No, I just don’t know which part of the book supposedly proves me wrong, and since you can’t tell me which part does so, I’ll take it that none of it does 🙄
Nothing else would explain how you can’t figure out plain English text quoting the textbook
Says person who thinks “means” means “identically equal” 🤣🤣🤣
specifying the page number
The link didn’t specify a page number. I already told you it opened up at the index. Your supposed link to 2 images only linked to one image also. you seem to have an issue with making links 🙄
In light of that disability
Your disability with making links that work?
I can almost forgive the stupidity of insisting brackets aren’t just notation
says the person actually insisting that they aren’t just notation 😂
don’t have brackets, period
As was the way in Maths for the many centuries preceding the use of brackets in Maths, such as 2+3x4=14 🙄
RPN has a stack
And each paired operation on the stack is treated as though in brackets and evaluated before anything else, as per the order of operations rules 🙄
If I say it’s on page 27, do you understand which page I’m quoting, that specifically says you’re full of shit? Because I did, and you are.
They have a stack
They do not. Four-function calculators have an accumulator.
RPN still does not have brackets. It hasn’t magically sprouted them since I had to introduce you to the concept, an entire year ago. Computers mostly reduce bracketed notation to RPN… not the other way around. There is no need for brackets of any sort, explicit or implicit, when using a stack and an accumulator. 2 2 3 + / doesn’t need anything “treated as though in brackets” unless you’re trying to explain it to a child who stubbornly insists there is only one way to do math and yes-huh there must be brackets somehow.
says person who is unable to provide any evidence of such 🙄 guess what happens when you press the +/= followed by an x, it evaluates it and puts it on the stack 🙄
Four-function calculators have an accumulator
OMG. same same - it’s a one value stack 🤣🤣🤣
RPN still does not have brackets
In the foreground. They are still being added in the background
It hasn’t magically sprouted them since I had to introduce you to the concept
Which you didn’t, and they’ve always been there, just like the unwritten + sign in 3-2
Computers mostly reduce bracketed notation to RPN
No they don’t. They use the stack when parsing the expression, represented on paper with a binary tree
2 2 3 + / doesn’t need anything “treated as though in brackets”
Yes it does. It treats it as (2+3)/2 🙄
unless you’re trying to explain it to a child who stubbornly insists there is only one way to do math
So you’re admitting to being a child. That explains a lot 🤣🤣🤣
It treats it as 2 2 3 + /. Push push push pop pop. There is no “background.” These are hardware functions.
Do you think Spanish speakers secretly think in English? I don’t believe you understand there are multiple ways to do things. As if binary multiplication must be doing decimal multiplication “behind the scenes.”
Did you know Russian has no indefinite articles? They’re not implicit. They’re just not there. It’s why stereotypical moose-and-squirrel impressions say things like “have nice day.”
In exactly the same way, RPN doesn’t have implicit brackets, because it does not need brackets, period. It can equivalently express the operations of an algebraic equation which has brackets, but that doesn’t mean it has or uses or needs or implies those brackets. They’re just not there. Getting the right answer does not require secret translation to the one notation you understand.
How would you treat someone who insists brackets don’t exist, because they’re only implicitly representing a stack? Like, you can write (2+3)/2, but that’s only doing 2 2 3 + /. Obviously brackets aren’t real.
The answer to 2 2 3 + / does not involve brackets. Brackets aren’t real. Don’t you know all equations are secretly RPN, in the background? There’s only a stack, and the rules for a stack are that brackets do not work.
No, I just don’t know which part of the book supposedly proves me wrong, and since you can’t tell me which part does so, I’ll take it that none of it does 🙄
Says person who thinks “means” means “identically equal” 🤣🤣🤣
The link didn’t specify a page number. I already told you it opened up at the index. Your supposed link to 2 images only linked to one image also. you seem to have an issue with making links 🙄
Your disability with making links that work?
says the person actually insisting that they aren’t just notation 😂
As was the way in Maths for the many centuries preceding the use of brackets in Maths, such as 2+3x4=14 🙄
And each paired operation on the stack is treated as though in brackets and evaluated before anything else, as per the order of operations rules 🙄
Right, it has explicit brackets
They have a stack
If I say it’s on page 27, do you understand which page I’m quoting, that specifically says you’re full of shit? Because I did, and you are.
They do not. Four-function calculators have an accumulator.
RPN still does not have brackets. It hasn’t magically sprouted them since I had to introduce you to the concept, an entire year ago. Computers mostly reduce bracketed notation to RPN… not the other way around. There is no need for brackets of any sort, explicit or implicit, when using a stack and an accumulator. 2 2 3 + / doesn’t need anything “treated as though in brackets” unless you’re trying to explain it to a child who stubbornly insists there is only one way to do math and yes-huh there must be brackets somehow.
says person who is unable to provide any evidence of such 🙄 guess what happens when you press the +/= followed by an x, it evaluates it and puts it on the stack 🙄
OMG. same same - it’s a one value stack 🤣🤣🤣
In the foreground. They are still being added in the background
Which you didn’t, and they’ve always been there, just like the unwritten + sign in 3-2
No they don’t. They use the stack when parsing the expression, represented on paper with a binary tree
Yes it does. It treats it as (2+3)/2 🙄
So you’re admitting to being a child. That explains a lot 🤣🤣🤣
Yep, now you’re getting it! 😂
It treats it as 2 2 3 + /. Push push push pop pop. There is no “background.” These are hardware functions.
Do you think Spanish speakers secretly think in English? I don’t believe you understand there are multiple ways to do things. As if binary multiplication must be doing decimal multiplication “behind the scenes.”
That’s not how a fucking stack works.
Yep, it treats it as (2+3)/2, unless you’re saying it gets a different answer to that?? 🤣🤣🤣
oh, look what came out of those first pops, 2+3, the part that is implicitly in brackets 😂
So you are saying it gets a different answer to (2+3)/2?? 🤣🤣🤣
And software controls what is happening with the hardware. pop is a software command to the hardware. I teach Computer Science as well 😂
says person who doesn’t understand that there is only one set of order of operations rules 🙄
Other way around dude
It is when you can only store one thing on it! 😂 I’ll take that as an admission you were wrong all along then
Did you know Russian has no indefinite articles? They’re not implicit. They’re just not there. It’s why stereotypical moose-and-squirrel impressions say things like “have nice day.”
In exactly the same way, RPN doesn’t have implicit brackets, because it does not need brackets, period. It can equivalently express the operations of an algebraic equation which has brackets, but that doesn’t mean it has or uses or needs or implies those brackets. They’re just not there. Getting the right answer does not require secret translation to the one notation you understand.
How would you treat someone who insists brackets don’t exist, because they’re only implicitly representing a stack? Like, you can write (2+3)/2, but that’s only doing 2 2 3 + /. Obviously brackets aren’t real.
It does if you want to get the answer to (2+3)/2 and not 2+3/2
There you go. Glad you finally worked it out 😂
says person who just said it does 🙄
Just like the + is “not there” in 3-2 🙄
No, it requires obeying the rules 🙄
The answer to 2 2 3 + / does not involve brackets. Brackets aren’t real. Don’t you know all equations are secretly RPN, in the background? There’s only a stack, and the rules for a stack are that brackets do not work.
(2+3)/2
No they aren’t liar. They are broken down into binary trees. I teach Computer Science as well dude.
Here’s the binary tree for 2 2 3 + /
Here’s the binary tree for (2+3)/2
Oh look! it’s the exact same tree! Who woulda thought. Oh yeah, me - I’ve only been telling you that the whole damn time 😂
Yep, that’s where things in brackets get put alright - see binary tree above😂
Except I just proved they do 😂