HP Forums

Full Version: Re: [WP34S] Beginner's positive thoughts - 1 week in.
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.

Marcus,

That is certainly true and I will detail your good suggestions, many thanks!

However, I believe there are other settings like DBLOFF (maybe your flags would handle that by CFALL but I don't have the flag list and I don't know if flags OFF sets everything to minimum state.

An official LocRm would take care of that professionally by bringing it to an absolute max number reg setting possible not forgetting anything and in one prgm. step. I am regrettably only an end user, not an inside expert.

What I need is to do indirect storing (from my prgm. moved to flash, RAM empty) like STO->I(or D), (I=00-99;D=112-255?). My problem being that my stock data is not history invariant and not truly NORML. The "large" Monte Carlo data array I store is to implement weights so the latest data carries higher weight as well as incorporates the history of the past few numbers. So, what I am making inside the WP34S is in essence a mini neural network which "learns" through WS34S Monte Carlo runs. That's what makes the WP34S so great.

Thanks for taking your Sunday evening to respond to me. I still dream of:

Lbl 01
LocRm
0.099
STO I
112.255
STO D
CASE...
RAN#
NORML-1
END CASE
...
RTN

Chris

LocRm isn't a sensible command because it doesn't specify the number of registers. As you stated, you want to use the global registers as well. For your purpose, just do LocR 144 and you are done. If that fails, try CL[SIGMA] and DBLOFF (unlikely). You should know if you have entered stats data or have turned on double precision mode.

BTW, I've orphaned your post because I deleted my previous answer to repost it in the proper thread. Sorry about that.

Marcus,

I noticed and read yor repositioning remark. I do the same all the time including edits. My thread has now become so confused that I overlooked your remark above. So I may start a new thread next time.

You are right, of course, except that I am still not yet doing it right. It did not take 144 but only 127 (which I reached doing a step down one by one until it worked) no matter what I did. That was the underlying thought behind my request. I did not know how to do it right.

Chris