🚀 go-pugleaf

(I think) this is due either to a quirk in the CORDIC method used for the
functions, or a difference in stored, calculated, and displayed
precisions (See the file cordic.txt in the archive for more information).

+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Peter Kolbus                |  Quote for the day (week?)        |
| pkolbus@oeonline.com        |    'Sex is hereditary.  If your   |
| ae607@detroit.freenet.org   |   parents didn't have it, chances |
| Prodigy: PNKD53B            |   are you won't either.'          |
| Voice: +1.810.474.0872      |-----------------------------------|
| !BBS!: +1.810.474.6272      | What do I put here? I don't know. |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+

On Tue, 22 Nov 1994 V064Q5C3@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu wrote:

> I have found an error on the TI-81.  If you set the mode to radians, and take
> the tangent of pi, you get some really small number (I dont have an 81 in
 front
> of me, so I don't know what the number is....also, I am not sure if that what
> produces the error).  I have checked both the 82 and the 85, and did not
> find this error in either.
>
> If the 81,82 and 85 have so many errors like this, why do we love them so?
> I think that they have a great product here, and some little errors such as
> these can easily be overlooked.  But, what are they, and where do they come
> from?
>
> The zoom feature of some functions seems to have the same problem....
> I just which I could remember the functions and the ranges....Ill look for
 them
> and post if I can find it
>
> Rick Seiden
> v064q5c3@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
> You know your school cares about you when they give you an id like v064q5c3
>