Talk:Graphing calculator

Can anyone try this question??

Approximately when does TI determine when a calculator gets upgraded?? The TI-86 was released in 1997, but as of 2004 it is the only TI graphing calculator that hasn't been upgraded released in a year prior to 2002. Does TI follow any set rules?? 66.245.29.135 00:05, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The TI-86 was superceded by the TI-92 and the TI-89. I don't believe there are any planned upgrades for it. As for your question: no, I do not believe there are any set rules. -- Grunt (talk) 00:07, 2004 Aug 19 (UTC)

This can't be right! The TI-92 was released in 1995 and the TI-86 in 1997. 66.245.29.135 00:09, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Vfd problem (True or false??)

On Vfd, there are a few Wikipedians who want the graphing calculator articles to be merged. True or false: this would mean a re-direct here. 66.245.73.148 01:40, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Pocket computer

What is a pocket computer?? 66.245.16.193 13:27, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, q.v. :-) You might also have meant to ask what a PDA is, however. --Wernher 16:48, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Calculators in Schools

Okay, I think we need to be careful not to get carried away with specific geographic examples. I say this because I'm really tempted to tack on "...in Canada, however, graphing calculators are a mandatory part of the high-school mathematics cirriculum." I guess we could have a big list of GC policy at every level of education for every country, but would it be better to simply say something "The policy on graphing calculators in schools varies widely..." and then perhaps cite a few descriptive examples? -Jwanders 10:55, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I see your point. However, I think the current wording of the paragraph is a good compromise, since it offers three descriptive examples of the extremes of gr. calc. policies around the world. I would expect very many, if not most, other countries to have situations close to one of those examples. Also, the opening sentence plus the word "general" in the Finland example indicates that such policies might be enforced at several administrative levels (one could of course state this more explicitly, I admit). --Wernher 16:47, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Graphing Calculators and Calculus Reform

The results of this integral relationship...

Puntastic! Nobody ever change that. Ever. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.229.242.84 (talk) 16:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

a sense of ownership in mathematics

You mean like a consumer? Press a few buttons and look at the pictures, rather than factorize, differentiate, plot points and interpolate? Now you too can buy a sense of ownership for $125... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.101.128.219 (talk) 16:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

How many?

Does anyone know how many GCs have been sold, how many are sold per year, etc? I woud imagine that TI is the biggest, but how large is the industry in general? Identity0 01:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

mac grapher?

It says in the article 'Mac OS X includes an advanced software graphic calculator known as Grapher.' I don't use mac so I don't want to change anything but is what this is talking about a 'graphing program' rather than a graphing calculator in the sense of a hand held calculator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.168.101 (talk) 15:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I agree with that. The article should ought to be about graphing calculator as hand-held devices and not as computer programs. Although if any thing, at least there should be a dedicated section about these programs. -Dlrohrer2003 01:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Dude, wait... What?

I'm not even sure where to begin with this article. First off, the essay section -- what can be done with that? I'm willing to grant that it's quite relevant, but it does seem to be poorly incorporated.

Also, uh... TI, by all indications, ships by far the most graphing calculators in the school market, at least in the US, but a reader kind of gets the sense that they're far, far back in the pack, just a footnote to the market. In particular, HP seems to be something of a dark horse in the educational market, something used more by professionals and people who want a sort of in-group feeling to their calculators. Casio seems to have almost no visibility or reputation at all. Perhaps this is different outside the US, but at least from my standpoint, there's something really wrong with this setup. Any thoughts? Haikupoet (talk) 08:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The popularity of the TI has now been addressed: The first paragraph of the Graphing calculators in schools section now reads: Casio has focused its efforts on the educational sector, and as such the built-in programming language and mathematical features are not as advanced as some of the TI and HP models. Despite this, the TI calculators are more popular than Casio in schools in the United States.Wikicgc (talk) 00:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Somebody blanked most of what I assume you mean by the essay section, the last revision with it in is [1] if somebody wants to go through and pick out the good stuff. 81.134.13.211 (talk) 14:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Are there too many external links?

There seem to be a number of external links that do not relate to the article and are more just online graphing software. These sites would not add much if anything to the article. Granted the calculator museum links like Datamath or calculator news/program archive sites links like ticalc.org and hpcalc.org can stay in my opinion.

Dah! Forgot to sign my name Dlrohrer2003 (talk) 05:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

More discussion about performance price

There is only little criticism of the price and performance of these calculators. someone add some facts about how fast they are. Also some detail about TI pushing there merchandise into classrooms would be nice.

Needs a spelling check

there are some minor errors here and there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.125.143.183 (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

History lesson

This is just a history lesson. I came to Wiki looking info on what calculations the buttons do and what the symbols on the buttons mean, this article tells nothing. - 86.148.39.240 (talk) 20:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

This is an old comment at this point, but for future reference: Wikipedia is not an instruction manual, as per WP:WWIN - Eddie (talk) 19:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Graphing calculator and decreasing mathematical skills

The graphing calculator can be a usefool tool in matchematics class but unfortunately most students abuse this tool. The don't differentiate and integrate themselves anymore, the just input the function, press on a button and write the result down. They don't do any algebra any more, they just input the function, press on a button and write the result down. There should be more explanation in this article about the downside of the use of a graphing calculator. Not for nothing in Belgium universities (also the hogescholen which isn't translatable) often don't allow a graphing calculator for exams. How can you test whether or not the student can perform a mathematical operation when a machine does it for them? Why would the student learn somethin which can't be tested. 82.170.40.166 (talk) 15:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

This is an interesting point of view. In my experience teaching maths in UK schools, students don't use their calculators (graphing or not) anything like enough and as a result fail to take advantage of them in A level exams and even shun them in GCSEs where they lose marks by using a half-remembered pen and paper method for solving whatever the problem is. And specifically with graphing calculators, the interfaces to most of them are so old fashioned that few are prepared to attempt to use them. These kids are used to touch screen everything and certainly don't ever expect to have to consult a manual about anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.108.201 (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

A goal of teaching Algebra is to convince students on just how easy Algebra is. Learning to do math in the head, learning to do math mentally, is an important educational goal. Presumably, long before the student learns to punch the right calculator buttons, the student has learned to solve the problem mentally. The calculator should only be used to confirm the answer derived mentally. But the graphing calculaor makes visible the relationship between fixed (y axis) and variable (x axis)and in making that concept visible, the student gains insight into mathematical structure. A bridge is simply a bunch of numbers that add up correctly; the student's intro to Algebra should start with a picture of the Tacoma Narrows, Washington bridge collapse, numbers that did not add up correctly. StevenTorrey (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC).

File:TI83tris.JPG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:TI83tris.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Problem image

File:ClassPad330 G.jpg

A graphing calculator from CASIO

I've removed this image as it's unusable – it's so dark that it's impossible to see what it is. It's not even clear that it's a calculator. It looks like it might be the same as another recently added image, in which case it's redundant anyway.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Types Section: it really needs to be reviewed

Okay, I hardly know how to navigate Wikipedia myself... they make it unnecessarily daunting, but someone should review the whole section on "Types".

I don't know enough about the topic myself, but whoever's written this section, hasn't written in a very Encyclopedic style. They've even contributed a line on the arts and pleasure derived from 'critiqueing' mathematical fallacies. Other than the obvious spelling error, the paragraph itself should probably be revised.

Ed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polarbear ed (talk • contribs) 04:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• Yeah, I agree with you. I think the entire "Types" section should be removed. Some calculators have a CAS, and some don't; the article should just mention that some calculators have a computer algebra system. Also, the entire article is extremely education-focused. I think that there should be just one section on education, and the rest should be on the calculators themselves. In addition, the article is really outdated. I'll try to revise it. --gdfusion (talk|contrib) 16:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• "Testing based on tedious hand calculation is also being forced to evolve towards more creative testing. Such tests are often more challenging and expensive to design and can't be recycled as much, but encourage a genuine deeper appreciation of the art of mathematics and critiqueing a fallacy. CAS calculators are therefore usually permitted only in select advanced math or calculus tests, thereby being more of a classroom learning tool for many users who then switch to a permitted and speedy numerical non-CAS graphing or scientific calculator for tests and exams." I'm not sure if this belongs in the article, so I just put it here. --gdfusion (talk|contrib) 16:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

M-meyer.4 (talk) 03:49, 30 October 2018 (UTC) Should students in the classroom rely on calculators for everything?

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Graphing calculator. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110812224928/http://www.jcq.org.uk/attachments/published/898/17.%20ICE%2010-11.pdf to http://jcq.org.uk/attachments/published/898/17.%20ICE%2010-11.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:33, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Texas Instruments Monopoly

While there is in the United States a monopoly of TI graphing calculators in K-12 education, I don't want this to be reflected in a global website like Wikipedia. The site should have pictures of other name brands to show that there are alternatives, like Casio, HP, Sharp, etc. Ijewa (talk) 13:39, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

References

A Casio image is shown, but not HP, Sharp, etc. For other brands, it's useful to include images of notable calculators if possible (and integrate discussion of notability into text), otherwise a gallery would do the job. Lambtron talk 13:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Image updation

I had updated images of the typical graphing calculators sold today as the article itself states that it needs to be updated per templates. However, User:MrOllie seems to take an exception to this for some reason. The images that were there before do not reflect the recent trends in the graphing calculator market as it moves to colour screens and CAS systems in some models. Regardless of TI's monopoly, the HP Prime is a popular CAS graphing calculator sold in the US and also comes with a touchscreen. The article needs to reflect these changes IMO. Also the image in the "Games and utilities" section was rather poor quality with bad lighting and should not be a representative image. 223.29.234.202 (talk) 07:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't find the changes to be improvements, no. It is better to keep images of graphing calculators that are and were extremely common through the years rather than a gallery of things that are sold today. MrOllie (talk) 11:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

The main issue is that they are not common today. They are discontinued products. When we talk about typical, we are talking about what is currently available. Also the image you insist on adding to the "Games and utilities" section has had a nomination for deletion in the past. Its blurry and poor quality, it does not belong to a good article. 223.29.234.202 (talk) 13:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Recentism is an essay of some relevance. Wikipedia aims to give an historical perpective. If possible I would go for the most sold calculator of all time as the lead. Put a modern calculator somewhere, with a caption saying it is modern. And maybe a small gallery with old to new so readers can see the evolution. Commander Keane (talk) 02:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Good advice. I would certainly follow that. 223.29.234.202 (talk) 07:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

A gallery of low quality images is not an improvement. MrOllie (talk) 11:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

How come they are low quality? The image you are pushing on with such as the attached image is a low quality image. I have implemented the changes for images as suggested by the administrator. You on the other hand, have been very ambiguous about your points of disagreement.

Further, there has been a disagreement in the past about the biased nature of the article in favour of TI when their calculators are not widely adopted outside of the United States. This article does not represent United States only. 223.29.234.202 (talk) 13:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Even if I were to accept that what you did was a faithful implementation of a suggestion, Admins have no special authority to decide on article content. A gallery of images is excessive.

They're low quality because they're redundant and most do not illustrate the claims made in the image captions. MrOllie (talk) 14:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

It is true that admins should not have any extra influence in content decisions (I couldn't find the actual guideline but trust me). I only made drive by suggestions and I had hoped there could be consensus formed on this talk page. Instead the edit war continued. An uninvolved admin could definitely block users involved in an edit war or protect an article from non-admin editing, please note that @MrOllie, 223.29.234.202, @Tfourier89 and anyone that can't keep their finger off the undo button.

Back to the content, I really liked the gallery addition, maybe the captions could include release years for clarity. The gallery showed a wide range of brands and features. Not sure how they are redundant. I don't like over relying on TI images, a broad array of brands throughout the article sounds better. Commander Keane (talk) 15:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Thats the issue here. Instead of actually explaining with clarity why he disagrees with the changes User:MrOllie decides to start an edit war both here and at the Scientific calculator page. Also, I have not seen an explanation of his favorism of the blurry and low quality image attached above.

I do not understand how the images are not illustrating the claims. The HP28S was the first graphing calculator made by HP, the 48 Series was the first HP graphing calculator with RPN and storage expansion, the TI-81 was the first graphing calculator made by TI and so on. What are the specific claims that you think are not represented by the images User:MrOllie? Also due to your persistent reverts, the commons category link is also broken at this stage.223.29.234.202 (talk) 07:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)