Could someone recommend a few good choices for a calc. that can perform large matrix operations and easily handle imaginary numbers?

I would hope to come up with multiple solutions, including a large (graphical type) and small (handheld size) calculator.

Thank you.

Given the filter criteria and your desire for multiple suggestions, I'd say:

- HP 48/49 series (graphing) for really large matrices, as these have large memories and some of them are expandable. Best models in this class are the 48GX (128KB) and the new 49G+ (1.2MB), both expandable.

- HP 42S if it has to be more portable. Only limited graphics and 7K of memory, however. And possibly a higher price...

Hope this helps. Regards, Victor

How do the older machines such as a 41c/v/x or a 15c handle in comparison. What are the size and speed limitations for matrices and imag. numbers? Thanks.

Ed,

Unless you have mega years to kill, the HP48GX can handle complex calculations much easier since it has more memory and is a more advanced calculator. The HP15C was HP's first calculator that had built in complex math support. The calculator's memory IS limited by comparison to the HP48GX or HP49G.

Namir

What is the largest matrix that a 48GX or 49g+ can handle?

Also, I don't mean to ruffle feathers here, (but many folks here are very knowledgeable in the calc field, so I trust your opinions) but how does a TI 89 compare in regards to imag numbers and matrices?

Joe

They take 8 Bytes per real element, plus some small overhead (15 Bytes) per matrix. If you fill all available memory with one single matrix, you'll get (approx.)

- 127x127 in a 48G+ or standard GX (128kB RAM)

- 180x180 in a 49G or a GX with 128kB merged RAM in port 1 (256kB total RAM)

- 191x191 in a 48SX (!) with 256kB merged RAM in port 1 (288kB total RAM)

The big surpise here is of course that the old 48SX can take the largest matrices due to its highest possible merged RAM. However, the SX is lacking many of the later models' features, like list processing or the 49G's CAS. Complex elements take 16 Bytes.

I don't know about TIs, but I'm sure someone else does.

Kind regards, Victor

It looks as if a TI Voyage200 can do a single matrix of up to about 115x115. I haven't seen documentation on it yet, but a few experiments point to 10 bytes per element for arrays of floats (plus, of course, a few bytes of overhead). Unlike an HP48/49, the TI uses less storage if the array consists entirely of integers (that is, 4 bytes per element, plus a few bytes of overhead).

Arrays of complex numbers with floating point components take about 20 byes per (complex) element plus some overhead. So it looks as if the Voyage200 could do a single 81x81 matrix of all complex elements.

So far as I know, the TI-89, 92, 92+ and Voyage200 all have the same amount of RAM---they differ only in the amount of Flash memory, builtin apps, physical size, battery size (4xAA vs 4xAAA) and (in the case of the TI-89) display size.

--Mark

The TI's are extremely slow on huge matrices, but in practical situations they are ok. Try a 32*32 real number matrix inversion on TI 89/V200 and on a 48G/49G. You don't need the 49g+ to beat the TI in numerical matrix operations. # VPN #