
What Your Old Graphing Calculator Says About Technology - JamesLowell
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/08/what-your-old-graphing-calculator-says-about-technology/244028/#.TlUaOxId6Os.hackernews
======
hxa7241
There is a feedback aspect that this article does not seem to get.

> After all, the _material_ hasn't changed (much), so if the calculators were
> good enough for us 10 or 15 years ago, they are still good enough to solve
> the math problems.

Technology _changes_ the material: it changes what you think you need or want.
You could almost say dialup internet was fine for viewing text web-pages --
why does it need to be faster? Broadband enabled web video -- which in turn
spurred the need for broadband.

The calculator example looks a bit like a phone. If you took a phone from 2000
and one from 2007, they would look pretty similar. It is still a phone, is it
not? We do not _need_ something more, do we? And then the iPhone appeared.

> Here's the thing. Some technologies don't change all that quickly because we
> don't need them to. . . . Look at cars or power plants

Crikey! If you wanted to hit on two of the things we _do_ most need to change,
and have for decades, it might well be just those.

The whole article disturbs me a bit, actually, because it seems dangerously
full of the anti/un-creative mindset. You will never invent anything if you
just look at what you have and think of justifications for why everything is
pretty much fine. You create by _finding_ faults and imagining what you do
_not_ have. Look at those two calculator pics, and think of them as
representing some part of the web now and in 2021. Scary? Well that is what it
_will_ be unless you get irritated and make some weird unexpected new stuff!

~~~
Jun8
Excellent point! Commonly told anecdote, lady sees Faraday's inventions and
asks "What is it good for", he answers "What good is a newborn baby!" (I just
found out that this didn't exactly happen this way, see
<http://www.jstor.org/pss/986790>, but you get the point). Some tech advances
are pushed by necessity, some just happen (or may be pushed by some other
necessity) and create the question or need that they then answer.

------
gcv
I loved the HP48 series in high school and college, and m48+ brings it to my
iPhone. For the rare times I feel the need for something more powerful than
the calculator built into Spotlight, and something less powerful than Clojure,
I reach for it.

Never go into the HP50 series, though it does look nice. Probably would have
started using it if I were still in school.

~~~
kelvie
I didn't know people reimplemented these for phones.. I just grabbed Droid48
for my Android tablet, and will probably be trying it later.

Thanks for the heads up!

~~~
zokier
There is also AlmostTI for those rare N900 owners,
<http://fms.komkon.org/ATI85/>

hmm.. there is a link to an Android port.. installing now.

------
qaexl
Want to see a non-incremental innovation for multi-touch calculators?

A friend of a friend wrote this: <http://mathtouchapp.com/> (He doesn't know
I'm linking it here).

The app throws away the calculator metaphor and starts from scratch. Instead,
the author uses the back-of-a-napkin as the metaphor.

You start with a blank page and add systems of equations. You can visually
link variables together. You can insert values along with its unit of
measurement and numeric precision. You can feed results to graphs.

At $10, this is cheaper than getting the Nspire if you already have an iOS
device. But of course, you can't use it when taking the SAT. And it would be
cool if you can export it to Wolfram's computational data format and trade
formula libraries.

You need to actually understand the math instead of just punching the buttons.
Then again, isn't that what Sal Khan's videos are for?

~~~
mvzink
That's really cool! Non-incremental innovation indeed. Thanks for the link!
Has this been submitted to HN proper?

~~~
qaexl
I don't remember. I'm not very good at writing posts that get a lot of
upvotes. You are more then welcomed to try -- this app can get all the
marketing help it gets.

------
bluekeybox
The title should really be: "What Your Old Graphing Calculator Says About Our
Education System."

~~~
TravisLS
Indeed. Conrad Wolfram has a great Ted talk on this very subject:
[http://www.ted.com/talks/conrad_wolfram_teaching_kids_real_m...](http://www.ted.com/talks/conrad_wolfram_teaching_kids_real_math_with_computers.html)

~~~
dxbydt
Thanks for the link. I just finished listening to the talk in its entirety. I
would love to know what you thought about the actual content of the talk ( ie.
not the presentation skills...Conrad Wolfram is charismatic and his analogies
are compelling ). I personally think he has completely missed the whole point
of math, why does one do math, math education, and problem solving using math.

~~~
TravisLS
Interesting. I thought the most compelling part of the talk was his
interpretation of the purpose for doing math and how we've failed to educate
toward that purpose.

I assume you're referring to his assertion that deep understanding of by-hand
calculation is not necessary (the driving a car vs servicing a car analogy). I
would agree that this may be a false analogy, and that a basic understanding
of mathematical concepts (presently drilled into place through hand
calculation) may be a fundamentally important step to being able to do math.
Especially for those who continue to any advanced math study, fundamental
understanding is almost certainly necessary.

But this talk is more about the common student who doesn't go on to college or
post-grad math. Overall the broader point of the talk still rings true to me:
because of an overemphasis on calculation, the majority of students are
receiving insufficient math education to successfully make life decisions and
contribute to their own fields of work/study. In my mind, Wolfram presents a
viable solution in recommending refocusing math education towards logical
thinking and correctly structuring problems, and in utilizing computers for
calculation.

~~~
dxbydt
>the most compelling part of the talk was his interpretation of the purpose
for doing math

Exactly. Except that he misinterprets that very purpose. He assumes the
purpose is entirely utilitarian. He implicitly says math should be about
solving common real-world problems, like his concocted life-insurance premium
minimization, which helps the common student make life decisions (as if!).
While 100% of pure math folks would actively disagree with him, even 99% of
applied math folk would have a tough time agreeing with his utilitarian
mindset. We simply don't do math to just pay the bills. People were trisecting
angles and squaring the circle and computing surds for over thousands of years
with no utilitarian aspect whatsoever. He also says math problems must be
rephrased as CS programming problems!!! I'm all for algebraic computing tools,
and Mathematica is a rather neat addition to that category, but aside from
that, the rest of his talk is beyond hyperbolic. Koblitz makes the case
against computing here: <http://www.math.washington.edu/~koblitz/mi.html> But
there's a very wide literature on why math & computers don't mix in the
classroom - read Dr. Jeffery King on the art of math
([http://www.amazon.com/Art-Mathematics-Jerry-P-
King/dp/030644...](http://www.amazon.com/Art-Mathematics-Jerry-P-
King/dp/0306441292) ) - there's whole chapters in that book devoted to
debunking what Conrad is talking about.

------
pnathan
I don't think there's much competition, either. HP appears to have bowed out
of the graphing calculator market years ago. (though a Google turns them up?)

Also, for high-end math wizardry, it's very easy to simply not use a
calculator: Maxima [1] obseleted my calculator for tasks that weren't tests

I suspect as smartphones get cheaper and finish their takeover, the calculator
firmware will get loaded into an in-app emulator and there they will live.

<http://maxima.sourceforge.net/>

~~~
carterschonwald
The HP graphing calculators are still alive and kicking. the HP 50g is
honestly a far more awesome tool than the TIs (and for those few who care,
allows RPN entry too). (it also has a pretty outstanding distribution of
reviews on amazon)

Yes portable ipod touches and the like are moving to partially supplant these
tools, but there are a lot of use cases where a calculator with dedicated
physical button and a far better battery life than any apple gadget, while
still fitting in your pocket and being a general purpose CAS, is quite a nice
baseline.

~~~
mturmon
And, at the lower end, HP also has a presence.

The HP 32SII (discontinued, now $139 on ebay; originally sold for less than
half that price) and the HP 35S (redesigned version of the 33 which was the
ugly successor to the 32SII) are non-graphing RPN machines that are very good
for quick calculations. (My first and favorite HP, the 41, is much older than
these, but it's too expensive to have one laying around everywhere I might
need one.)

Even if I'm in front of a computer, typing in to a console window, it's faster
to turn on the calculator than to enter bc, python, or matlab and type in the
calculation. And with RPN you get to see the intermediate results so you know
you're not forgetting something.

~~~
mprovost
dc is the standard RPN console app that's been around forever (according to
Wikipedia it predates the C language). It loads instantly but I always have a
terminal window running it somewhere.

------
camiller
I'll repost the comment I left on the article:

I used a TI-66 as an undergrad (Purdue - Computer Technology), but I graduated
from college(the first time) in 1988. Was great that I could program in
frequently used equations. Later as an MBA student I picked up an HP 19Bii
Business Consultant Calculator for all the financial functionality.

They let you use a calculator on the SAT now? That is my "You kids get off my
lawn" moment of the story.

Oh, and <https://www.xkcd.com/768/>

~~~
sliverstorm
_They let you use a calculator on the SAT now?_

Indeed. It seems like more and more, math classes are teaching students how to
use a graphing calculator to avoid solving problems.

I used a scientific calculator all through high school and college. I don't
remember if I got to use it on the SAT.

~~~
khafra
Ideally, wouldn't math classes teach students how to solve the parts of
problems that computers aren't as good at? I mean, I'm happy that I can use
memorized multiplication tables to make my quick estimates of various
quantities accurate to two orders of magnitude instead of one, but that's
about all they're good for. Anything more, and I pull out my phone or head
over to wolframalpha. And I'd much rather have spent those years of brute-
force arithmetic practice advancing to higher, more interesting math.

~~~
sliverstorm
The point of a math education is to understand what's going on. If you can't
work problems, you don't really know what's happening, and you will have
trouble applying the concepts outside of strictly defined problem spaces from
classrooms.

Learning to use computing to do the heavy lifting is great, but I often see
learning to use the sin() function used as a proxy for learning what sin() is,
for example.

~~~
derleth
> If you can't work problems, you don't really know what's happening

On the contrary: If all your 'work' can be done even faster by a machine, you
don't know any more than the machine does and your skills are worthless once
your wages are more expensive than just buying and maintaining the machine.

Real mathematicians use software like R and Matlab and so on, because their
real skill lies in knowing what to do with the software and how to interpret
the results it gives.

~~~
sliverstorm
_Real mathematicians use software like R and Matlab and so on, because their
real skill lies in knowing what to do with the software and how to interpret
the results it gives._

Of course! But what I would contest is that (at least in my humble experience)
knowing what to do with the software and how to interpret the results comes
with learning about how those results are produced.

When I want to analyze a complicated circuit, I don't use a pencil and paper,
I use pspice. But I would not be able to create a useful model, run useful
tests, or make sense of the output if I was not _able_ to (at least once upon
a time) do it on paper.

~~~
derleth
This post seems to contradict what you said above:

> It seems like more and more, math classes are teaching students how to use a
> graphing calculator to avoid solving problems.

This is, simply, wrong: Calculators are banned for as long as students are
learning to calculate. Once they are actually solving problems, as opposed to
grinding through numbers (which isn't something they need to be doing anyway),
they're thinking in ways calculators cannot match. A calculator can only do
the most mechanical, least problem-solving-like parts of solving a problem.

------
juiceandjuice
I haven't changed the batteries in 8 months. I can do math on my TI-89
Titanium without even looking at it, that's not possible with any tablet. Real
buttons are worth the extra money. Depending on the complexity of the problem,
there's many I'd rather use a calculator than even Maple or Mathematica, both
of which would be an absolute nightmare to do on my iPhone. Also, _you can
still program it_ , which isn't available on anything iOS related unless you
used javascript somehow (Fucking up the semi-empirical mass formula in Nuclear
Physics was practically a pastime on my homework before I wrote a small basic
program). Furthermore, no teacher/professor in their right mind is going to
let anyone use a device capable of wireless communications on a test.

~~~
pkamb
+1 for real buttons.

------
jmount
Standardized tests also help maintain a niche for Standardized calculators.

~~~
camiller
I kinda boggles my mind that they allow calculators on the SAT now. Some
googling indicates that they are still prohibited on the GMAT.

~~~
alirov
Calculators haven't been allowed on the GRE either but with the new one (it
either started this month or next month), they are offering an on-screen
calculator built into the test.

------
anigbrowl
Meanwhile, over in Europe: <http://www.geogebra.org/cms/>

Geogebra is open source and funded with EU grants. They're about to launch
version 4, I think, but I don't care because v5 has been in stable beta for
the last 6 months.

~~~
pyramid
If it's paid by my taxes they better remove that GPL license out of it.

Tax money = public domain

~~~
papaf
I don't understand your logic. The GPL ensures that the software is free for
you, your children and their children to modify as they please.

------
brudgers
That's nothing. The HP12C is thirty years old and still lists for $70.

In other words, it was cutting edge in 1981 along with the original IBM PC.

[[http://www.amazon.com/HP-12c-Financial-
Calculator-12C/dp/B00...](http://www.amazon.com/HP-12c-Financial-
Calculator-12C/dp/B00000JBLH/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1314214865&sr=8-4)]

[<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HP-10C_series#HP-12C>]

------
eluberoff
Repost of my comment on the atlantic article:

The fault lies with the college board. A useful standardized test would
either: * not require a calculator at all, testing understanding instead of
computation or * allow access to real world tools-- including free ones like
<http://wolframalpha.com> and <http://desmos.com/calculator> (full
disclosure-- I helped build the latter)

How much time is wasted teaching the unnecessary skills of how to use an
antiquated, expensive device merely because tests require it? We should be
teaching our students which resources are available, which to use in which
situations, and how to plug in the gaps between them

------
ChuckMcM
People find it amazing that an analog oscilloscope from 1985 sells for $200 on
the used market. Or that a milling machine from 1965 sells for $1,200. Tools,
certainly solid tools, derive their value from their ability to meet the need,
and once silicon density intersected with the needs of high school math they
reached 'equilibrium.' From that point on, a solid calculator has an intrinsic
value. What is more its pretty clear that the value is higher than the cost of
manufacturing it, so building solid calculators is nearly always going to have
some 'profit' associated with it.

Personally the TI-92+ was the pinnacle, it was basically a Sun-2 workstation
with Macsyma installed in a handheld unit. I've still got mine :-)

~~~
sliverstorm
The reason an analog 'scope from 1985 can fetch $200 is a combination of
things, and you're forgetting at least two:

1) A quality scope is expensive to make. Those 'scopes, expensive as they may
seem, are priced at a fraction of the cost to make one; it is not just their
utility, but also the cost of making on that keeps their value above $5.

2) Modern, new quality 'scopes cost thousands of dollars, so $200 seems cheap
in comparison.

~~~
ChuckMcM
True, both of these. Although the recent move to 'USB' type scopes has some
people wondering if maybe moving all the 'display/ux' bits to a laptop
warrants the price reduction.

I was trying to explain the difference between the Tektronix probe frontend
(expensive american brand) and the Rigol (cheap chinese brand) scopes to a
hobbyist and they couldn't really appreciate the flat frequency response from
DC to the scope's rated frequency of the Tek front end, whereas there was a
little more than 1dB dropoff in the frequency response on the Rigol as it
approaches its rated frequency.

(Oh and the Tek actually 'works' to nearly double its rated frequency and the
Rigol certainly does not do that)

I worry though that 'good enough' will make it hard to find quality test gear
going forward.

------
joev
TI calculators were toys for children. Real Engineers use HP!

Lots of good memories with my HP-48G, until it got stolen just before I
graduated.

~~~
ddelony
Real Engineers use Curtas!

------
jpadkins
I think it says more about the state of high school math. technology meets the
needs of the market, and this market hasn't changed much in 10 years.

------
modeless
It says "Get a powerful oligopoly to essentially require your product and say
goodbye to competition! Cut R&D and cruise down easy street."

------
abyssknight
I still have my TI-83+ from my highschool days. Honestly, I couldn't survive
without it. When I have to do hard core matrix algebra or graphing, and I need
to be in front of my book, I can't use the PC or tablet -- it just doesn't fit
in the zone. The physical nature of the calculator, the portability, and
tactile feedback are all necessary.

Also, the TI-83+ takes a beating. ;)

------
pwg
Come back to teenagedom in 1985. You listened to the FM radio, because CD's
hadn't been invented yet. You made calls on a landline, and yes, it was called
"the phone". You didn't have a beeper. You didn't have "the internet" (it had
been invented, but you had not heard of it yet). Instead, you had local dial
up BBS's on a 1200 bps modem (if you were very lucky) or on a 300 bps modem
(typical). You most likely had an Atari 2600 as your "game system" (that is,
if you had a "game system" at all). And your calculator of choice was the
HP-15C.

Well, maybe most didn't have a HP-15C, but that was the calculator I had.
Still have it actually, and it still works as well today as it did then.

~~~
DerekL
You're a bit off about CD's. They weren't popular yet, but they did exist.
They first went on sale in the US in 1983, and 4% of albums sold in 1985 were
on CD.

For portable music in 1985, there were also cassette tapes.

------
vvpan
While I am geeky, I always felt that the graphing calculators did not
contribute much to my math classes. And neither were they a significant
gateway into technology - few people went beyond the simplest functionality.

~~~
sliverstorm
That's because graphing calculators are, as best I understand it, really a
tool for post-undergraduate level math.

Of course, anymore if you're doing anything that requires the full muscle of a
graphing calculator, you're using Mathematica or MATLAB instead.

------
libraryatnight
I used my TI-83 for quasi-cheating (it was loaded with extra info and formulas
in notes) and playing mario or tetris. It served me well.

------
jal278
Other people must be thinking this as well, but it seems likely/obvious that
the graphing calculator will go extinct, replaced by an app on a touchscreen
device (not an emulated ti-82, but a _better_ more intuitive graphing calc).
Sounds like a pretty promising start-up. That the TI-82 is still $70 is
unbelievable.

~~~
stdbrouw
Actually, I started working on something like this last week, as a pet project
to keep me busy. In essence, what you need is a basic programming language
that's geared a little bit more towards mathematics (so you can do little
things like 2log(n) instead of 2 * log(n) and actually use π as a constant
instead of something like Math.PI), a REPL and a way to graph functions.
That's feature equivalence, and that's easy.

The cool part is when you start thinking about how to innovate on top of that.
Then you can add things like:

* the ability to display and remember the results of a whole range of calculations on a single screen instead of always having to write stuff down or bring back old calculations, e.g. <http://stuff.stdout.be/graphcalc.png> (think iPad app)

* the ability for teachers to follow along on their own screen as you're doing calculations, to help out, maybe even allow teachers to take over control (remotely) to show stuff

* save calculations and make little reports, which could serve as homework

* slowly learn general-purpose programming along the way, simply by having the thing based off a language like CoffeeScript instead of Texas Instruments' own half-assed TI-BASIC.

* extensions for physics and chemistry, so it's not just about math

I don't know if it'd really make sense as a startup (tablets are still too
expensive and the nice thing about graphing calculators is that they're small
and people can't browse the internet on them) but the whole "let's try to
reinvent some ancient technology using modern tools" thing is pretty fun.

If anybody else is looking for a weekend hack project, I'd gladly open-source
what I have thus far.

~~~
dgallagher
Frankly if you replicate the TI-83's layout in a GUI, and emulate its OS, and
sell it for $10 on the App Store, you'd make millions. Any student carrying
around an iPhone/iPod Touch/iPad would gladly pay that, rather than $100 for a
new bulky TI-83, and use that in school instead. Makes their lives simpler by
only having a single device.

Replicating the interface is key. From my experience, most teachers were
horribly confused if someone brought in a TI-89 or, forbid, a TI-92. Why?
Different UI that they don't know. You can't teach students how to use their
calculator unless you know how to use it yourself.

After, you can add in all sorts of extra features like you mentioned. But "A
TI-83 that runs on iOS" is probably the first feature that people will pay
for.

It does bring up the issue of students cheating on tests, using their iOS
"calculators", but last time I checked it's not too hard to hide notes on your
TI-83 either...

It's an idea I've had for an iOS app for a while, but don't have the time to
dedicate to it (working on something else).

~~~
Wilya
The presence of a network connectivity on an iPhone (or even an iPod Touch) is
a bigger problem than the ability to put notes in it. Notes are just a basic
help, while the full answer is a different matter.

------
curt
Have a 14 year old TI-89, that I still use to this day. It's small, simple,
quick, and have all the functions and symbols I use under the custom menu.
Amazing their haven't been any screen and function improvements (built in
programs).

------
Goladus
All I would change about my graphing calculator is speed and perhaps a
brighter, higher-resolution screen.

------
daimyoyo
I miss my old Ti-89. it really was the best graphics calculator I ever used.

