This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - meishe91
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 207
61
« on: September 12, 2011, 08:36:00 pm »
Well I meant like the math returns the integer part of the number with that line of math. But you're right. I just tested it out and ya, I forgot about cases dealing with thirds and such. My bad. @BlakPilar Listen to Builder 
62
« on: September 12, 2011, 08:29:08 pm »
Well I was talking about instead of using round(,0). Since you should be getting an integer to begin with it shouldn't make a difference which is used and using iPart() will save you a couple bytes of memory. Also, you can save a couple more bytes by taking out a couple of those parentheses.
Edit:
But shouldn't using Base(fPart(Num/Base)) give you a number above the desired number? Or is the algorithm for that stuff just that flawed?
63
« on: September 12, 2011, 08:17:45 pm »
Oh sub()...you picky little meanie. Oh well, glad it got fixed. Wouldn't iPart() be a better choice though since you just want to truncate the decimal section? I know like nothing about base conversion though so I'm not sure, just a guess from making a binary converter or two.
64
« on: September 12, 2011, 08:12:52 pm »
Sup peeps and peepettes, Guess what?
65
« on: September 11, 2011, 12:43:30 pm »
Not sure if it would help but you could put a getKey in there and check if it is ever equal to forty-five (the key press for the [CLEAR] button) and do stuff then. But other than that I don't think so without Assembly, like Builder said.
Edit:
Nevermind, just understood what was happening. Ya, Assembly I think is your best option. You could ask Xeda to help you write a hex routine for it.
66
« on: September 10, 2011, 04:14:27 pm »
Well I don't know the exact definition of what recursion is or what it truly is but I just meant how TI-BASIC can't make multiple instances of the same variable and call them back as it fall backs to the original run of the program. If that made any sense.
Edit:
Added the C++ code (or something similar since I wrote it off the top of my head) I was trying to replicate.
67
« on: September 10, 2011, 04:09:41 pm »
Ya, I know you can do that. I wasn't trying to create the smallest binary converter (especially since Weregoose has that accomplishment under his belt already ). I was just trying to simulate what I had written in C++. Edit: Thanks 
68
« on: September 10, 2011, 03:58:09 pm »
Last semester I took a logic and program design class and had to make a recursive program that turned a decimal number into it's binary equivalent using recursion. This gave me the idea a couple days ago to come up with one in TI-BASIC (don't ask me why, just seemed fun). However, true recursion (or at least the way I was doing it in C++) isn't really possible in TI-BASIC so I had to come up with a way of simulating it, which is what I did. This has no real use or anything, I just thought it was a neat little thing that someone might want to see. Also, in no way is it probably optimized as much as it could be. C→dim(L1
2fPart(A/2→L1(C
iPart(A/2→A
If A>0
Then
C+1→C
prgmC
End
If C>0
Disp L1(C
C-1→C
Output(1,1,"To use this you need to set C to one and A to the decimal number you want to convert before you run the program.  Edit: Here is the code I'm basically trying to simulate. Note: I know it may not be the best written but I'm still new to C++ and it works so I'm happy. #include <iostream>
using namespace std;
void convert(int num)
{
if(num>0)
{
convert(num/2);
}
else {;}
cout<<num%2;
return;
}
int main()
{
int num;
cout<<"Enter a number: ";
cin>>num;
convert(num);
cout<<endl;
system("pause");
return 0;
}
69
« on: September 10, 2011, 02:58:43 pm »
Well...I feel like a complete idiot now...you're right. Nothing is wrong I guess. Guess I just really haven't done enough lately. Well thank you everyone for bearing with me, sorry about that
70
« on: September 09, 2011, 11:51:10 pm »
Just to clarify, it's not the boot code  . Boot code 1.03 is identical to 1.02 in everything but a few security measures.
Ya, I didn't think it was the Boot Code. I just know absolutely nothing really so it was just a guess. Well, if your last line of code returns a result, I think that's supposed to be displayed.
Well if I remember correctly a "DONE" message was always displayed unless you used one of the tricks to get it to not show up (using an Output() for example). Though I wasn't really to worried about finding a way to turn it on (well I do...but not just by using the flag). I just wasn't sure if this was something new that I didn't know about or if something potentially went wrong when I put 2.43 back on, which seems to be the case here. (Might be from me being on a Win7 computer but I don't know if those issues got fixed.) Anyways, thank you guys so much for answering and helping
71
« on: September 09, 2011, 02:47:34 pm »
Ya. I mean I didn't try anything with the MP OS's because it was to slow for my tastes so I switched it to 2.43 as soon as I could. Which I figured that would return everything back to how I'm used to it but then when I was running my code it would output a 0 at the end (the resultant of my last line of code) so I knew something was up. That's why I was wondering if it was the Boot Code (even though that makes no sense to me) because that's all that's new on it now. When I was installing 2.43 it did say it failed though (even though it says I have a 2.43 OS on it). Maybe something happened there though? I don't know, but when I get a chance I'll try to make a screen shot up the situation.
Edit:
I have no idea how I would go about doing that (besides that I would need something like CalcSys or something like that. Never really knew much about the software/hardware sides of things (unfortunately).
72
« on: September 09, 2011, 02:36:41 pm »
Hello peoples of Omni, I know I haven't really been here a whole lot lately and I do apologize for that. However that is not what this post is about (I might make one later to share what has been going on.). The reason for this post however is because I recently got a new TI-84+SE. I have since gotten rid of that horrid 2.55MP OS and put 2.43 back on but while I was messing around with making a pseudo-recursive binary converter I noticed that the "DONE" was still missing from the end of my program execution. Is this because of the new 1.03 Boot Code or is something else going on? I tried finding the answer but couldn't find anything about it, so sorry if someone has already made a post about this. It was just messing with the output so that's why I'm asking. Thanks for anything
73
« on: September 05, 2011, 09:06:18 pm »
Just wanted to say thanks for this Just got a 84+SE and am now happy I have my beloved 2.43 OS back on it 
74
« on: August 04, 2011, 02:30:38 am »
I thought I had all the old ones plus the new combined one? I know I at least left those up just for anyone who wanted them, but do what you want. They are your tutorials
75
« on: July 19, 2011, 10:29:50 pm »
Ah okay. Makes sense now. If you do, just don't mess with the formatting please
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 207
|
Show Posts