174 replies to this topic

[neanderix]

Sorry for "warming up old coffe"
but i still couldn't resist.

Hi.
solve(sin(x)+cos(x)=sqrt(2)) => CP:Sorry boss, I can't, please solve this graphically.

with OS 3.01 the CP shows: x=2 * pi * constn(1) +pi/4

But here:

sum(1/(x^2+x+1),x,1,10) => CP: please wait 0.5 sec.
sum(1/(x^2+x+1),x,1,12) => CP: please wait more than 3 sec. (Why is it slow while adding two more number?)

to me it is not quite clear, what the poster wanted to do.
The "sum" command from the "action->List-Calculation" completely refuses any work to both formulas.
(In above mentioned OS)
Error message: "wrong number of arguments"

Volker

[The_AFX_Master]

The "sum" command from the "action->List-Calculation" completely refuses any work to both formulas.
(In above mentioned OS)
Error message: "wrong number of arguments"

It's logic.. sum performs the sum of all the elements of a list, not a sumatory.
read your users guide

[neanderix]

It's logic.. sum performs the sum of all the elements of a list, not a sumatory.
read your users guide

Sorry, but one thing i don't really understand:

When i ask a question and hours or days later i read your name it ist nearly clear that you answered a quesation i didn't ask, but the one i asked you let unanswered.

That "sum(" from the list-menu is not the correct command here ist quite clear an d the reasons are too.

But: what, the hell does the poster of this formula want? Which command is the correct one? Or are the quoted formulas at lest still incorrect?

Volker

[The_AFX_Master]

Volker, Read me.. Sum returns the sum of the elements of a list!.. this is a wrong answer??? . the command that do that you want is seq(), again, read the users manual.. you can avoid misinterpretations

[Lovecasio]

The "sum" command from the "action->List-Calculation" completely refuses any work to both formulas.
(In above mentioned OS)
Error message: "wrong number of arguments"
Volker

I am the one who posted this problem so I am going to make it clear now.
The "sum(" here doesn't mean the "sum(" in List calculation. In fact it stands for the sigma() function. I couldn't enter sigma sign so I have to use "sum(" instead, and after I had posted everyone in this forum understood it and considered "sum(" which I had written as "sigma(".
If you are using OS 3.01 then try the problem again.

OK, one Bug I have found: Save something in Probability module, then try to open the file -> You will see nothing. A problem has to be fixed.

[afshin_electronic]

my turn now...

take a look at this topic : http://www.casiocalc...?showtopic=3184

[neanderix]

I am the one who posted this problem so I am going to make it clear now.
The "sum(" here doesn't mean the "sum(" in List calculation. In fact it stands for the sigma() function. I couldn't enter sigma sign so I have to use "sum(" instead,

No - you could have written "sigma(...)" that probably would have avoided misinterpretation.

Volker

[hazhiriq]

See this A big one
http://www.casiocalc...?showtopic=3355

[Serj]

BUG: input exactly solve(0.5 * 1E-4 * 32 * (x-0.7)^2 -4E-4 = 0, x) and it gives solutions x=0.9 or x=1.9. Which are wrong

[Colombia]

I can't do this:

{x^2+xy-10,x}

diff(ans1,ans2)

CP300 doesn't recognize this, which are very usefull to make program as Newton-Raphson.

[PAP]

I can't do this:

{x^2+xy-10,x}

diff(ans1,ans2)

CP300 doesn't recognize this, which are very usefull to make program as Newton-Raphson.

Omg, you really want to implement Newton-Raphson in CPBasic? First, there is a built-in "NumSolve" application. Second, there are more sophisticated solutions...

[kevinator9]

i∞
This makes 'ERROR:Non-Real in Calc'
Probably something stupid like me randomly putting stuff into my calc...

[Debb]

Hi,

You need to change your settings to Complex mode. If you have v3.0 or newer, just tap "Real" in the Status bar. Or, if you have an older version, go to system menu icon (upper left corner), and select Settings/Setup/Basic Format/Complex Format. (Newer version is so much easier!)

Hope this helps,
Debb

[The_AFX_Master]

(This post is not oriented to THE_AFX_MASTER, so please don't reply! and thx in advance)

Sorry for being crude but..
What the f*** is wrong with you .. do you hate me dude??

[PAP]

Sorry for being crude but..
What the f*** is wrong with you .. do you hate me dude??

Use your gravity weapon, Laith is equipped with a crowbar only .

[The_AFX_Master]

Yeah!, but the superb one seen on the citadel

[far2055]

Another funny bug in CPBasic! (OS 3.03)
It is really good to Return some value from a program Thanks to CA$IO!
but it is funny that "Return" command doesn't work correctly in nested program calls.

for example:

program A(arg1)
.
.
.
Return 1

program B(arg2)
.
.
.
Return 2

program C()
A(1)
Print ans
B(2)
Print ans

executing program C() cause to 1=>ans and nothing else! Because program C terminated at the "Return 1" command!!!!

Another Bug:
It is not possible to assign the returned value from a program to a variable.

program C()
A(1)=>abc
Print abc

[hellas1]

Hi all,

I sent Casio the 2 last bugs reported here. I hope to here back from them and post the info to you.
hellas1

[vanhoa]

I'm making an EEPro for ClassPad. And today after trying to solve some "RC Step Response" problems, I found a bug in CPCAS:

On OS 1.01: http://casio.vanhoav...07-08/cper0.PNG


On OS 3.0 and 3.03: http://casio.vanhoav...07-08/cper1.PNG


Result by maple: http://casio.vanhoav...07-08/cper2.PNG



BTW, screenshots of CPEEPro: http://casio.vanhoav...mgs/cpeepro.PNG


1: Selection Menu 2: Equations Selection Screen 3,5: Varinput 4: Approx Solve 5: Algebra Solve

Edited by vanhoa, 08 December 2008 - 05:03 AM.

[navid]

Hi Guys.
I made these 2 same sequence sum in TI-89(first pic) & ClassPad 330(second pic).
In second calculation line TI-89 gives the right answer but CP doesn't.
in this case CP tries to solve series with series formula[Sn=a/(1-r) where a:start value of sequence, r:common ratio] but have a miscalculation, because only if |r|<1 this formula is valid whereas in this case r=10.
My CP OS is V3.03.3000 & I think this is the latest version. I hope Casio would fix this as soon as possible because ClassPad is a "CALCULATOR" and calculators must give us right answers.

[vanhoa]

Hello navid,
Here is the answer from casio:

Dear Customer,

Thank you for your e-mail and sorry to be late to answer you.

Please be advised as follows.

This is caused not by summation but by limit.

If the following expression is included in the calculation
process of limit, it outputs wrong solutions.
It doesn't mean that the calculation of summation is wrong.

In the calculation of lim(a^(b*k),k,infinity), when absolute value a is less than 1 and b is a negative number, the answer should be infinity but becomes 0.　　
　
It can be correctly calculated if you transform the expression like sigma((1/0.1)^k,k,1,infinity) so that the coefficient of k won't become a negative number.

We'll think of its revision in the next OS.

Best regards,

[navid]

Thank you Vanhoa & CASIO as well.

I like CP & I think it is the best calculator ever but maybe with missing "Engineering Number Format" that gives Numbers more sense[for engineers it's necessary], and a way that we could use any of previous answers we have made, in current calculation line without using stylus [for example we could use direction keys and then made selection of wanted answer and hit the EXE button to bring it in current calculation line] because in many cases we want to do simple calculations while reading or writing whitout having to use stylus. And finally by a parametric & more powerfull geometry application it would be excellent... But i think I'm too perfectionist at the last one.

Thank you again.

[Lovecasio]

I tried on my CP 3.03 and CPM 3.02. Both stop working.
I think in the OS 3.03, CP doesn't support what you have typed. Try the following instead:
a|a>0|a>1 OR a|a>0 and a>1.

[navid]

Thank you for your comment.
I reported this bug that hopefully CASIO may fix it in the next OS revision to prevent OS crash by such an expression and i didn't necessarily need that expression.

[navid]

Hi
this is a new bug. i tried this in CP and Ti-89. Ti-89's answer is right.

[DHMXIV]

Hello,

When using the verify feature I typed in x^(3/2)=sqrt(x^3), and I got back a not equivalent message. If I replace the x's with a constant it returns a smile, meaning they are equivalent.

Further exploration of this problem in Main mode revealed that the Classpad considers x^(3/2) to be x^(1.5), and sqrt(x^3) to be (x^3)^(0.5). However when I type x^(1.5)=(x^3)^(0.5) into verify mode I still get the not equivalent message. But, again, replacing the x's with constants yields a smile.

I recently updated to OS 3.04, but I'm not sure if that has anything to do with my problem. I can't recall whether or not I tried to use the verify feature on this type of equation in the past.

I'd like to know whether this is a bug, or not.

[weirleader]

Hello,

When using the verify feature I typed in x^(3/2)=sqrt(x^3), and I got back a not equivalent message. If I replace the x's with a constant it returns a smile, meaning they are equivalent.

Further exploration of this problem in Main mode revealed that the Classpad considers x^(3/2) to be x^(1.5), and sqrt(x^3) to be (x^3)^(0.5). However when I type x^(1.5)=(x^3)^(0.5) into verify mode I still get the not equivalent message. But, again, replacing the x's with constants yields a smile.

I recently updated to OS 3.04, but I'm not sure if that has anything to do with my problem. I can't recall whether or not I tried to use the verify feature on this type of equation in the past.

I'd like to know whether this is a bug, or not.

I just tried it and it appears to be an indication of the order of operations when the ClassPad evaluates x^(3/2). In other words, x^(3/2) or x^1.5 are evaluated as (x^0.5)^3 and sqrt(x^3) is evaluated in the opposite order. With R>0, this should be equivalent... did you try that setting?

To verify that it's NOT always equivalent, try letting x=-2 in Cplx mode... it's different due to the different order of evaluation.

[DHMXIV]

Ah! I see! Once I tried it on the R>0 setting I got an equivalent response. Thank you so much weirleader.

[Valdis]

Yes, I have this problem too. I have observed main app history clears after calculations in eactivity app, program app if calculation history in main app is full (30 rows of calculations). I surmise main app history clears after long (some days) power saving mode. I think its most serious bug of classpad os ever.

Edited by Valdis, 05 November 2009 - 07:27 AM.

[Jendem]

The "solution" is here:

http://edu.casio.com...w_releaase.html

OS Update for Ver.3.04.4000

[Valdis]

There is another problem in OS 3.04.4. When in program app I run program, results stay in program output window. As soon as I left program app (for example tap main button), program output window clears. Somtimes it's unpleasant. Often program output window is only place where I can take program execution results.

[Vlad_AB]

Hi!
ClassPad 330 (v3.06) can't solve (correctly) the following equations and inequalities :

1) 1+sqrt(2x+1)=sqrt(5*sqrt(2x+1)+1)
CP Ans: No Solution
right Ans: {x=-1/2, x=4}

2) sqrt(x+sqrt(x+11))+sqrt(x-sqrt(x+11))=4
CP Ans: No Solution
right Ans: {x=5}

3) (x^3-1)*(x^2-4x+4)/(x^2-5x+6)>=0
CP Ans: [1;2]U(3;infinity)
right Ans: [1;2)U(3;infinity)

4) 4^((2x-1)/(x+1))>=64
CP Ans: [-4;infinity)
right Ans: [-4;-1)

5) 2^(x+3)-2^(x+4)-2^(x+5)<=5^(x+2)-5^(x+3)
CP Ans: No Solution
right Ans: (-infinity;-1]

6) ((x^2-x)^2)*(x+2)/((x^2-1)*(x+1)*(x+3)^3)>=0
CP Ans: {0}U(-3;-2]U[1;infinity)
right Ans: {0}U(-3;-2]U(1;infinity)

:-(