Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!dali.cs.montana.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zazen!schaefer.math.wisc.edu!mueller
From: mueller@schaefer.math.wisc.edu (Carl Mueller)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.handhelds
Subject: Re: COMB(X,Y) function on 48sx
Message-ID: <1991Jun26.132513.11626@schaefer.math.wisc.edu>
Date: 26 Jun 91 13:25:13 GMT
References: <3238343@cc.sfu.ca> <1991Jun25.171406.17170@watdragon.waterloo.edu> <1991Jun25.191006.4983@schaefer.math.wisc.edu> <13978@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
Reply-To: mueller@schaefer.UUCP (Carl Mueller)
Organization: Univ. of Wisconsin Dept. of Mathematics
Lines: 26

In article <13978@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> ags@seaman.cc.purdue.edu (Dave Seaman) writes:
>In article <1991Jun25.191006.4983@schaefer.math.wisc.edu> mueller@schaefer.UUCP (Carl Mueller) writes:
>
>>Well, I'd say HP did the right thing.  Most people who use the COMB function
>>are using it in its usual sense.  
>
>Applying the same reasoning, the 48 SHOULD indicate that something is wrong if
>it is fed complex values as input to functions such as SIN or LN, since most
>people use these functions only on real values and they should be told when
>they are probably making a mistake.
>
>If we keep extending this line of reasoning, we should be able to reduce the
>HP48 to a simple four-function calculator.
>
Well, I'm not convinced that complex number support in basic functions can
properly be compared to an extended version of the COMBINATION function
whose mathematical definition is in terms of integers, but I'm willing to
concede that it is saying too much to say that HP did the right thing. It
would also be wrong to say that they did the wrong thing.  It was a judgement
call and I think that I would have made the same decision. 

>--
>Dave Seaman
>ags@seaman.cc.purdue.edu

Carl Mueller (mueller@math.wisc.edu)