

> > "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> > 
> > > "Tim Streater" <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote in message
> > > news:080520140953355455%timstreater@greenbee.net...
> > >> In article <mtHav.235783$vM2.115843@fx18.am4>, BartC <bc@freeuk.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >
> > >>> My Casio fx-83 gives 1.2702e-9 degrees (difference from the original
> > >>> 45 degrees).
> > >>
> > >> fx-83WA gives -1.376e-7
> > >>
> > >> Os-X calculator gives -1.6136e-10
> > >
> > > Mine's an FX-83 ES (I thought they all used a 10+2 display (I think
> > > 12+2 internal)).
> > >
> > > But the same calculation using radians gives a result of 0 (using pi/4
> > > instead of 45).
> > 
> > casio fx-330 -1.2747e-3
> > 
> > :(

> I *just yesterday* threw away the HP15c I'd used since 1988 (sniff,
> sniff - really). 

I have to ask, why?

Real 15c's from the 80's fetch quite a premium on ebay it seems.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2730

>> I *just yesterday* threw away the HP15c I'd used since 1988 (sniff,
>> sniff - really). 
>
>I have to ask, why?
>
>Real 15c's from the 80's fetch quite a premium on ebay it seems.

Simple - not because I wanted to, because after many years of service it
 gave up the ghost.  Display was flickering and unreadable, couldn't bring
 it back to life.  Too many years in tropical countries probably corroded a
 circuit.  RIP.  (The App, by the way, offers haptic feedback, but it's
 nothing like the feel of those keys - the best).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2732

RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
> >> I *just yesterday* threw away the HP15c I'd used since 1988 (sniff,
> >> sniff - really). 
> >
> >I have to ask, why?
> >
> >Real 15c's from the 80's fetch quite a premium on ebay it seems.

> Simple - not because I wanted to, because after many years of service
>  it gave up the ghost.  Display was flickering and unreadable,
>  couldn't bring it back to life.  Too many years in tropical
>  countries probably corroded a circuit.  RIP.

Ah.  Sad to see one go in that case.

>  (The App, by the way, offers haptic feedback, but it's nothing like
>  the feel of those keys - the best).

Another HP-15C app, in case you wanted to check out other options:
http://wiki.tcl.tk/15311

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2719

RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> writes:
>I *just yesterday* threw away the HP15c I'd used since 1988 

Do you mean, you threw it away by accident? Those things still fetch
north of a C-note on fleabay. I still have mine (since 1982 or so),
and it's a fine instrument.
-- 
G. Paul Ziemba
FreeBSD unix:
 8:41PM  up 102 days, 21:40, 24 users, load averages: 2.61, 2.49, 2.41

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2688

"BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> writes:


> My Casio fx-83 gives 1.2702e-9 degrees (difference from the original 45
> degrees).
>
> (On this algebraic calculator it's entered as
> invsin(invcos(invtan(tan(cos(sin(45))))))-45.)

That sounds fun.

clisp:

(- (* (/ 180 pi) (asin (acos (atan (tan (cos (sin (* (/ pi 180) 45)))))))) 45)
-1.7347234759768070944L-17

We have a winner! :D

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2690

"David Hume" <David.Hume@example.com> wrote in message
news:83k39w1tnl.fsf@example.com...
> "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>
>
>> My Casio fx-83 gives 1.2702e-9 degrees (difference from the original 45
>> degrees).
>>
>> (On this algebraic calculator it's entered as
>> invsin(invcos(invtan(tan(cos(sin(45))))))-45.)
>
> That sounds fun.
>
> clisp:
>
> (- (* (/ 180 pi) (asin (acos (atan (tan (cos (sin (* (/ pi 180) 45))))))))
> 45)
> -1.7347234759768070944L-17
>
> We have a winner! :D

On my homemade language, this calculation:

println asin acos atan tan cos sin 45 deg - 45 deg :"e"

only gives:

-1.110223E-016

(using x86 main FPU with 64-bit floating point).

(You win on parenthesis-count too ..)

-- 
Bartc 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2692

On 2014-05-08 10:55, David Hume wrote:
> "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> 
>> My Casio fx-83 gives 1.2702e-9 degrees (difference from the original 45
>> degrees).
>>
>> (On this algebraic calculator it's entered as
>> invsin(invcos(invtan(tan(cos(sin(45))))))-45.)
> 
> That sounds fun.
> 
> clisp:
> 
> (- (* (/ 180 pi) (asin (acos (atan (tan (cos (sin (* (/ pi 180) 45)))))))) 45)
> -1.7347234759768070944L-17
> 
> We have a winner! :D

R version 3.1.0:

asin(acos(atan(tan(cos(sin(45*pi/180))))))*180/pi-45
[1] -7.105427e-15

Gnuplot 4.6:

print asin(acos(atan(tan(cos(sin(45*pi/180))))))*180/pi-45
-7.105427357601e-15

I'm guessing a common library at work here...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2713

On 2014-05-08 12:09, Hils wrote:
> R version 3.1.0:
> 
> asin(acos(atan(tan(cos(sin(45*pi/180))))))*180/pi-45
> [1] -7.105427e-15
> 
> Gnuplot 4.6:
> 
> print asin(acos(atan(tan(cos(sin(45*pi/180))))))*180/pi-45
> -7.105427357601e-15
> 
> I'm guessing a common library at work here...

It looks as though Octave uses it too:

octave:1> asin(acos(atan(tan(cos(sin(45*pi/180))))))*180/pi-45
ans = -7.1054e-15

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web