MAJOR RESULT DISCREPANCY; 50g vs. 41CX  Printable Version + HP Forums (https://archived.hpcalc.org/museumforum) + Forum: HP Museum Forums (https://archived.hpcalc.org/museumforum/forum1.html) + Forum: Old HP Forum Archives (https://archived.hpcalc.org/museumforum/forum2.html) + Thread: MAJOR RESULT DISCREPANCY; 50g vs. 41CX (/thread109620.html) 
MAJOR RESULT DISCREPANCY; 50g vs. 41CX  Edward J Pec  03052007 I recently found this site and there is a result discrepancy { [3 x (5(1/9))] / 23 ^3 } + e ^2.5 then sq. root of result
In the 50g, using RPN, the result is 3.49....
Independent evaluations indicate 3.49... is correct... as
This can not be a rounding error, and the answer can not
Edward (anyone with some info on this can also email me at: epec@nj.rr.com)
Re: MAJOR RESULT DISCREPANCY; 50g vs. 41CX  Dave Hicks  03052007 On the 41Cs and 41CXs that I happen to have handy, I'm getting 3.49.
I noticed that if I take just the first bit 3x(5(1/9)) and take the sq root of that  then I get 3.83. Coincidence? Edited: 5 Mar 2007, 1:51 p.m.
Re: MAJOR RESULT DISCREPANCY; 50g vs. 41CX  Nelson M. Sicuro (Brazil)  03052007 My 41CV gives 3.490515637 as result, same as my 32S (3.49051563628),TI52 (3.490515636), Sharp PC1260 (3.4905156362). Best regards,
Nelson Sicuro
Re: MAJOR RESULT DISCREPANCY; 50g vs. 41CX  Massimo Gnerucci (Italy)  03052007 Ditto: 3,490515637 on V41
Massimo
Re: MAJOR RESULT DISCREPANCY; 50g vs. 41CX  Hal Bitton in Boise  03052007 Hi Edward, Getting Edward's result  Palmer O. Hanson, Jr.  03062007 We begin by finding that the square of Edward's HP41 result is 14.6689... which is very close to the result obtained from the
Thinking about those results a little will reveal that somehow Edward's RPN sequence doesn't use the e^2.5 value of 12.182439... but instead uses the value of 14.66666... . By working from the back of the problem to the front and inside out and adding a couple of unfortunate ENTER's the following RPN sequence will get the incorrect answer: 2.5where the two ENTER's before the entry of 23, which aren't needed, push the e^2.5 value out of the stack and leave a [3 x (5(1/9)) value where it should have been.
I don't say this is necessarily the way Edward did it. I only say it is one way he could have done it. The RPN language can yield some strange results if one isn't careful about pushing values up and out of the stack. When an RPN solution goes bad it is reminiscent of the book I used to read to my children "Inside, Outside, Upside Down"
