Don and I have been poking around the 17bii+, trying to determine if any of the bugs listed in older versions still exist, and well, trying to get used to the solver. ;-)

First, there are a couple threads in Forum Archive 14...

part a here

part b here

...which talk about bugs in the early 17bii+ units. I've tried a few of these and they all work correctly, as expected, on my version. For the record, my S/N is CNA 63401403.

Also, Don and I have been trading implementations for summing up the digits of a number (i.e., 123 = 1+2+3 = 6). Here is the version that ultimately worked:

SOD:SUM=0xL(B:A)+sigma(I:1:LOG(A)+1:1:MOD(B:10)+0xL(B:IP(B/10)))

Don also has a version which uses the statistical lists to get the sum, assuming each digit is in a list (L1) item:

sod:sum=sigma(i:1:sizes(L1):1:Item(L1,i))

As we work through more, I may post some follow-ups. It's good to see that some of the ugly bugs have been fixed. Hopefully they're all good!

thanks,
bruce

From Forum Archive 16, this bug:

Go into the FIN TVM menu and CLR DATA.
Enter N=1; PV=1500; FV=-1750
Press OTHER and set P/YR=1
Press EXIT and I%YR

Appears to still be an issue on my 17bii+. That is, if I have more variables than appear on one menu, it requires two presses to get it to solve for that variable. Hmmmm.

In the same thread, Chris Dean says:

Quote:

---

I have used the initialisation with the summation. I did use a separate equation for the initialisation though. For example run the equation Y=AA+BB to initiate the variables. Press CALC and do not enter any variables then use L(AA:expr), L(BB:expr) and G(AA), G(BB) in your summation where ever you require them.

Try this for Fibonacci Numbers

Y=A+B press CALC

S=L(C:A+B)+ 0*(L(A:G(B)) + L(B:G(C)))

Set A=1 and B=1 and successive pressing of S should show the next Fibonacci Number. series should be 1,1,2,3,5,8,13 ...............

Good luck!!!

Chris

---

I'm not sure what Chris is saying here. Am I to enter TWO equations? One for Y=A+B to init, and then one for S to execute? Does anyone know more about what the point is here?

thanks,
bruce