Which is a single value stack, 🙄 but this calculator does indeed have a multivalue stack, so as to be able to do a+bxc, where it will put a+ on the stack (that’s two values, a and +), calculate bxc, then pop the stack and do the addition. If you instead want to do (a+b)xc, you have to press equals after a+b so that it will get evaluated before the Multiplication, because it doesn’t have Brackets keys 🙄
(a+b)c+(d+e)f “cannot be done as a simple calculation, it must be split into two parts.” Because there’s no stack
No, that’s because it doesn’t have any brackets keys 🙄 You can get away with one set of brackets as per the method shown, but you can’t do that with multiple brackets. You really have no idea how Maths or calculators work! 🤣🤣🤣
Here’s an online emulator for the Sinclair Cambridge, the upgraded scientific model
We’ve already established that’s a chain calculator Mr. needs remedial reading classes 🙄
Chain calculators are the subject - we are talking about chain calculators - they’re the ones with only an accumulator. Comfort yourself by insisting that’s a stack, if that gets your rocks off, but the topic is calculators where 2+3*4 gets 20.
Like it does on the Sinclair Executive, because that calculator is also a chain calculator.
But y’know what, let’s pretend it isn’t - let’s play make-believe and say the Sinclair Executive could totes mcgoats do (a+b)c+(d+e)f, despite the very fucking short manual explicitly saying the opposite. Do you understand there are calculators that can’t? When you sneer ‘those are chain calculators,’ do you actually believe chain calculators are a thing that exists, and not just an imaginary excuse to nuh-uh at a stranger on the internet?
You know some isn’t all, right? Thus you are admitting to proven wrong that all are like that 🤣🤣🤣
Where the fuck does the manual say 14?
On the calculator, when you, you know, type it in without the extra button press of the equals.
You’d tell me a goddamn abacus has brackets in secret
I’m telling you how all calculators work - you press the equals button, it evaluates everything you have typed in so far. Not my fault if you have no idea 🤣🤣🤣
Okay - but some. Yes? Some calculators do in fact do this. We are talking about those calculators. You understand the concept of chain calculators, when it suits you. You understand how they work, when it suits you.
On the calculator, when you, you know, type it in without the extra button press of the equals.
Which is a single value stack, 🙄 but this calculator does indeed have a multivalue stack, so as to be able to do a+bxc, where it will put a+ on the stack (that’s two values, a and +), calculate bxc, then pop the stack and do the addition. If you instead want to do (a+b)xc, you have to press equals after a+b so that it will get evaluated before the Multiplication, because it doesn’t have Brackets keys 🙄
No, that’s because it doesn’t have any brackets keys 🙄 You can get away with one set of brackets as per the method shown, but you can’t do that with multiple brackets. You really have no idea how Maths or calculators work! 🤣🤣🤣
We’ve already established that’s a chain calculator Mr. needs remedial reading classes 🙄
Chain calculators are the subject - we are talking about chain calculators - they’re the ones with only an accumulator. Comfort yourself by insisting that’s a stack, if that gets your rocks off, but the topic is calculators where 2+3*4 gets 20.
Like it does on the Sinclair Executive, because that calculator is also a chain calculator.
But y’know what, let’s pretend it isn’t - let’s play make-believe and say the Sinclair Executive could totes mcgoats do (a+b)c+(d+e)f, despite the very fucking short manual explicitly saying the opposite. Do you understand there are calculators that can’t? When you sneer ‘those are chain calculators,’ do you actually believe chain calculators are a thing that exists, and not just an imaginary excuse to nuh-uh at a stranger on the internet?
No they’re not…
And when that was proven wrong the goalposts got moved to chain calculators, because neither of you are man enough to admit you were wrong 🙄
You have been since you were proven wrong about all basic, non-scientific, non-graphing calculators 🙄
Which isn’t all basic, non-scientific, non-graphing calculators 🙄
No. the topic was…
which was proven wrong
It can’t, because no brackets keys, the calculator does have a stack, as per the manual in which (2+3)x4=20 and 2+3x4=14
Do you understand the claim was that none of them can?
It’s right there in the manual! 🤣🤣🤣
‘Not all basic non-scientific et cetera!’
Okay - but some. Yes? Some calculators are chain calculators.
Are you capable of discussing chain calculators, and comprehending that they have a different notation?
Where the fuck does the manual say 14?
You’d tell me a goddamn abacus has brackets in secret.
You know some isn’t all, right? Thus you are admitting to proven wrong that all are like that 🤣🤣🤣
On the calculator, when you, you know, type it in without the extra button press of the equals.
I’m telling you how all calculators work - you press the equals button, it evaluates everything you have typed in so far. Not my fault if you have no idea 🤣🤣🤣
Okay - but some. Yes? Some calculators do in fact do this. We are talking about those calculators. You understand the concept of chain calculators, when it suits you. You understand how they work, when it suits you.
Wrong.
Glad to see you finally admitted it. Thanks for playing. BTW do you need a gofundme page to buy yourself a calculator? 🤣🤣🤣
Can I get one that’s a chain calculator, where 2+4*3 is 18? Because the existence of such a mass-market device would prove you wrong.
I don’t know. can you? I don’t think you own any calculator at this point.
Head on down to your local retailer and let me know if you can find any of this “mass market device” 🤣🤣🤣
No, the existence of non chain calculators proves you wrong about all calculators doing that 🙄 I see logic isn’t your strong point, no surprise there