15C in Wikipedia: Update, anyone?



#38

Would anyone like to update (and perhaps expand) this short Wikipedia item on the 15C?

"The HP-15C is a high-end scientific programmable with a root-solver and numerical integration. It is able to handle complex numbers and matrix operations. Although out of production, its popularity has led to high prices of US$200–400 on the used market[5] and a petition asking HP to restart production. The HP-15C was a replacement for the (LED Display based) HP-34C. On September 1, 2011, HP announced that a limited edition 15C based on the ARM hardware used in the modern 12C would be released.[6]"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HP-10C_series


#39

Why waste your time on shamopedia?


#40

Because, for better or worse, a large number of people use Wikipedia as a reference.


#41

Right. So why enable it? Why enable it to become a "facebook" or a "google"? I say help keep good information decentralized. Also, I don't want to waste my time on volunteer stuff that just gets written over by a bunch of porno editors. Ever looked at what the big barnstar" editors actually do? They provide "content" for porn stars!


#42

It is a useful resource for a lot of things. Is there a lot of info on porn, sex, drugs, crime, and other things that a 'reputable paper encyclopedia' wouldn't provide? Sure. But there is useful info. Admittedly, it's not the best place to look for unbiased information about big-ticket issues like religion and politics, but I can't see there being too much controversy over the history of HP calculators.


#43

But we already have a fantastichistorical resource right here! Write an article instead!

And there is Craig Finseth's HP DATABAE at finseth.com

Why "migrate" to wikipedia? WE have a beautiful thing going here. Why spoil it by putting energy into that dastardly bunch of thugs? Seriously, if you have ever crossed the self-appointed masters of wikipedia, you haven't seen how nasty a bunch of fascist porno freaks can be.


#44

Wow, you really hate Wikipedia... I'm definitely not suggesting "Let's move all the info off the forum and close up shop." However, info there could be useful for drawing more people here. IIRC, several articles on vintage HP calculators have links to hpmuseum.org.

Really, I agree that this site is probably one of the best (if not the best) resources for HP calculators out there. If there isn't an article or museum page here that can answer your question, there's someone lurking around the forums who can. However, people have to *find* this site first. Google works well for that. Wikipedia can also work well for that.


#45

Obviously I can't enforce my opinions, but I don't see any value in Wikipedia drawing people here. People find hpmuseum easily enough using a search engine.

And the most obnoxious thing is that the google "wizards" have programmed their search order to maximize wikipedia exposure. It always comes up ahead of real information--for instance the Mayo Clinic and the CDC are below wikipedia if you look up a health or medical topic. 10,000 monkeys write it, and 10,000 chimpanzees read it.

To me, wikipedia, facebook, google, amazon are "centralizers" or "monoplizers." They are one size fits all but fit nothing solutions. To me, Wikipedia is an experiment gone wrong.


Edited: 5 Nov 2011, 11:28 a.m.


#46

Quote:
10,000 monkeys write it, and 10,000 chimpanzees read it.

Bill, a little strong it seems to me. I have found Wikipedia a good source of general information for most topics I have searched for. Occasionally I have found errors, and corrected them. I guess that makes me both a monkey and a chimpanzee at the same time! :)

If I want to go beyond what Wikipedia does (and I usually do), it's easy to follow the other links returned by google.

#47

To be honest, I found this site when I was searching for 15c calculators on Wikipedia, so at least they seem to have included *one* great site related to HP calcs.. :-)


#48

HAhaha :-)

Welcome!

#49

I think you have it confused with that other site.

TW


#50

Wikipedia is useful for information on non-controversial topics. For controversial topics, it has a demonstrable bias.

#51

Quote:
I think you have it confused with that other site.

TW


This one is excellent. Thanks for it, I had a good laugh.

#52

I LoVE it!

#53

Quote:
I think you have it confused with that other site.

Oh dear, that's the dark side really :-/ Like Europe before the age of enlightenment :-(

#54

Quote:
Like Europe before the age of enlightenment

Much worse, I think. Back then they really didn't know, these people are choosing to be ignorant.


#55

Quote:
Much worse, I think. Back then they really didn't know, these people are choosing to be ignorant.

You cannot choose to be ignorant. Ignorance is by definition lack of knowledge or awareness.

This is elitism - defining someone you disagree with as ignorant because they have a different point of view.


#56

In German, 'ignore' has the specific meaning of being unwilling to know or learn. This fits perfectly.

#57

You can agree or disagree about topics being disputable. Creationism today, however, is a mere (bad) joke - or call it religion. That was and is the reason for my statement above, where I tried to refer to the great historical achievement of separating science and religion some 300 (!) years ago.

Religion, per definition, is what you can rely (sic!) on but cannot dispute (believe it or not). Science, OTOH, is what you can know (Lat. "scientia" from "scire" = to know), meaning science explains (or elucidates) reproducible observations the easiest possible logically consistent way (which did and will change with the progress of knowledge, also as a result of many hard disputations, thus science can never be as comfortable as religion). Of course, you may introduce GODS (i.e. the Great Old Divine Spaghettimonster) for having buried all the fossiles all over the world in correct depths, but that's not the easiest explanation IMHO ;-)

"But what is truth? / Is truth unchanging law? / I have my truth - / is it the same as yours?" (IIRC the words of Pontius Pilatus in the musical Jesus Christ Superstar)

HTH but doubt it,

Walter


#58

Quote:
Religion, per definition, is what you can rely (sic!) on but cannot dispute (believe it or not).
You can, and as a result, religions split sometimes. Creationists did so, too. You can even qeuestion the existence of god (that's what you probably meant), but that would make religion unfounded in your view and you'd have to ask yourself why to deal with it anymore ;-).

Quote:
Science [...]
I agree with this paragraph, of course. Unfortunately, science too has a problem in that by neccessity law of natures have to exist (I'm not talking about how they may look like) as the foundation of any scientific theory. If everything you observe happens just by chance in a way you expect (or is explainable off), scientists are out of luck. Again, if this is anyones religion, he may just wait for the universe to vanish, not discuss this with a physicist.

IMO the only problem with having a religion is to abridge the natural common sense (like cooperation between individuals helps the species to survive) and replace it with arbitrarily interpretable tradition. But this is also true with secular law *g*.


#59

Quote:
Unfortunately, science too has a problem in that by neccessity law of natures have to exist (...) as the foundation of any scientific theory. If everything you observe happens just by chance in a way you expect (or is explainable off), scientists are out of luck.

If it's "just by chance" but complies with the present scientific model of the world, then both descriptions (the present scientific and the chance model (CM)) are equally valid - until an experiment or observation falsifies one of them, which will never be possible for the CM. Not being falsifiable rules it out from being scientific - additionally the CM has a damn low probability (think of multiple chance coincidences), so I wouldn't pick this as the "easiest possible ... way" explaining the world. YMMV ;-)

Edited: 6 Nov 2011, 10:13 a.m.


#60

Quote:
[...] the present scientific and the chance model (CM)) are equally valid - until an experiment or observation falsifies one of them, which will never be possible for the CM. [...]
How would you falsify the current model of having natural laws? If one stops working, you can always devise another one replacing it. We did this all the time in physics history ;-).
Quote:
[...] additionally the CM has a damn low probability [...]

Arguing with probabilities is very weak, imo.

#61

Quote:
How would you falsify the current model of having natural laws? If one stops working, you can always devise another one replacing it. We did this all the time in physics history ;-).

Well, usually it didn't turn out we had to adopt the opposite ;-) So e.g. apples on this planet fall down anyway, just the law we think governing this fall has seen some states of refinement. Natural laws at all are a matter of millennia of experience - and the present scientific set of laws complies with what we see in a timeframe of some 1.4e10 years, which is quite astounding IMO. If GODS, being able to switch off the sun today, would have done all that, it would have been very busy 1.4e10 years. But I may be terribly wrong - I feel very well, however, based on our collective experience that natural laws seem to exist. Nevertheless I'm willing to accept that they don't, if reasonable proof is presented ;-)

Quote:
Arguing with probabilities is very weak, imo.

You're right, I shouldn't have done that - the CM is not scientific anyway.

Edited to correct a factor of 10 - shame on me, but at least nobody else found it earlier ;-)

Edited: 6 Nov 2011, 4:53 p.m. after one or more responses were posted


#62

Quote:
You're right, I shouldn't have done that - the CM is not scientific anyway.

Running against open doors, is that an idiom in english, too? Reread my initial text about it and you'll find the word 'religion'. But it doesn't matter really, we can always only argue in the realm of what we defend, otherwise we wouldn't defend it at all. Some people have faith in the existence of god, others in the existence of natural laws, and a whole lot of people have just both, likely due to being open minded.

BTW., if all apples 'fall up' (rise?), you still can make quantum mechanics responsible for it. How unlikely is that? Not enough to make it entirely impossible!


#63

Quote:
Running against open doors, is that an idiom in english, too?

Corresponds to "preaching to the choir" in English acc. to Leo.
Quote:
BTW., if all apples 'fall up' (rise?), you still can make quantum mechanics responsible for it. How unlikely is that? Not enough to make it entirely impossible!

Q: How does a physicist enter his home without opening the door?

A: Stands directly in front of it and waits 10^9 years :-)

Edited: 7 Nov 2011, 12:05 p.m.

#64

OK, but we can settle it all with a calculator, right? :)


#65

Following the experience of the Apollo program, we'll need three ;-)


#66

Given time, I have no doubt some calculator fiend will retrofit the 41C with a quantum CPU. Then you'd only need one.

BTW: What allowance have you made for quantum computing in your current project? It's good to look forward. :)


#67

Quote:
What allowance have you made for quantum computing in your current project? It's good to look forward. :)

I have to admit I'm hopelessly old fashioned in this matter: I clearly prefer precisely repeatable results over probability amplitudes ;-)
#68

Quote:
Given time, I have no doubt some calculator fiend will retrofit the 41C with a quantum CPU. Then you'd only need one.

According to this piece of news, there is a chance some of us will see a quantum-powered HP41 in a few decades. I can't wait.

#69

Quote:
Creationism today, however, is a mere (bad) joke - or call it religion. That was and is the reason for my statement above, where I tried to refer to the great historical achievement of separating science and religion some 300 (!) years ago.

Good science and good religion go hand-in-hand. Bad science and bad religion are an anathema to each other.

If you have read much on Creationism , you know there is at least two schools - Young Earth and Old Earth. Both acknowledge that all of creation was, well, created. Old Earth creationism acknowledges the findings of science regarding the age of the universe.

Quote:
Religion, per definition, is what you can rely (sic!) on but cannot dispute (believe it or not).

Cannot dispute?! Where have you been, Walter?
Quote:
Science, OTOH, is what you can know (Lat. "scientia" from "scire" = to know), meaning science explains (or elucidates) reproducible observations the easiest possible logically consistent way (which did and will change with the progress of knowledge, also as a result of many hard disputations, thus science can never be as comfortable as religion).

Yet I am often surprised at how some make such rigid statements about how such-and-such is "settled science" or in some way indicate that a particular scientific "fact" cannot be disputed - forever.
Quote:
Of course, you may introduce GODS (i.e. the Great Old Divine Spaghettimonster) for having buried all the fossils all over the world in correct depths, but that's not the easiest explanation IMHO ;-)

Would it surprise you to learn that many, probably a majority, of Christians accept evolutionary theory as far as explaining natural selection? It does not, at least as presently constituted, explain the origin, nor the complexity of life.
Quote:
"But what is truth? / Is truth unchanging law? / I have my truth - / is it the same as yours?" (IIRC the words of Pontius Pilatus in the musical Jesus Christ Superstar)

FYI, the original can be found in John 18:38.
Quote:
HTH but doubt it,

See my remark to Katie on elitism.

#70

Quote:
Quote:
Creationism today, however, is a mere (bad) joke - or call it religion. That was and is the reason for my statement above, where I tried to refer to the great historical achievement of separating science and religion some 300 (!) years ago.

... If you have read much on ((about)) Creationism , you know there is ((are)) at least two schools ... Both acknowledge ((assume, claim)) that all of creation was, well, created.

Just some remarks in (()).
Quote:
Quote:
Religion, per definition, is what you can rely (sic!) on but cannot dispute (believe it or not).

Cannot dispute?! Where have you been, Walter?

In a part of Europe which was utterly devastated in a religious war some 380 years ago, killing a quarter of its population. I don't want to see that repeated. De gustibus non est disputandum. That's the realm of religion. Of course you may dispute, but it's no use. Thus my statement above.
Quote:
Would it surprise you to learn that many, probably a majority, of Christians accept evolutionary theory as far as explaining natural selection? It does not, at least as presently constituted, explain the origin, nor the complexity of life.

That's another step in the great retreat of religion as a whole over the last 4000 years. Way back, people had made gods responsible for sunrise and sunset ...
Quote:
Quote:
"But what is truth? / Is truth unchanging law? / I have my truth - / is it the same as yours?" (IIRC the words of Pontius Pilatus in the musical Jesus Christ Superstar)

FYI, the original can be found in John 18:38.

FYI, the original reads (transcribed, since on this forum I can't print Greek characters): ti estin alätheia only. The questions following above illustrate the point very well IMHO. YMMV
#71

I'm not being elitist, did you read the stuff on this site? They argue that the Earth is 6 to 10 thousand years old and similar craziness.

Here's their statement:

Quote:
The subject is still debated today, particularly between young-Earth scientists, who believe that the Earth is only approximately 10-6,000 years old, and Old Earth creationists and scientists who argue that Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old.[1] The scientific evidence points to a young age of the earth and the universe.

Why not claim that the world is flat and that the Sun orbits us? Just becasue no one has witnessed 10,000+ years of history that doens't mean it didn't happen. How many people have witnessed the structure of the solar system? Yet no one doubts that it's heliocentric.

Edited: 7 Nov 2011, 2:37 a.m.


#72

Religion has always been of some value in explaining and controlling the world. You see fog? Must have been the Goddess of Fog! The sun rises? Helios is busy moving it around the sky. Want people to follow you blindly? Tell them otherwise Helios might change jobs and the sun will stay below the horizon for some time. But if people obey the rules you've set up you'll talk Helios into not neglecting his duties...

People have always felt the need to explain what's around them and in absence of a better understanding, Gods and Fairies have proven to be the best explanations. Whenever some social group has managed to reclaim the whole truth about the world by proclaiming a tight bond to the 'responsible' beings, things have gone awry. Not only in the past, I fear. Just remember 9/11!

#73

The best person to update it is yourself. I won't because I have little interest in it.

I updated both the HP-20b and HP-30b because I have an interest in promoting these are platforms for the WP-34s.


#74

Dominic, thanks for your response. I'd like to see an update to the Wikipedia entry on the 15C done by an experienced 15C user who has worked with the 15C-LE and can give a good account of the similarities and differences between the two. Perhaps, in addition, that person could tell something of the troubles with the LE, and how they're being addressed. That's not me, in either case.


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  HP-Prime article on Wikipedia CompSystems 4 1,107 09-08-2013, 06:54 PM
Last Post: Bruce Bergman
  15C LE Availability Update Bob Cortopassi 4 916 02-23-2012, 02:23 PM
Last Post: Andrés C. Rodríguez (Argentina)
  Wikipedia on the 15C LE Peter Murphy (Livermore) 0 480 12-18-2011, 09:36 PM
Last Post: Peter Murphy (Livermore)
  MoHPC - 15C | 15C LE update? DigiGal 3 789 11-30-2011, 01:39 PM
Last Post: Walter B
  hp-15c LE firmware update HOWTO? Eric Zoob 4 947 10-14-2011, 10:49 AM
Last Post: DigiGal
  15C Keyboard Issues [UPDATE- DO NOT EMAIL ME] Tim Wessman 16 2,397 10-03-2011, 06:55 PM
Last Post: uhmgawa
  Original 15C Keyboard Test Works With 15C LE!!! DigiGal 5 1,328 09-26-2011, 07:33 PM
Last Post: M. Joury
  Error in wikipedia article on HP-35s (Solver) x34 6 1,090 09-24-2011, 09:44 AM
Last Post: bill platt
  CostCentral (Erie) update on HP-15C LE Mark Henderson 13 1,983 08-12-2011, 11:13 AM
Last Post: Thomas Radtke
  HP 15C Batteries (Update) BrianDH 7 1,337 03-28-2011, 03:48 PM
Last Post: Bill (Smithville, NJ)

Forum Jump: