Ask Slashdot: Cheap Second Calculators For Tests? 328
Rich0 writes "I own an HP 48 calculator that I'm quite content with, but soon I'll need to take a certification exam where this calculator will not be welcome. I'm sure this is a common problem for those who own higher-end calculators. Sure, I could just buy a random $15 calculator with a few trig functions, but I was wondering who makes the best moderately-priced calculators for somebody who already has and appreciates a programmable calculator and just needs something simple. Bonus points if the calculator can handle polar vector arithmetic and unit conversions, but it has to be simple enough that virtually any exam would accept its use."
Calculator (Score:5, Informative)
I believe the TI-36X Pro would probably do what you are looking for. It is approved for use on Professional Engineer tests, from what I have read.
Re:Calculator (Score:5, Informative)
PE exam you can do with a slide rule (Score:2, Insightful)
I took two bottom of the line TI-30s ($9.99) and my slide rule (in 1997 or 1998). There's nothing on the FE or PE exam that needs anything other than basic calculations: trig functions, etc. You could quite easily do it with a decent slide rule: it's not like you need 8 digits of accuracy. Either you know which equation to use, and you know what steps are in the solution, or you don't. The "wrong" answers are all the typical screwups (b/a instead of a/b kind of stuff).
However.. since you're used to an H
Re: (Score:2)
What slide rule would you recommend? Do you prefer Pickett or K&E?
Re: (Score:2)
I have a ti-36 solar...
Yeah, but he's used to RPN so he's pretty much stuck with HP models. ...although he doesn't say that. Which makes this "Ask Slashdot" as pointless as any other "Ask Slashdot".
Asking which is "best" is never a good question.
Re:Calculator (Score:5, Funny)
~~
Re: (Score:2)
A good manager believes in redundancy.
A good engineer believes in dual redundancy.
Re:Calculator (Score:5, Interesting)
And a great engineer carries a slide rule, because batteries run out.
True story: I did well at MIT 30 years ago, partly because working with my dad's old circular slide rule gave me a fine appreciation for rounding erors, margins of error and orders of magnitude unavailable to my calculator using peers. But I almost failed the thermodynamics final because *so many* of the teaching assistants came over to wonder "what in the heck is that!!?" The professor had to chase them off so I could finish my work.
My calculator equipped peers also had a terrible, terrible habit of precalculating what their measurements should be in order to get the desired result. I almost came to blows with several of them over this, and the professor was *shocked* to find out that the excellent lab results people had been showing were mostly a matter of c students fudging their lab results to get the right measurements. It gave me a fine appreciation for insisting on seeing the original data.
I second this suggestion (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks. I have no idea what would possess anybody to make that a secondary function! I hit it all the time! Granted, for the test I'm taking it might not be quite as essential.
Re: (Score:2)
I find Casios have more logical function layouts.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that was the only calculator that anyone was allowed to use on tests in my entire university. But it might just of been the Maths dept.
Not that hundreds of other calculators did not work just as well and not allow you to cheat.
Re: (Score:2)
it might just of been the Maths dept.....
It obviously wasn't the English dept.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because of those 'complex and powerful features.' They can be used to cheat. It's easy to fill a programmable calculator with notes. Exactly how cheat-worthy this is depends on the exam - if it's all math problems then the extent is really down to just noteing any long, complex formulas. If it has non-math questions though - things like the tolerances requires to pass safety certification schemes or the differences between wireing color codes or different eras* - a note function can remove a lot of the rote
Re: Calculator (Score:2)
Not just for notes - in high school, I had my 83+ programmed with all of the formulas I had coming up in a test and no one ever checked. It was fairly basic, for sure, but I never got into the memorization of formulas and I just wrote little BASIC-like programs to do it for me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not a bright idea for a certification/license exam.
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't it be a whitelist instead of a blacklist?
Because certification exams suck (Score:2)
While they in theory test your problem solving and experience in a field, in fact they tend to be filled with memorization of minutia and lots of "gotcha" questions. Hence a calculator that can store notes in memory isn't allowed. Some don't allow calculators period because the ability to do base-2 math in your head is somehow important by their logic.
What it comes down to is that writing a good skills test is hard, and doing a computerized one is nearly impossible. So instead they make it hard through othe
Re: (Score:2)
I believe the TI-36X Pro would probably do what you are looking for. It is approved for use on Professional Engineer tests, from what I have read.
I have that calculator and it's awesome and comfortable to work with. One of the best, or even the best solar-powered calculator on this planet.
Slide Rule (Score:3)
Re:Calculator (Score:5, Insightful)
Stupid comment. The thing is that Google has become nearly unusable to find anything a bit more specialized, and in any case it does not give you an evaluation of fitness. Shopping site reviews are routinely censored or falsified in the first place. But I guess you main reason for not wanting to give an opinion is that you actually are not smart enough to have a well-founded one.
Re:Mod This Up! (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a jerk just like you at my job. I'll ask coworkers for their opinion on a particular tool, and he has to but in and say, "You can just Google for the tool and find hundreds of them for sale." I don't ask my coworkers because I need a list of names, I ask them because I want their opinion, and usually specific to the type of work we do. Part of "growth" is just not knowing what is the most popular choice, but knowing the criteria people use when selecting a tool. And just like that jerk coworker, guys like you will complain how such requests for opinion and discussion waste your time by making you do other people's work for them, yet you have no problem spending way more time whining about wasting time than you would with actually moving on and doing whatever makes your time so important.
You want people to speak up, and not sugar coat things for the purpose of "inoffensiveness"? Well, the did, by down modding such garbage. You want to value honest expression over phony appearance, yet bitch when it turns out people disagree with you.
Re:Mod This Up! (Score:5, Insightful)
Thanks. I can obviously read Amazon reviews and such. However, I felt that the /. community probably had tastes more similar to my own, vs a bunch of kids taking algebra in high school/etc.
Re: (Score:3)
Thanks. I can obviously read Amazon reviews and such. However, I felt that the /. community probably had tastes more similar to my own, vs a bunch of kids taking algebra in high school/etc.
See, that's where you went horribly wrong. For one thing there are members on here that still swear by slide rules (I am on the fence on that one). Some will point you at calculators that would still be verboten, and then there's guys like me that have enough math to just use something like this [radioshack.com] because square roots are hard to get right in your head. You should be able to do trig without the SIN, COS and TAN buttons. Remember the Unit Circle? [wikipedia.org] If you came a to geek website to ask for help with trig and conv
Re: (Score:2)
There is a jerk just like you at my job. I'll ask coworkers for their opinion on a particular tool, and he has to but in and say, "You can just Google for the tool and find hundreds of them for sale." I don't ask my coworkers because I need a list of names, I ask them because I want their opinion, and usually specific to the type of work we do. Part of "growth" is just not knowing what is the most popular choice, but knowing the criteria people use when selecting a tool. And just like that jerk coworker, guys like you will complain how such requests for opinion and discussion waste your time by making you do other people's work for them, yet you have no problem spending way more time whining about wasting time than you would with actually moving on and doing whatever makes your time so important.
You want people to speak up, and not sugar coat things for the purpose of "inoffensiveness"? Well, the did, by down modding such garbage. You want to value honest expression over phony appearance, yet bitch when it turns out people disagree with you.
Amen! Where are my mod points when I need them?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't ask my coworkers because I need a list of names, I ask them because I want their opinion.
Would you ask their "opinion" on which is best, Coke or Pepsi? McDonalds vs. Burger King? Ford v.s Chevy? At the end of the day all questions about which is "best" are equally useless.
I've never seen an "Ask Slashdot" which was a good, answerable question. There's always a ton of missing info.
For example:
His main calculator (which he "appreciates") is an HP uses RPN. Is RPN a requirement for the cheap one? We don't know, that makes this question impossible to answer. Any answer we may give is no more useful
Re: (Score:2)
The converse is that you'll still end up with the popular tools if you ask people what their preferred tools are and why...
OK, so I'll offer something different.
During my first year at uni, I used to own an HP-48G+ which I loved for its nice keypad and the RPN interface, but the actual device was hopelessly unreliable and had an unwelcome tendency to let me down by throwing hissy-fits during assessments. I eventually got around that particular limitation by replacing it with a TI-89, which (although lacking keypad quality and RPN) was, and still is, a vastly superior device on many levels.
But since this doesn't answer the O
My 2 cents (Score:5, Informative)
Re: My 2 cents (Score:5, Insightful)
I had to buy a HP 35S because my 50g wasn't allowed in some tests in my engineering school and I simply can't use a calculator that doesn't do RPN anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I've already resigned myself to having to live without RPN on this one. For a test it really isn't the end of the world.
I really hope I never drop my HP48G on the floor. I hear they don't make them like they used to...
Re: (Score:2)
I had to buy a HP 35S because my 50g wasn't allowed in some tests in my engineering school and I simply can't use a calculator that doesn't do RPN anymore.
More properly, using calculators that lie about being "algebraic" and use a bastard mix of algebraic and RPN are confusing to use. Why do I say this? Think about it. with an RPN calculator, dyadic functions are (number) (number) (function), while monadic functions are (number) (function). With so-called "algebraic" calculators, while dyadic functions are (number) (function) (number) (equals), monadic functions are (number) (function) -- which is RPN.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
That's not a programming error. It's a convention error.
If you look at the wikipedia article, the calculator is trying to say pi * 12.5^2 = 625 pi/4, which is the correct answer, if you assume a multiplication between the fraction and the number before it. It's 625 quarters of a pi. That's the way most people would read that in Europe, too. It's just it also LOOKS like a mixed fraction, and if read as a mixed fraction, the result would be wrong, but that isn't what's the calculator software authors intended
NCEES Calculator Policy (Score:4, Informative)
Check out the NCEES Calculator Policy [ncees.org].
I had a non-programmable calculator in college but it died and I didn't need a calculator at work. I bought a TI-30Xa for when I took the state professional engineering exam. I am still using this calculator as an engineering professor. Plenty of capability.
Re: (Score:3)
Texas Instruments TI-30X IIS ($14) or the TI-36X Pro ($20). The 30 is a scientific and statistics calculator, whereas the 36x adds the vector math and constants, and a few basic solvers.
HP-11C (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
I found one of these in a desk drawer when we were moving from one building to another. Jackpot. It's way more limited than my old 48GX, but it does RPN!
Re: (Score:3)
If they don't force you to use "TI model x", then I would second this for RPN users. I have an 11C which I bought new nearly 30 years ago, and it is a wonderful machine which your thumbs will love. I later ended up with a 16c (programmer's version), and a 48g, but the 11c is still my favorite.
build one (Score:4, Funny)
step 1: buy a retarded large button lcd calculator with w huge screen and fixed digits (you know, 0-9, ., +, *, /, -)
step 2: replace the buttons with joysticks
step 3: replace the screen with something around 300dpi
step 4: put in an arm processor and bring up linux
step 5: add wireless networking
step 6: swap out the aa batteries with lithium
step 7: develop a chorded keyboard input on the now 9 position keys
step 8: write an emulator to pretend to be the original calculator
step 9: profit
Re: (Score:3)
I'm surprised there have not been any serious attempts at an open source battery powered calculator. It could be a case of replacing the firmware in an existing model or could include open source hardware as well. Sounds like exactly the sort of thing neckbeards would love to work on.
Thrift stores (Score:2)
Casio FX991ES (Score:2)
It's pretty common in Australia. It has a different model number in every country.
Re: (Score:2)
Casio fx-115ES Plus (Score:3)
I like calculators and picked one of these up for a spare. For a non-graphing, non-programmable, scientific calculator, it is pretty good. Input and output display are independent so you can use natural input and have decimal output. It is easy to use overall. Mine has no persistent state so if it times out and turns off it comes back cleared. These are neat calculators and very inexpensive.
The king of SATs (Score:2)
Approved calculators for NCEES exams (Score:2)
Mom and dad (Score:2)
Made the best calculator.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, but I don't think I'm allowed to bring my brother to the exam?
Here you go... (Score:2)
HP-35s. Not as good as the original HP-35 u some respects, but plenty usable:
http://www.amazon.com/HP-F2215AA-ABA-Scientific-Calculator/dp/B000TDRHG8 [amazon.com]
If you do RPN then... (Score:2)
If you do RPN then there is
no option to use a TI calculator.
I wish HP would revisit the older HP-21 just add
a modern display perhaps an E-ink display or
pixelqi.com technology display.
To me the most interesting idea would
be a USB link not too different than the
BeagleboneBlack where you can interact
with a web browser (and charge the batteries).
Plug the USB link and the calculator keyboard and
display are fully mirrored. Unplug it to take into
a test. To qualify for a test it would need a serious
reset button
Casio FX-260 Solar (Score:3)
I use a Casio FX-260 Solar for these sorts of things. It has all your basic scientific functions, plus a nice statistics package. It doesn't have complex numbers or base conversions though. Still, for $10.00, it's not half bad!
Get a Casio! (Score:4, Informative)
I have 2 Casio FX-115ESPlus calcs, and I use them all the time. One at my desk, one in my toolbox. I think I paid $12.99 for them, and they are available everywhere.
I like RPN, but the Casio textbook entry input works very well, and comes in handy when I have more important things on my mind.
www.casio.com/products/Calculators_%26_Dictionaries/Fraction_%26_Scientific/FX-115ESPLUS/
They also rank very highly for accuracy.
http://www.rskey.org/~mwsebastian/miscprj/forensics.htm [rskey.org]
voidware.com/calcs/torturetest.htm
Re: (Score:2)
Seconded.... I had a TI-85 in HS, an HP48GX in college engineering, then a few years ago when I took the FE/EIT exam, the prep guide forums recommended the Casio
http://www.amazon.com/Casio-Advanced-Scientific-Calculator-Textbook/dp/B000A3IAHM/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1384664856&sr=8-1&keywords=casio+calculator+scientific [amazon.com]
Sad that I haven't really had a chance to use any decent calculators in the "real world" outside of engineering examinations, though.
Incidentally, the NCEES FE reference guide is
Read the Certification Test rules, dumbass (Score:2)
I would be astounded to find, if they forbid certain models/features, that they do not have a whitelist of allowed models. THAT's where you should start your product research, not here, not with a vague, un-actionable question.
And Oh, By The Way, to echo another posters tongue in cheek remark, if you are in a scientific field, you really should know h
Pickett N600-ES (Score:2)
It was good enough to get Jim Lovell back from the moon, dammit.
Get a Triumph-Adler (Score:2)
RPN calcs- esp 35s (Score:4, Informative)
Given that you like your 48, you might want to look at the details of the allowed calculator lists for the specific tests you have in mind and see which other HP RPN calculators would fit the bill.
The 35s is allowed on a number of tests where fancier calculators aren't, including the NCEES. Not the cheapest, but capable. Its support for polar complex numbers covers what you seem to be asking for.
It's the successor to the 33s, which had an odd keyboard but was otherwise ok, which in turn was the successor to the 32S/32SII. Those are still quite capable calculators if you find one around. Enough people considered the 42S to be the best calculator ever made that it goes for absurd prices on ebay.
Re: (Score:2)
Is there any little HP that has the unit conversion ability of the 48? That is the reason I still use my 48 G. You can quickly add any type of mixed units and carry them through your calculations and convert them easily. I've never seen anything better to this day.
I am partial to Casio (Score:2)
Casio (Score:2)
I think that I will go buy another as I do miss it.
just asking the question (Score:2)
Write one yourself (Score:2)
Why a first calculator anyway? (Score:2)
It's not really an answer to the Ask Slashdot question, but I don't see why one would want to use a non-approved programmed calculator.
The point of a calculator during exams is that you have a single tool with well defined capabilities, so as not to get an unfair advantage above students using a different brand of tool. For actual (professional) engineering calculations you will use a computer with decent programming tools (matlab, python, C/C++, or whatever your favorite is). In my 22 years of university (
moderation fail. (Score:2)
bah I modrated redundant.
My Sharp EL509 (now EL531) was a god-send (Score:2)
In college (15 years ago), my scientific calculator was a Sharp EL-509 (now succeeded with the EL531; $10 from Amazon) Unlike most scientific calculators, the '509 did order of operations automatically so you didn't have to convert your input into "calculator order" ahead of time. Really, it gave me the most-needed features of a graphing calculator, but in a form-factor that professors always let me use.
For my EE classes, the real benefit was not having to convert between vector and polar coordinates prio
Ask Slashdot (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Because the programmable calculators can do more than just math.
Re:Why limit calculator choices for tests? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes they can, but is that a problem?
When I was in school, my math classes required the use of a graphing calculator (it was a private school, so they required students get either a TI-81 or TI-85). I discovered the TI Basic features and thought that I could ensure myself high test scores by simply writing programs that could solve all the types of problems that would be on the test--this wasn't illegal, provided we wrote our own programs. The first few times I did this, I fully intended to use them during the test, but I found that it was usually just quicker to solve the problem myself, though I'd occasionally check my answer using my program. It was basically impossible for me to instruct the calculator on how to solve the problem without fully learning how to do it myself. And it became clear to me that simply writing a program was the best method for me to study for tests. Prior to that, I would cram before the test and sometimes it would be sufficient and sometimes it wouldn't. But in writing the program, I could very easily tell when I was done studying and it took far less time than the traditional method. And, unlike cramming, programming was fun!
From the interest that I gained in programming TI Basic, I decided to take an intro to CS class the summer before my freshman year of college. That led to my majoring in CS and the fulfilling, enjoyable and well-paid profession that I've had for the past ~15 years.
I'm very grateful that my math teachers in high school didn't see things they way that you do.
Re: (Score:2)
So long as you had to write the programs yourself, that is fine. I'm more concerned about professional-style exams where there is a mix of math questions and questions where you are expected to recall the answer from memory.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the same thing my instructor said. You'll either get an A or an F, so If you're gonna trust your exam to a program, I'm sure you will understand the problem and test the program, and that will be the best study guide you could ever have.
As a bonus I got to check everyone else's tests (every one was different)
Cheers
Re: (Score:3)
I can tell you, in the real world, I do not necessarily have access to documentation to do my technical job, I have to interpret what I see in front of me based on what
Re:Why limit calculator choices for tests? (Score:4, Insightful)
If a math test can be easily defeated by a mere calculator, I don't think it's a test that tests for anything important, anyway. Math is not just a rote memorization exercise, but sadly, many (including schools and colleges) treat it that way. It's sad, but I think most tests are so poorly made.
Re: (Score:3)
I suppose that's the difference between now and ~20 years ago. Back then, the TI-81 had no way to load a program apart from typing it in manually. The TI-85 had a data cable, but that only allowed a program/data to be transferred between two TI-85s. If the calculator had simpler ways to load programs, there would have been huge potential for abuse. But we had to write the programs ourselves.
And it really isn't possible to write a program to perform a task without truly understanding it. It's a lesson that
Re: (Score:2)
The TI-85 had a data cable, but that only allowed a program/data to be transferred between two TI-85s.
My recollection is that the cable included with the calculator only allowed calculator to calculator syncing, but that for about $30 you could buy the computer to calculator cable (and software) that conveniently allowed you to copy all your data to or from a computer... very useful if you had to demonstrate that your calculator was wiped for an exam.
Re: (Score:2)
And it became clear to me that simply writing a program was the best method for me to study for tests.
It is. Unfortunately too many people think that simply copying a program is the best method.
Re: (Score:2)
For High School and early College degrees, knowing the basics helps later work when working with the more advanced tools. After learning (and being able to know) the basics then move into the more advanced tools. Both are needed. Generally when working on complex systems it's easiest to understand when it can be broken down into clear, demarcated segments. Overall it's complex but each individual segment is made up of basic understandable ideas. That way you don't need to look at everything all at once. Thi
Re: (Score:2)
For High School and early College degrees, knowing the basics helps later work when working with the more advanced tools. After learning (and being able to know) the basics then move into the more advanced tools. Both are needed. Generally when working on complex systems it's easiest to understand when it can be broken down into clear, demarcated segments. Overall it's complex but each individual segment is made up of basic understandable ideas. That way you don't need to look at everything all at once. This is the way much of networking works using the ISO reference model. Knowing the basics helps when you need to fall back
It's the difference between knowledge and understanding. Our society often fails to value the latter, since it is not immediately useful in the short-term and requires a wise long-view to appreciate. This is very much to our collective detriment.
This. (Score:2)
For High School and early College degrees, knowing the basics helps later work when working with the more advanced tools. After learning (and being able to know) the basics then move into the more advanced tools. Both are needed. Generally when working on complex systems it's easiest to understand when it can be broken down into clear, demarcated segments. Overall it's complex but each individual segment is made up of basic understandable ideas. That way you don't need to look at everything all at once. This is the way much of networking works using the ISO reference model. Knowing the basics helps when you need to fall back
It's the difference between knowledge and understanding. Our society often fails to value the latter, since it is not immediately useful in the short-term and requires a wise long-view to appreciate. This is very much to our collective detriment.
This.
And with that in mind, I'd suggest a #2 pencil.
If that's too much work, I;d suggest a slide rule.
Someone has to build the calculators.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
For High School and early College degrees, knowing the basics helps later work when working with the more advanced tools. After learning (and being able to know) the basics then move into the more advanced tools. Both are needed. Generally when working on complex systems it's easiest to understand when it can be broken down into clear, demarcated segments. Overall it's complex but each individual segment is made up of basic understandable ideas. That way you don't need to look at everything all at once. This is the way much of networking works using the ISO reference model. Knowing the basics helps when you need to fall back
It's the difference between knowledge and understanding. Our society often fails to value the latter, since it is not immediately useful in the short-term and requires a wise long-view to appreciate. This is very much to our collective detriment.
This.
And with that in mind, I'd suggest a #2 pencil.
If that's too much work, I;d suggest a slide rule.
Someone has to build the calculators.
The part that bothered me back in high school is that they were never satisfied I had learned the fundamentals. Long after I had those down, years afterwards, I was forbidden from using advanced calculators for various tests and exams. I was treated as an imbecile who had no personal stake in his own education and betterment, to be trained and drilled rather than taught and instructed. Make no mistake, this is conditioning for subservience. I wish more people saw this for what it was and rejected it as
Re: (Score:3)
You've gotta be kidding me. Drilling high schoolers on fundamentals is "conditioning for subservience"? No, you drill them so that they remember it.
No one, no matter how smart, can learn without practice. You need repetition to convince your brain that the information is worth storing.
Now, maybe you're a special snowflake who studied extra hard and learned the material on his own. But not every student is going to do that, and the teacher has no way of knowing who has really learned the material and who
Re: (Score:3)
I was one of those who self-studied in secondary school. Caused chaos at the maths and science exams. The problem is that the exam mark scheme doesn't just expect the right answer: If you get the answer wrong, it also gives marks for reaching various 'milestones' and completing vital steps in the process of working it out. This part of the scheme depends upon the student carrying out the calculations using the approved curriculum method. If the student uses an alternate method, their answers become all-or-n
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh my that was a terrible episode.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if the government agency that defines the rules for this test wasn't stuck in the 50s, that might be an option...
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. And what comes out is "engineers" that make calculations that are wrong by an order of magnitude or two and do not notice. That is the reason why you also have to be able to do it by hand or with a simple calculator. If I were in charge of teaching engineering computing, proficiency with a slide-rule would be mandatory. People who can do that do not make large mistakes. (Unfortunately, nobody seems to make slide-rules anymore. But I inherited one, practiced a bit with it and was very impressed.)
Re:If there is no foundation ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:If there is no foundation ... (Score:4, Interesting)
There are several slide rule apps available on Apple App Store - probably some Android apps out there too. Just saying they exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Does it work when the batteries run out?
I know darn well I can work a slipstick by candlelight.
Re: (Score:2)
While coming up with rather complex integrals in your head is nice, there is something to be said about just copy and pasting maple code until you get it right. Not saying you will be very effective but it sure helps when you have forgotten what you really should know.
Re: (Score:2)
I love my EL-9300. The solver is awesome, and I have hundreds of programs and equations in it. Still going strong for nearly 20 years!
Re: (Score:2)
I'll second the Sharp calculator. Any of the 500 series will do. I went through engineering undergrad and grad school with just an EL-501. I bought a second one for work.
There is one that even does RPN. I believe they all do some vector math and unit conversion.
Re: (Score:2)
What kind of test is defeated by a mere calculator? A poorly designed one. If your college/university/school is giving you such tests, you may want to consider the possibility that it's simply abysmal.
Re: (Score:2)
Again, if your tests just test for rote memorization, chances are you're not attending a very good school to begin with.
Re: (Score:2)
So I suppose if you're not a "complete math wuss" and you need to convert polar to rectangular and vice versa while in a timed test, you spend a couple hundred extra keystrokes computing Taylor approximations for sine, cosine, and arctangent on a calculator which doesn't even have exponentiation?
And for unit conversions, if you want precise answers you memorize all conceivable conversion factors to fifteen digits?
Methinks you're the one who doesn't have the tiniest bit of understanding of what he's doing.
Re: (Score:3)
And for unit conversions, if you want precise answers you memorize all conceivable conversion factors to fifteen digits?
Ten places ought to be enough to get you from meters to atoms. Any test that needs more precision than that will surely allow a crib sheet.
Back in the day, people could easily remember ten digit phone numbers.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, back in the day, the 7-digit phone number was seen as an upper limit to the maximum length it was reasonable to memorize without much practice, and early implementations often used only 5 digits to further easy the burden. 10-digit-dialing didn't come about until almost the new century; in many places in the US it was impossible to dial a "local" number with 10 digits until the late 90s -- if you tried it would ask you to hang up and dial again without the area code or long-distance access prefix.