32SII SQRT(NEG) « Next Oldest | Next Newest »

 ▼ Marnus Malan (RSA) Junior Member Posts: 11 Threads: 3 Joined: Aug 2009 09-15-2009, 05:35 AM Good day everybody! You may recall I enquired on this forum about getting a 32SII (and got a very good broadly informative response!) The seller said it used to be her late husbands dearest possesion and one had to a) cough up and b) convince her you will be using the calculator "properly". I received it, still boxed with manual and in a perfect "as new" condition, apart from the box that showed som deformation. Anyway, to my dismay I do not seem able to calculate the square root of a negative number, even though the calculator is supposed to handle complex numbers. The 42S and the 50G don't bother about this. Is there a way to do this and is it possible with the 33s? My 33s is at home at the moment so I can't check, but I noticed the manuals are about word for word the same, give or take a few exceptions like facilitating examples in algebraic mode. Regards Thanks edit, fixed typo Edited: 15 Sept 2009, 5:36 a.m. ▼ Paul Dale Posting Freak Posts: 3,229 Threads: 42 Joined: Jul 2006 09-15-2009, 06:16 AM Yes it can do this operation but not in a nice manner: 0 ENTER 1 +/- ENTER 0 ENTER 0.5 CMPLX yx There isn't a direct complex square root operation. - Pauli ▼ Norris Senior Member Posts: 363 Threads: 22 Joined: Jul 2007 09-15-2009, 08:20 PM Granted, this is a clumsy and inelegant procedure. On the other hand, the 32SII *is* a programmable calculator. So you could easily add an "alternative" square root function for dealing with negative numbers. I don't have a 32SII handy, but I do have a 33S. On the 33S, you could program: LBL G 0 X<>Y 0 ENTER 0.5 cmplx y^x RTN Now the 33S has two square root functions. The first is the regular built-in function, which only works for positive numbers. But the second function also works for negative numbers. The second function is invoked with XEQ G -- since the G key is also the square-root key on the 33S, this is easy enough to remember. So for example, you coud calculate the square root of -9 with: 9 +/- XEQ G This yields 0 in the X-register and 3 in the Y-register, which is the way that the 33S represents 0+3i. The program above should work on a 32SII as well. However, the A key is the square root key on the 32SII, so you would want to start with LBL A (instead of LBL G). Edited: 15 Sept 2009, 8:26 p.m. ▼ Didier Lachieze Member Posts: 248 Threads: 5 Joined: Feb 2008 09-16-2009, 03:26 AM Interesting trick! For the 35s you can do: ```K001 LBL K K002 i0 K003 + K004 0.5 K005 y^x K006 RTN ``` with:```9 +/- XEQ K ENTER ``` you get 0.00i3.00 as the result of the square root of -9 if you're in FIX 2 mode.. Anyway, this is just a workaround and, as already said several times in this forum, it would be good to see a 35sii with full complex operation support, and not a half baked implementation. Edited: 16 Sept 2009, 4:20 a.m. Bart (UK) Posting Freak Posts: 850 Threads: 10 Joined: Mar 2009 09-15-2009, 06:20 AM Hi Marnus,I do not have an 32SII, but a 32S, I suspect it's the same though.The way to do this is to type: 0 ENTER -1 ENTER 0 ENTER 0.5 CMPLX Y^X. You'll have 0 in X and 1 in Y. The complex stack being X: real1, Y:img1, Z:real2, T:img2.Why the CMPLX SQRT doesn't work and CMPLX Y^X does, I don't know. The 35S is pretty much the same, but easier as the complex number is in one line.Hope this helps,Bart Mike Morrow Posting Freak Posts: 758 Threads: 9 Joined: Jul 2007 09-15-2009, 09:51 AM The so-called complex number support of the HP32S and HP32SII is very limited, very inconsistent, and just plainly a joke. There have been many postings here over the years about this. It was a extremely poor HP decision to develope such a limited capability compromised unit like the "improved" HP32SII at the expense of dropping the excellent HP42S that you mention, which 21 years after its introduction is still the finest RPN calculator ever made, in many people's judgement. In 1997 I bought an HP32SII to replace my HP-15C and quickly found out how inferior it was to the HP-15C in this and many other qualities, except speed and precision. Unfortunately, the HP-15C's true replacement, the HP-42S, had been discontinued in 1995. With blind luck, I then found a local university book store that still had two HP42S units, sitting unsold for more than four years! I quickly purchased both and relegated my new HP32SII into my collection bin of "bad-mistake" calculators. It sits there today along with other HP "wonders" like the HP38G, HP28C, and HP6S. The disappointing HP32SII is no HP42S. Not even close. ▼ Martin Pinckney Posting Freak Posts: 1,248 Threads: 33 Joined: Aug 2007 09-15-2009, 12:12 PM Quote: ... relegated my new HP32SII into my collection bin of "bad-mistake" calculators. It sits there today along with other HP "wonders" like the HP38G, HP28C, and HP6S. Always fascinating how much opinions diverge on this forum. There have been many arguments over the 32sii, and even the vaunted 42s has a few detractors. Now me, I actually like the 38g, although I suspect in that regard I may be a minority of one on this forum ... Ed Look Posting Freak Posts: 801 Threads: 36 Joined: Nov 2005 09-15-2009, 12:14 PM Yes, compared to a 42S (unfortunately, I've never had nor used one), I'm sure it will look like a knock-off four banger. But I suspect it was intended for a different niche, a different purpose. I one wanted to have an even slightly more involved program, it might not fit on the 32SII. I still use mine (less and less just because I don't want to wear it out or break it; the 33s is taking its place more and more) because it is small, lightweight, and will do most scientific calculations nicely. Yes, I wish I have a 42S also, but consider also the price differential; I paid \$60 US for my 32SII, and I do recall one reason why I never got the 42S was that it cost much more than double that, and at the time, it was not feasible for me. In fact, I do recall feeling quite bad when I one day realized I might need a replacement and found that they not only stopped production of 42S's, but 32sII's, as well! ▼ Marnus Malan (RSA) Junior Member Posts: 11 Threads: 3 Joined: Aug 2009 09-15-2009, 12:27 PM Thanks for everybody who replied. I am somewhat dissapointed, looking back I paid way too much (slightly less than what a new 35 would have costed me. Even though the calculator and the manual is in prestine condition, it seems pretty useless, as it will be relegated to the drawer as I do not think I will be able to adapt to using it instead of my 42s, as I have hoped in order to extend the life of my 42s. I used to find HP calculators (42s, 41c etc) fairly easy at second hand shops but nowadays they are even more scarce than chicken teeth. The 50G works fine and I use it a lot for work that another calculator simply wouldn't be able to do, but sometimes it is simply too big to carry around with ease. So the hunt for more 42s sspecimens is still on... ▼ Ed Look Posting Freak Posts: 801 Threads: 36 Joined: Nov 2005 09-15-2009, 12:36 PM Obviously, we are not going to find that kind of power anymore in a small package as we did with the Pioneer form-factored 42S. I guess if you don't need that kind of computing and storage power too often, a 33s or 35s should do, as they are of a small form factor (and light!!). But HP has, I suppose even more powerful calculators in the 48G series, 49G series, but they are big calculators, even if they are quite nice. In fact the latest member of the latter group, the 50g, is fairly hefty. Bill (Smithville, NJ) Senior Member Posts: 614 Threads: 66 Joined: Jul 2006 09-15-2009, 02:53 PM Marnus, I agree with your assessment of HP-42S versus the HP-32SII. I also played around with a HP-32SII a few years ago. At first, I loved the large display. For me, it was trying to adjust to letter registers - I was just too used to doing STO xx or RCL xx. I also missed having the rich HP-41 style programming environment of the 42S. If money is tight (and nowdays it usually is), I'd suggest you pick up a cheap windows Pocket PC and load the HP-42S emulator on it. One of the best, is the Dell AXIM - I had the 624 MHZ unit and it ran the Emulator Fast - I mean really fast. You also get the ability to save/load programs. The only thing missing is that sastifying pressing of the keys. Side benefit is you'll also have a good PDA. If your cell phone is windows mobile, then you can put the emulator there. That's my current setup. Of couse, I still carry the actual HP-42s in my briefcase. Bill ▼ Steve Simpkin Member Posts: 225 Threads: 9 Joined: Jul 2008 09-15-2009, 04:42 PM Quote: If money is tight (and nowdays it usually is), I'd suggest you pick up a cheap windows Pocket PC and load the HP-42S emulator on it. A used or refurbished iPod Touch is another low-cost hand held option for running several different HP calculator emulators. Emulators (or simulators) for the HP-42, HP-41CX, HP-48GX, HP-11C, HP-12C, HP-15C and HP-16C are currently available at the App store. Apple has refurbished iPod Touch (2nd gen) available starting at \$150. ▼ kc Member Posts: 55 Threads: 23 Joined: Oct 2007 09-16-2009, 03:50 AM Quote: A used or refurbished iPod Touch is another low-cost hand held option for running several different HP calculator emulators. Emulators (or simulators) for the HP-42, HP-41CX, HP-48GX, HP-11C, HP-12C, HP-15C and HP-16C are currently available at the App store. Apple has refurbished iPod Touch (2nd gen) available starting at \$150. While using emulators on ipod or iphones looks cool and fashionable, I can never get used to "pressing" the keys using touchscreen. I would instead recommend the 35S for doing complex calculations if one is looking for the 32S-33S lines of calculators. Though still show SORT(NEG), complex calculations are much easier to manipulate in 35S, mainly due to the primary i key. KC Martin Pinckney Posting Freak Posts: 1,248 Threads: 33 Joined: Aug 2007 09-15-2009, 02:59 PM Quote: Even though the calculator and the manual is in prestine condition, it seems pretty useless, as it will be relegated to the drawer ... Well, if you want to sell it, you will find lots of takers here. ▼ Michael Plant Junior Member Posts: 48 Threads: 1 Joined: Sep 2009 09-15-2009, 05:12 PM Yes! I'd be interested, if it's not a silver bezel model (I have one of those...). Marnus, e-mail me if you're interested. Luca Junior Member Posts: 32 Threads: 12 Joined: Sep 2013 09-18-2009, 02:48 AM Interesting, to each his own I guess. In practice, I rarely work with complex numbers. I have both a 42s and a 32sII (and a 33s). The 42s has marvelous implementations of things I rarely use, such as complex numbers, matrices, and more. However, it fails on two counts: the display is hard to read, especially in the marginal light in which I do a lot of my programming, and too many of the functions I need often are buried deep in menus (do people really have the patience to fish things out of the huge menu of functions?). The 32sII and 33s are humbler and less powerful, but they are actually much easier and better for the simple calculations (4-ops, trigs, exps, percentages,...) that make up 99.9% of my calculations. The result is that I have a 32sII on my desk at home, and a 33s at work, while the marvelous 42s stays, in all its marvel, mostly in a drawer. Luca Steve Simpkin Member Posts: 225 Threads: 9 Joined: Jul 2008 09-15-2009, 12:24 PM Quote: I quickly purchased both and relegated my new HP32SII into my collection bin of "bad-mistake" calculators. It sits there today along with other HP "wonders" like the HP38G, HP28C, and HP6S. Some comments about the HP38G, HP28C, and HP6S. A few years ago I purchased an HP-38G from eBay for \$12 and it turned out to be intermittent. After opening the case I could not believe how cheaply made it was inside. It looked similar to an HP-48 series on the outside, but it was a rather severe cost saving design compromise inside. In particular the battery contact and power source design (which turned out to be the problem) was very poorly done. It is now sitting on "permanent display" in a drawer. I had bought a HP-6S years ago for one of my daughters. It was obviously not designed by HP and the color contrast scheme was horrible. It failed a couple of years later after serving its purpose and I threw it in the trash. The HP-28C on the other hand was a breakthrough 3rd generation calculator with many firsts for a hand held device. Despite its shortcomings (severely limited memory, poor battery cover design, weak hinge design and no I/O for programs), it has a definite place in history and does not deserve to be in the same category as the the above calculators. Steve ▼ Michael de Estrada Posting Freak Posts: 1,665 Threads: 142 Joined: Jan 2009 09-15-2009, 12:39 PM Quote: The HP-28C on the other hand was a breakthrough 3rd generation calculator with many firsts for a hand held device. Despite its shortcomings (severely limited memory, poor battery cover design, weak hinge design and no I/O for programs), it has a definite place in history and does not deserve to be in the same category as the the above calculators. Yes, indeed, and it also provided full support for complex number functions and operations as well. This support was continued with the HP-48S/SX and current HP-50g. As far as the memory limitation problem, that was quickly resolved with the HP-28S. Frank Rottgardt Member Posts: 115 Threads: 16 Joined: Jul 2007 09-15-2009, 02:08 PM Quote: I quickly purchased both and relegated my new HP32SII into my collection bin of "bad-mistake" calculators. It sits there today along with other HP "wonders" like the HP38G, HP28C, and HP6S. For me the 32sII is a good fellow at work. Sometimes the limited memory is a issue when I want to handle some more equations. Due to this limitations I don´t use it for programs. For this purpose I have a 33s with 10 or so short, but for everyday-use helpful programs for quick calculations. The reason I keep the 32sII is for its exellent keys and overall craftmanship. It is simply a pleasure to use the 32sII. As some posters here already stated the 33s has grown on me. The two line display is nice. But sometimes the zero key doesn´t register which is pain. As mechanical engineer I never need to make any calculations involving complex arithmetics. So for my needs it is a perfect machine. I understand if EE fellows here have a different opinion. The 28C(S) is a great calculator. It took me through my college courses and was of great help. The footprint is rather big and many functions are burried in menues, but it was the first calculator doing almost everything. I still have it at work and if I need to convert complicated units I use it from time to time. I also learned RPL on it. And compared with my 48GX the 28S is much easier to master. IMHO it is not fair to state the 28C is a "mistake". ▼ Mike Morrow Posting Freak Posts: 758 Threads: 9 Joined: Jul 2007 09-16-2009, 01:36 PM The HP28C that I bought in 1987 didn't have anywhere near enough RAM to be really useable at only 2 kBytes. About all one could do is demonstrate simple capabilities. I bought an HP28S in 1988 with its 32 kBytes of RAM. That was in fact usable...until the battery door structure failed. Karl Schneider Posting Freak Posts: 1,792 Threads: 62 Joined: Jan 2005 09-16-2009, 02:44 AM Quote: You may recall I enquired on this forum about getting a 32SII ... Anyway, to my dismay I do not seem able to calculate the square root of a negative number, even though the calculator is supposed to handle complex numbers... Is there a way to do this and is it possible with the 33s? Here is an archived thread on the topic, started by Paul Dale (the first repsondent to your query): -- KS

 Possibly Related Threads... Thread Author Replies Views Last Post Possible bug with sqrt function in the HP prime Michael de Estrada 6 775 11-15-2013, 12:49 PM Last Post: Michael de Estrada e^pi - pi + 9/10^4 + 1/(10^4*ln(2) + sqrt(10)/6)^2 Gerson W. Barbosa 47 3,873 08-08-2012, 10:58 PM Last Post: Les Koller Sqrt(1 - x^2) & Sqrt(1 + x^2) functions Gerson W. Barbosa 9 779 05-11-2012, 11:02 PM Last Post: Palmer O. Hanson, Jr. 15c LE sqr and sqrt problems CAD_Jockey 61 3,888 09-20-2011, 04:39 AM Last Post: Bart (UK) 35s and SQRT of Negative Numbers Les Wright 8 676 10-04-2008, 02:07 AM Last Post: Karl Schneider 33s - If SQRT( ) must be INV of SQ( ) Eric Lundgren 0 190 03-19-2005, 02:46 AM Last Post: Eric Lundgren 32Sii BROWN vs. 32Sii BLACK NH 8 740 10-10-2003, 04:44 AM Last Post: NH

Forum Jump: