# Is the 50G really that powerful? - Hewlett Packard

This is a discussion on Is the 50G really that powerful? - Hewlett Packard ; on my 50G when I do 450! or even as low as 225!. All in all I am not sure if I am doing something wrong or the calculator is really just not as capable of a machine as I ...

# Thread: Is the 50G really that powerful?

1. ## Is the 50G really that powerful?

on my 50G when I do 450! or even as low as 225!. All in all I am not
sure if I am doing something wrong or the calculator is really just not
as capable of a machine as I thought. I dont really see this calculator
as really much more powerful than a scientific calculator, everytime I
give it a hard to do equation it shows the hour glass and gives up,
whereas a TI calculator would keep calculating and even if it took a
half an hour you would still get a an answer. I know I should read the
manual but I am a student and during the school year I dont have eneogh
time to read my regular books let alone a calculator manual, I am saving
that for the summer, so I do apologize.

2. ## Re: Is the 50G really that powerful?

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 21:22:29 -0500, Vincent wrote:

> on my 50G when I do 450! or even as low as 225!

The largest factorial for real arg & result is 253!
and takes less than 1/10 second;
with integer arg 253, it takes about three seconds on 49G,
or one second on 49G+/50G, to get the 500-digit exact result.

If you mean factoring that 500-digit result again using FACTOR,
this takes less than ten seconds on 49G+/50G.

It's not as useful for RSA computations, however,
but one generally uses RSA only on a computer, anyway

[r->] [OFF]

3. ## Re: Is the 50G really that powerful?

On Apr 17, 9:22 pm, Vincent wrote:
> on my 50G when I do 450! or even as low as 225!. All in all I am not
> sure if I am doing something wrong or the calculator is really just not
> as capable of a machine as I thought.

Ummmm.... was there supposed to be something in front of the words "on
my 50g..."?

By the way, the answer is "yes".

-Jonathan

4. ## Re: Is the 50G really that powerful?

what I am saying is why can the ti-85/89 do it an the the hp 50g cant.

so is it that I possibly have a setting wrong that couses the 50g to
give up easily and not work through the problem, or well does it just
give up all the time.

5. ## Re: Is the 50G really that powerful?

On Apr 17, 10:25 pm, Vincent wrote:
> what I am saying is why can the ti-85/89 do it an the the hp 50g cant.
>
> so is it that I possibly have a setting wrong that couses the 50g to
> give up easily and not work through the problem, or well does it just
> give up all the time.

So, you just want to calculate these numbers? 450! and 225!? Do you
want them "approximately" or "exactly"? If you want approximately, I
suggest you use Sterling's approximation. If you want it "exactly"
then just put your calculator in "exact mode" (flag 105, since you
don't have time to look stuff up) and do it. It'll give you all the
stinking digits. WOW!

-Jonathan

6. ## Re: Is the 50G really that powerful?

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 22:25:58 -0500, Vincent wrote:

> why can the ti-85/89 do it and the hp 50g can't.

http://www.stlyrics.com/lyrics/annie...ngyoucando.htm

http://wilstar.com/midi/anythingyoucando.htm [the tune]

"Anything you can do,
I can do better.
I can do anything
Better than you.

[...]

I can do most anything!

Can you bake a pie? No.
Neither can I..."

A hundred and one
years (not all fun):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_Berlin

--

7. ## Re: Is the 50G really that powerful?

On Apr 17, 9:22 pm, Vincent wrote:
> on my 50G when I do 450! or even as low as 225!.

On Apr 17, 10:25 pm, Vincent wrote:
> what I am saying is why can the ti-85/89 do it an the the hp 50g cant.

WAIT! The ti-85 can do 450!? Really? What ti-85 do you have?

when I do 225.! on my hp-49g+ I get 1.2593e433...
on a ti-85 I get the same thing. What are you asking about again?

-Jonathan

8. ## Re: Is the 50G really that powerful?

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 23:25:58 -0400, Vincent wrote:

>what I am saying is why can the ti-85/89 do it an the the hp 50g cant.

The reason is that the TI-85 has an exponent range of 999, whereas the HP
machines only have an exponent range of 499, in approximate mode.

On your HP50, hold down the orange (right prefix) key and press the enter
key. This will put the calculator in exact mode, and you can calculate
450!, or even larger factorials, if you wish.

>
>
>so is it that I possibly have a setting wrong that couses the 50g to
>give up easily and not work through the problem, or well does it just
>give up all the time.

9. ## Re: Is the 50G really that powerful?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

John H Meyers wrote:
<..>

>
> It's not as useful for RSA computations, however,
> but one generally uses RSA only on a computer, anyway

If you want to give it a try, anyway:

http://hpgcc.org/hpgcc/examples/decnumber/RSA/rsa.c

I wrote it as a HPGCC demo and proof of concept, that strong crypto
stuff *is* (limited) possible on this machine.

- --
Ingo Blank

http://hpgcc.org
http://blog.hpgcc.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGJdevr9bi0BQTf30RAkZgAKDsxNuZutTl4ejbl5sABh 3L8Wab9QCgszYg
RLAp/+qTPnkBNsq0g+BN+2I=
=CZYk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

10. ## Re: Is the 50G really that powerful?

"Vincent" wrote in message
news7mdnfKuW5ciErjbnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@giganews.com...
> what I am saying is why can the ti-85/89 do it an the the hp 50g cant.

How do you do 450! on an 89? In Exact and Auto modes the answer shows
as 450! (not very helpful) in Approximate mode it shows as infinity with an
overflow warning.

Tom Lake

11. ## Re: Is the 50G really that powerful?

Again:

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 21:22:29 -0500, Vincent wrote:

> on my 50G when I do 450! or even as low as 225!

For TI calcs, given Rodger Rosenbaum's explanation
that their "Approximate" range is up to 10^1000,
although HP's "Approximate" range
is only up to 10^500 (9.99999999999E499):

449! is about 3.852*10^997 (in TI range)
450! is about 1.733*10^1000 (out of TI range)
[neither is within HP "Approximate" range]

Yet HP can still calculate these exactly, in "Exact" mode.

Note that DUP SIZE 1 - gives the exponent (of ten)
needed to represent an exact integer HP result
in scientific notation, normalized as x.xxx*10^yyy,
enabling easy conversion of large exact integers
to "Approximate" notation.

But what was the problem with 225! on HP50G?

225! is approximately 1.25936085459*10^433
which is well within even "Approximate" range for HP
(as is up to 253! for integer-valued real args);
the *exact* results can also be re-factored using FACTOR,
as can the result even of 450! (even on a slower HP49G).

Does there happen to be a practical use for this,
or is it just a chest-beating kind of contest?

By the way, when Luciano Pavarotti sang along with Sting,
Pavarotti didn't sound as good singing Sting's material,
and Sting didn't sound as good singing Pavarotti's;
I wonder who would have won a round of boxing? Or golf?

[r->] [OFF]

12. ## Re: Is the 50G really that powerful?

see even in exact mode I still just get 9.999999999999999999999999E499
which is its mark of infinity or overflow error.

Rodger Rosenbaum wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 23:25:58 -0400, Vincent wrote:
>
>> what I am saying is why can the ti-85/89 do it an the the hp 50g cant.

>
> The reason is that the TI-85 has an exponent range of 999, whereas the HP
> machines only have an exponent range of 499, in approximate mode.
>
> On your HP50, hold down the orange (right prefix) key and press the enter
> key. This will put the calculator in exact mode, and you can calculate
> 450!, or even larger factorials, if you wish.
>
>>
>> so is it that I possibly have a setting wrong that couses the 50g to
>> give up easily and not work through the problem, or well does it just
>> give up all the time.

>

13. ## Re: Is the 50G really that powerful?

On Apr 18, 9:55 am, Vincent wrote:
> see even in exact mode I still just get 9.999999999999999999999999E499
> which is its mark of infinity or overflow error.

Maybe you set flag 3? anyway, let us know what your flags are with
"RCLF".

-Jonathan

14. ## Re: Is the 50G really that powerful?

bokubob wrote:
> On Apr 18, 9:55 am, Vincent wrote:
>> see even in exact mode I still just get 9.999999999999999999999999E499
>> which is its mark of infinity or overflow error.

>
> Maybe you set flag 3? anyway, let us know what your flags are with
> "RCLF".
>
> -Jonathan
>

yes it was flag #3 and holy **** now I am calculating a facoril of 2000,
lol this is great.

what does flag 3 do btw?

15. ## Re: Is the 50G really that powerful?

Just delurking after a long absence. I was intrigued by the fact that
the 49/50 doesn't seem to have any way of displaying very large
numbers - any larger than 33 columns, anyway. The program below
("BIGNUM" or whatever) will split any huge integer into 33-column
sections ready for display with Scroll, or Edit and the minifont.

One thing that concerns me about the transfer: the split quotation
marks are actually CHR 10, a linefeed. If the program fails, check
that first.

Regards,
Bill

%%HP: T(3)A(R)F(.);
\<<
IFERR
IF DUP TYPE 28. ==
THEN \->STR DUP SIZE 33 / IP 33 \-> C C2
\<< 1 C
START C2 "
" REPL 34 'C2' STO+
NEXT
\>>
END
THEN "No.\->33-col str"
END
\>>

16. ## Re: Is the 50G really that powerful?

On Apr 18, 3:25 pm, b...@torfree.net wrote:
> Just delurking after a long absence. I was intrigued by the fact that
> the 49/50 doesn't seem to have any way of displaying very large
> numbers - any larger than 33 columns, anyway. The program below
> ("BIGNUM" or whatever) will split any huge integer into 33-column
> sections ready for display with Scroll, or Edit and the minifont.
>
> One thing that concerns me about the transfer: the split quotation
> marks are actually CHR 10, a linefeed. If the program fails, check
> that first.
>
> Regards,
> Bill
>
> %%HP: T(3)A(R)F(.);
> \<<
> IFERR
> IF DUP TYPE 28. ==
> THEN \->STR DUP SIZE 33 / IP 33 \-> C C2
> \<< 1 C
> START C2 "
> " REPL 34 'C2' STO+
> NEXT
> \>>
> END
> THEN "No.\->33-col str"
> END
> \>>

<<
\->STR
#2645Eh SYSEVAL
#2F190h SYSEVAL
#3399Fh SYSEVAL
#9B003h FLASHEVAL
DROP
>>

400! takes about .6s. This uses the sysRPL commands:

setStdEditWid (which sets either 21 or 32 chars depending on flag 73 -
edit minifont?)
DcompWidth@ (recalls that number just set)
MINUSONE (#FFFFh)
^StrCutNChr2 (cuts string at length n for x lines \$ #n #x -> \$'
#count )

TW

17. ## Re: Is the 50G really that powerful?

> %%HP: T(3)A(R)F(.);
> \<<
> IFERR
> IF DUP TYPE 28. ==
> THEN \->STR DUP SIZE 33 / IP 33 \-> C C2
> \<< 1 C
> START C2 "
> " REPL 34 'C2' STO+
> NEXT
> \>>
> END
> THEN "No.\->33-col str"
> END
> \>>

%%HP: T(3)A(R)F(.);
\<<
\->STR
#2645Eh SYSEVAL
#2F190h SYSEVAL
#3399Fh SYSEVAL
#9B003h FLASHEVAL
DROP
\>>

400! takes about .6s. This uses the sysRPL commands:

setStdEditWid (which sets either 21 or 32 chars depending on flag 73
-
edit minifont?)
DcompWidth@ (recalls that number just set)
MINUSONE (#FFFFh)
^StrCutNChr2 (cuts string at length n for x lines \$ #n #x -> \$'
#count )

TW

18. ## Re: Is the 50G really that powerful?

This is one reason that I have been saying for years that HP
calculators need a "log of gamma" function - so values and ratios of
values of the gamma function (and, of course, factorials) could be
calculated for large values (such as 10^10, not just a measly 500 or
1000).

I recently implemented (for the Palm platform program "easycalc") the
Lanczos algorithm (found on the web) for the log of the gamma
function. The neat thing is that it is accurate (to 10^-13 for the
version I used) throughout the complex plane with real(z)>=0. Use the
reflection formula to get the result for real(z) < 0. (The formula is
gamma(z)*gamma(1-z) = pi/sin(pi*z).)

For example, log(1000!) -> 2567.604644222132,
i! = 0.498015668118356 - 0.15494983801811i,
log(10^10!) = 9.565705518636653E10
(mod transcription errors).

Here is the python code I found, followed by my easycalc code.

The following implementation in the Python programming language works
for complex arguments and typically gives 15 correct decimal places:

from cmath import *

# Coefficients used by the GNU Scientific Library
g = 7
p = [0.99999999999980993, 676.5203681218851, -1259.1392167224028,
771.32342877765313, -176.61502916214059, 12.507343278686905,
-0.13857109526572012, 9.9843695780195716e-6,
1.5056327351493116e-7]

def gamma(z):
z = complex(z)
# Reflection formula
if z.real < 0.5:
return pi / (sin(pi*z)*gamma(1-z))
else:
z -= 1
x = p[0]
for i in range(1, g+2):
x += p[i]/(z+i)
t = z + g + 0.5
return sqrt(2*pi) * t**(z+0.5) * exp(-t) * x

lc0=0.99999999999980993
lc=list(676.5203681218851:-1259.1392167224028:
771.32342877765313:-176.61502916214059:
12.507343278686905:-0.13857109526572012:
..0000099843695780195716:,00000015056327351493116)
lcf0()="1/(x+range(dim(lc):0)"
lcf1()="lc*lcf0(x)"
lcf2()="lc0+sum(lcf1(x))"
lcf3()="x+dim(lc)-1.5"
lcf4()="(x-.5)*ln(lcf3(x))-lcf3(x)"
lcf5()="lcf4(x)+ln(lcf2(x))+.5*ln(2*pi)"

Note: Easycalc works with vectors and matrices, so "range(n,x)" is a
vector of length n consisting of (x,x+1,...,x+n-1).
Adding and other operations of a vector operate element-by-element.

Now put this in a ROM!!!!!!

Martin Cohen

19. ## Re: Is the 50G really that powerful?

On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 05:11:17 -0400, "Tom Lake" wrote:

>
>"Vincent" wrote in message
>news7mdnfKuW5ciErjbnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> what I am saying is why can the ti-85/89 do it an the the hp 50g cant.

>
>How do you do 450! on an 89?

The OP must have been off by one. I think 449! is the largest you can do
on a TI-85.

> In Exact and Auto modes the answer shows
>as 450! (not very helpful) in Approximate mode it shows as infinity with an
>overflow warning.
>
>Tom Lake
>

20. ## Re: Is the 50G really that powerful?

Vincent wrote:
> as capable of a machine as I thought. I dont really see this calculator
> as really much more powerful than a scientific calculator, everytime I
> give it a hard to do equation it shows the hour glass and gives up,
> whereas a TI calculator would keep calculating and even if it took a

I'd love to see a TI machine calculating 500! as fast as the HP50
(provided they could of course)

JY