Casio said that if we do something wrong again, they might lock the PRIZM like TI did with the Nspire. At least, though, Casio is giving us one last chance.

what has been done wrong before with casio calcs?

my physics professor came to me once, and asked kinda excited if it was true what he heard.. he heard from some students that i was able to code for the nspire, and when i said it was true he was like "wow, really? ö" and started to ask me a lot of questions about it so that's already 2 people programming the nspire in our whole school i think. I don't know all people of my school, but i guess there aren't a lot more than this 2

it's very sad to see how some people still think programming is
1. for people sitting after their computer screen without going out, ever.
2. a waste of time
3. doesn't learn you anything
none of these are true, but the problem is, how do you have to make people believe them..

why would you buy a second nspire just to be able to get best of both worlds? i mean, it's $/€150 ö

wow, i love it ö did you still not manage to get wabbitemu working? because the grayscale is much better there, it seems like this one can't really handle it well xs

but apart from that it's beautiful, and indeed, the gui is nice

i don't want to be the bad guy, but please, before you ask questions read the FIRST post, almost everything you need to know is in there..

it's just because i've seen ten times the same questions by now, and i think it's kinda frustrating if people are too lazy to read the first post instead.

you upper list was quite complete for the basics i think (not to discourage you, but matrices are a huuuuge part of algebra, which means a lot of functions/other things to add)

the most important are the ones in the first post, and:

• ref()
• rref()
• invert

that'll be enough to start xp

here is something i just tested and can be quite useful

function on.create()
a = {{1,1,2},{2,-3,0}}
b = math.eval("rref({{1,1,2},{2,-3,0}})")
end

function on.paint(gc)
gc:drawString(b[1][1]..","..b[1][2]..","..b[1][3],0,0,"top")
gc:drawString(b[2][1]..","..b[2][2]..","..b[2][3],0,20,"top")
end


ok, glad you found it helpful.

if you need some more, don't hesitate and i see you're going the more practical way, rather than the pure mathematics way, i like that, but make sure the difference can be seen between the practical and the theoretical
e.g. if you do matrix = matrix + 5, how could you see if it's matrix + 5*identity or every element + 5 ... that's what i mean

i could write you a small guide on how to handle the rref (row reduced echelon) and the A = Q*R and A = L*U (although these are quite advanced, but they should be in it, it's the basics of matrix calculations, especially rref and A=Q*R)

edit: about those things you didn't fully understand:
a matrix that is consistent is a matrix that is seen as a system (?) of more than one equation with multiple variables (optimal is the same #equations as #variables)
that way you can get the value of each variable in the set of equations
e.g.
A+B = 2
2A-3B = 0
^this is a set of equations that can be calculated by substitution. if you solve it you get a = 6/5 and b=4/5.
if the combination of equations is possible it is 'consistent', else it is not
e.g.
A + 2B = 0
A + 2B = 1
^this is not consistent, since that combination is impossible

now such a set of equations can be represented in a matrix as follows:

A+B = 2
2A-3B = 0

is the same as

1   1   2
2  -3  0

got it?
if you take the rref() of this matrix, you will get the following result:
1   0   6/5
0   1   4/5

which gives you that A=6/5 and B=4/5