Slashdot Mirror
HP Releases New RPN Scientific Calculator
majid writes "HP just announced a new calculator, the HP 33S. It supports RPN and algebraic notation, and sports a funky V-shaped design. I don't think it looks as nice as the 33SII it is supposed to replace, and it seems to have rubber keys instead of the wonderful hard plastic keys on older HP calculators, but it's nice to have a new RPN scientific calculator that does not have the intimidating learning (and remembering) curve of the 48 or 49 series. This one just might join my trusty 15C ...
The User's manual PDF is available courtesy of Amazon, where it is apparently already No. 85 on the best-selling list."
I'm all for geek chic' and all (being a former Navy Nuke and now a network security engineer) but the line has been crossed when I see review of someone drooling over a new model of HP calculator.
I'm just waiting for that day now when I turn on Tech TV and see the new show "Pimp My Calculator" hosted by Ludicrous and Bruce Schneir!
There's been some complaints on the HP newsgroup about a near invisible decimal dot in the display, IIRC. Something to look out for.
And people, this isn't a replacement for the graphing calculators, it's meant to be a competent calculator for people who don't need graphing, and it can be used on tests where the HP49G+ and such are often forbidden.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
I agree that calculators are still useful for educational settings, although for a different reason that the one you suggest.
As a computational astrophysicist, I no longer find any use for hand-held calculators whatsoever. If I find the need to do a detailed numerical computation while working, I simply pop up Mathematica. I have hundreds of physical constants relevant for my work stored in a handy ".m" file, so if I wish to compute, say, the Planck mass, I can simply type in "Sqrt [hbar c / G]", rather than punching in numerical values. It is far more convenient and _more powerful_ than using a hand calculator since I can readily construct expressions, do symbolic manipulations on them, and produce complex plots with very little effort. Mathematica has an enormous understanding of mathematical functions, so if I want, say, the value of second derivative of the Laguerre polynomial of order n, I can simply enter "N [D [LaguerreL [n, x], x] ]". (Try to stuff than in your calculator and smoke it.) It also has unlimited numerical precision, so if I want the value of Pi to 100 digits, I just enter "N [Pi, 100]". (Not a practical example, given that 100 decades is greater than the total number of fundamental particles in the current Hubble radius, but an illustrative one nonetheless.) In addition, I have the ability to immediately translate those expressions into Tex format or C or Fortran code, so that they can be readily incorporated into papers or other standalone code. And that is saying nothing of the fact that a full-sized keyboard is vastly easier to use than _either_ a stylus or a weeny calculator keypad.
If I am in a meeting of some kind or just informally speaking to someone, and the need for a quick numerical estimate comes up, I can always whip out an estimate good to within 10% without using any calculating aid other than a pencil and paper. You'll find that all good scientists and engineers can do quick back-of-the-envelope calculations when the need arises.
So what use are calculators in schools when students could be using Mathematica (or any other mathematical software of their choice) on their laptops? The plain fact of the matter is that math and science instructors almost universally do not wish to construct a course in which the learning goes beyond the simplest applications of the principles learned. Therefore, they must almost always artificially control additional information and calculating aids during exams (normally no notes, books, or computers). Calculators are the one concession they do allow, only because their functionality is limited, and therefore the aid they provide is also limited. I admit calculators have become reasonably sophisticated as of late, and so as a result, partially to offset any potential unfair advantage, instructors are increasingly allowing students to stuff all of the equations they can fit onto a "cheat sheet" of a certain size.
When you think about the situation, it is fairly ludicrous. No literature professor would make a student write a term paper on Shakespeare without having access to the original plays and all the additional supplemental information he can lay his hands on. But it is easier to construct a system in which students are tested on rote memory and simple application of known template examples from class, rather than being able to use all the resources at their disposal to synthesize everything they have learned in creative applications. Synthesis and creative use of one's knowledge, is, after all, what real world science and engineering are all about. Primarily because of this artificial construction, classwork performance is quite often a poor indicator of a student's potential as a real scientist or engineer.
Bob
Science, like Nature, must also be tamed, with a view turned towards its preservation.
You had me at "computational astrophysicist." ;o)