Round 1 of 4 - Algebraic vs RPN - Law of Sines

In no way intended to be an end-all-be-all to the ongoing discussion -- this series of videos simply explores how efficiently an expression can be entered in Algebraic (in-fix) vs RPN (post-fix) calculators.
I attempted to be efficient, and in some cases explored various ways to enter the expression (particularly on the Algebraic calculators) ahead of time. However, the goal was NOT to determine the absolute fewest number of keystrokes possible -- instead, it was to attempt to use each calculator in a manner consistent with the way someone familiar with the device might use it.

[@detronbrian]

this was very cool Scott. as an RPN fan, I have learned over time it is more efficient (if you understand the math being done). I know people who like algebraic (or more aptly textbook entry) simply because they do not understand the math they are doing. they transfer a problem from the book to the calculator and hit "=".

[@scottcollins7513]

The "understanding the math being done" is a good observation. I like to have both RPN and Textbook style calculators available -- like having a socket wrench and a crescent wrench -- they do similar things, but sometimes one works better than the other. RPN for me, though, holds a special place.

[@detronbrian]

@@scottcollins7513 I do not by any means hate algebraic, (I Love the Ti-85). I do like how the 48GX and 50G have equation writers that allow the textbook entry when desired. I agree with the concept of having and using both (I sure do). PS. have you ever used a Ti-68? the only ones that tend to show up on ebay are "for parts, not working, etc" I think it was basically the most advanced Ti that was not a graphing calculator. I have one that works great and the Radio Shack branded one.

[@scottcollins7513]

@@detronbrian The equation writer was a really good idea -- too bad it was so terribly slow on the 48GX. It's too bad they could not have made the calculator run in both modes where you could enter things by default into the equation writer and then behind the scenes it would use RPN to give the answer to the user. I've never heard of or seen a TI-68. I had a TI-89 for a time and was impressed with its power, but never really bonded with it. TI became tarnished for me when I got some sort of low-end TI calculator in high school with terrible buttons that caused it to double-enter digits all the time. It was replaced by some sort of rubber-buttoned Sharp (I think, but it could have been Casio) that I loved. That bad experience with TI sort of ruined the brand for me. Then, the over-priced TI-84 calculators made me even less of a fan -- though the build-quality is impressive.

[@detronbrian]

@@scottcollins7513 Yeah, I prefer HP, then Casio, then Ti. Sharp and Canon I view as upgraded Casios.

[@GeoCalifornian]

Very nice demo! 0:40 I've always liked how Sharp doesn't clutter the space with uncommanded parentheses.

[@thorhilda]

By far, I prefer RPN. Hard to explain to someone not used to post-fix but I "think better" when I use RPN. To be fair, the 11 in-fix keystrokes can be reduced to only 10 by reordering the fraction (which ironically requires to be familiar with post-fix to have to reflex to do it ^_^) On the FX-991ex : [SHIFT][sin][9][d/c][7][Right][sin][5][0][=]

[@scottcollins7513]

Definitely something sublime about RPN. As for the optimizing/minimizing of keystrokes, my goal was to use them in a straight-forward way, not necessarily absolutely optimized. For example, on the HP28S or HP48GX, I could create a "program" to make a shifted function available without needing the shift key. Regardless, what you are saying is a more-efficient approach. Thanks for leaving the helpful comment, Alain.

[@GeoCalifornian]

Scott, can you save an algebraic equation in the HP Prime for later recall (like can be done in the Casio fx-5800P? /Thanks in advance

[@rumaisabaig895]

You're a god dude