tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29763791.post4329031776614019513..comments2023-10-31T05:07:19.353-04:00Comments on Delenda est Carthago: Math in the MoviesDr. Φhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14086783503820477029noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29763791.post-74424038172158726872012-03-31T11:22:59.319-04:002012-03-31T11:22:59.319-04:00Steve: Maybe I just have small hands, but it is a...Steve: Maybe I just have small hands, but it is a small calculator that I can hold and operate one-handed.<br /><br />IIRC, the 12C was optimized for and marketed towards business/finance users, while the 15C was built for engineers. The 15C is no longer made, and now sells on ebay for twice what my father paid for mine in 1984 ($150). Interestingly, the people I know that have them really like its two-thumb operation.<br /><br />Thanks for commenting, btw. This is like a super big deal for me.Dr. Φhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14086783503820477029noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29763791.post-75043036426478399872012-03-31T05:36:49.068-04:002012-03-31T05:36:49.068-04:00It looks like a Bill James book from the 1980s.It looks like a Bill James book from the 1980s.Steve Sailerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11920109042402850214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29763791.post-53386458826306492502012-03-31T05:36:29.391-04:002012-03-31T05:36:29.391-04:00I got a $200 HP calculator for my high school grad...I got a $200 HP calculator for my high school graduation in 1976. It finally broke down in 1984 and I replaced it with the HP 12C that, last I checked, is still on sale (the profit margin must be immense). The 1976 one was better than the 12C because I could operate it one handed and hold a pencil in the other hand. The 12C needed two hands.Steve Sailerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11920109042402850214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29763791.post-83535909655248447792012-03-26T17:54:20.450-04:002012-03-26T17:54:20.450-04:00Jehu: yes, but I didn't use it. I used the f...Jehu: yes, but I didn't use it. I used the factorial button.<br /><br />Prof Hale: Well, if it was <i>random</i> chance, I assume the probabilities would be .5 per game. I also assume the .52-.48 takes into account the relative skills and potential forfeits.Dr. Φhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14086783503820477029noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29763791.post-353871770184224342012-03-26T16:06:25.327-04:002012-03-26T16:06:25.327-04:00Your equation looks fine. Your calculator probabl...Your equation looks fine. Your calculator probably has a button for the 1st term, 53 combined 12 at a time (or 53 combined 41 at a time, they're the same number).Jehuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16483263667086303029noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29763791.post-34808597527291708222012-03-26T09:10:56.174-04:002012-03-26T09:10:56.174-04:00It also assumes that winning is a random chance an...It also assumes that winning is a random chance and not in any way influenced by the skill of the teams or even if the opposing team shows up.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com