Alright scifags, is there any way I can compare my calculator

>>8130176
Why would that be true, you retard

>>8130176
>My $100 single-purpose super-low-energy-consuming product is more capable than my friend's $1000 general-purpose pocket computer, right?

>>8130179
I didn't say it was true, I just said I had to prove him wrong. Help me cheat my way out of this bet.

of course his can. are you a retard? why would a calculator be any more advanced than a fucking smart phone?

>>8130189
That was a literally perfect description of how stupid my request is, nevertheless, get me out of this 100 dollar bet shitstorm.

>>8130192
You may be right, and he may be right, for the average user, I have a good chance of success if they just tried to use some default app. But 0189 may have a point if I was facing some tech-wizard who understood that the internet can do anything.

>>8130176
I just need a really hard math problem that a default calculator app won't be able to do, probably a graphing equation.

>>8130176
Derive literally any quadratic function and have it spit out the answer in terms of a variable

>>8130176
The challenge: keep the screen on for each respective device as long as possible with a single charge.

The phone will run out of power quickly.

>>8130176
Drop your calculator on the ground multiple times. Ask if they can do the same thing.

Pro-tip. TI-84s bounce

>>8130210
Anything a calculator can do wolfram app can do better, way better.

Some calcs are programmable, as in general programming, look into that

>>8130189
>$1000 general-purpose pocket computer
>implying you can't buy a capable smart phone for cheaper than a graphic calculator

>>8130176
Try root 2 times root 2

ask him if it shows 0.999... as 1

you don't have to prove it on your calculator because it's common knowledge

>>8130176
>he thinks his phone can do anything my calculator can do
mathematically it can.

if it's a TI-## have it display one of the proprietary image formats it. I'd imagine there isn't an app for that.