happened - past tense. Even you wrote that in different tenses 🤣🤣🤣 I’ll take that as another admission that you were wrong then
I assume you’d really agree that I am never wrong - right?
Every single post you make is wrong! You are continuously wrong all the time, and I’m guessing always have been wrong as well 🤣🤣🤣
it’s strange you didn’t take up my offer to show this calculator of yours
No it’s not. We’ve already settled that you claim was wrong and moved on, and I already said so at the time Mr. abysmal reading comprehension, and we know you hate long responses, so go back and read the short replies again 🤣🤣🤣
“a problem such as (a+b)c + (d+e)f cannot be done as a simple calculation, it must be split into two parts.”
that’s because it has no brackets keys dude. We’ve already been over it. You’re so wrong you’ve run out of arguments to make and you’re now trying to rehash other stuff
There is no reason that it would need to be split if the calculator had
brackets keys
You have no explanation for why this calculator could not perform this calculation without splitting it.
no brackets keys 🙄
Now, you’ve done a silly with the software calculators there,
says person deflecting from the fact that they’ve been proven wrong, again, and can’t man up and admit to having been wrong, again 🙄
we’re talking about order of operations,
which you were proven wrong about.
not how calculators render implicit multiplication
there’s no such thing as “implicit multiplication” is why we weren’t talking about it
you really ought to keep these things straight in your mind
says person trying to pretend they didn’t say “even though they (developers) can make scientific calculator modes work correctly!” - which I then proved wrong, so more deflection ensues
which they don’t make them work correctly
I’ll rephrase: you have no sane explanation for why scientific mode tends to obey a different order of operations than basic mode on software calculators
I see you didn’t even try any of them (nor even read my thread about them). Had you done so, you would’ve discovered that ones such as the Microsoft Maths Solver sometimes does, sometimes doesn’t, so where in your “sane” explanation can you account for the same calculator only sometimes obeying the rules. Spoiler alert: different programmers with different ideas of what the order of operations rules are, as I have been saying all along - you’re wrong again dude. 🤣🤣🤣 yet again charging into easily proven wrong statements, rather than checking facts first
I do, and it’s because they’re emulating basic, four-function calculators which had no stack
which you were proven wrong about by the manual you posted. So we’re all done then. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out
Not, according to you, contradicting my statement, so thanks for agreeing with me! I am never wrong! Yay!
No it’s not. We’ve already settled that you claim
You underlined some crap in the manuals that doesn’t mean what you said it meant. I mean really, “the fact they wrote you can rearrange calculations to make chains means it’s a super special niche type of calculator!!!” Pathetic.
Why’d you bring up your calculator if you don’t actually want to talk about it? More deflecting, eh? It’s a scientific calculator, isn’t it. I bet it is.
brackets keys
Are not necessary to evaluate such expressions. You can use a calculator that uses RPN. This was accomplished in early calculators such as HP’s line, but was not available on mass market models because… it requires a stack. To give you an idea of how expensive and bulky memory was at this time, those early stack-based calculators had just three stack levels and a handful of registers. Now do you get why pocket calculators had no stack?
If you believe that the Sinclair Executive had a stack, how did you use it? Go on, you’ve got the manual. It should be easy enough to work out. But until then, you have no explanation for why the calculator could not perform the expression without splitting it, since bracket keys are not necessary to do so.
You also have no explanation for why this - surely quite important - subtle distinction you assert, without evidence, exists in the use of the += button - is never discussed in the manual. You have no explanation, because there is none, because that’s not how the calculator works, and you just made it up. You’ve been called out on this in so many ways, and each time your attempts at deflection and dissembling get more and more pathetic.
You could get out of all this by just admitting that the Sinclair Executive had no stack and operates from left to right.
there’s no such thing as “implicit multiplication”
Sure there is. What you mean is, you prefer not to use the term “implicit multiplication”. I don’t give a toss about your juvenile preferences though; if you google the term, you can find the definition. You may not like it; you may want to call it something else, but you can just deal with it like a mathematician, because understanding definitions regardless of their names is part of the requirements. In your imaginary classroom you can make your poor students use whatever terminology you like, but I don’t believe you’re a teacher, and even if you were, I don’t have to pass your exam, so I, and the rest of the internet, can use the terminology we agree upon.
(Just as we can agree upon a different order of operations! Heh)
says person trying to pretend they didn’t say “even though they (developers) can make scientific calculator modes work correctly!”
for the sake of clarity, I’ll rephrase: you have no sane explanation for why scientific mode tends to obey a different order of operations than basic mode on software calculators
Read to the end of the comment before shooting off your comment, and you wouldn’t be such an embarrassment.
Had you done so, you would’ve discovered that ones such as the Microsoft Maths Solver sometimes does, sometimes doesn’t, so where in your “sane” explanation can you account for the same calculator only sometimes obeying the rules.
I have never used Microsoft Maths Solver but it bears no resemblance to a calculator so I don’t care.
You still haven’t come up with a good explanation for why in MS Calculator, typing 2 + 3 x 5 in standard mode gives 25, but in scientific mode gives 17.
And honestly, I think it’s disgusting that you never wash yourself.
I do, and it’s because they’re emulating basic, four-function calculators which had no stack
which you were proven wrong about by the manual you posted. So we’re all done then. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out
Do you not remember that there were two manuals? I reminded you in the last comment so uh, that’s concerning.
Do you not remember that you agreed that one (the Sinclair Cambridge) works purely left-to-right? You called it a “chain calculator” - a term that I believe you made up. But, you did admit that it works that way. You only quibbled about an almost identical calculator using an almost identical calculator IC because you think that pressing the += button conjures up RAM from the ether.
Either way, you have no explanation for why MS Calc behaves the same way as this “niche” “chain” calculator from the 70s, which mysteriously behaves exactly the same way as this free calculator I had in a drawer from the 2010s, behaves the same as every calculator we had in primary school, behaves the same as this no-name calculator you can buy for under £3, behaves the same as all the basic, four-function calculators on this archive. Try and find one that gives an example of typing in a + b x c and getting a+bc. You can’t.
And why were we talking about all this? Not just because you can’t agree to objective facts, or admit when you made a mistake in your writing! No, it was about order of operations. Because if people have been using these (“niche!!!1”) calculators for decades, if people have been using MS Calc for decades, and if those tools have been useful, then there can’t be any universal rule that you simply must evaluate mathematical expressions according to a particular order of operations. The only reason you must do so is to pass high school maths, or to communicate succinctly with people who are using the same order of operations.
Let’s play a game. In this game, I’m thinking of an expression, for example (2 + 3) x 5. I’m going to write the expression down but I’m going to omit the brackets if and only if the brackets instruct that the expression be evaluated left-to-right. OK? So in the example, I’d write down 2 + 3 x 5. If the expression were 2 + (3 x 5), though, I’d write down 2 + (3 x 5). The goal of the game is for you to put the brackets in, OK?
Here we go: can you work out where the brackets went in the expression 5 - 6 x 3?
You put the word “smart” in your name, so I’m hoping you’re smart enough to work it out!
After playing the game, as a reward, you can tell me the stack depth on the Sinclair Executive, since you still didn’t do that. You never answer questions :(
Which part of “every single post” do you have trouble comprehending? Honestly dude, need to go back to school and learn to read 🙄
You underlined some crap in the manuals that doesn’t mean what you said it meant
= doesn’t mean equals??? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Why’d you bring up your calculator if you don’t actually want to talk about it?
Which part of you’ve been proven wrong so there’s nothing further to discuss didn’t you understand? 🙄 See above about learning to read
Are not necessary to evaluate such expressions.
says person contradicting the manual which says you cannot do it 🤣🤣🤣🤣
but sure, go ahead and tell us how you can do a simple calculation that has multiple brackets, but without brackets, and without splitting it up, I’ll wait 🤣🤣🤣
You can use a calculator that uses RPN.
Yes, a calculator where the brackets are built-in, unlike this calculator 🙄
but was not available on mass market models because… it requires
Brackets
Now do you get why pocket calculators had no stack?
says person ignoring that we’ve already established that they did have a stack. Dude, you’re just going in circles.
you have no explanation for why the calculator could not perform the expression without splitting it, since bracket keys are not necessary to do so
says person who has yet to show how it can be done without brackets, since it can’t be done without brackets. 🙄 a(b+c)+d(e+f) is the example from the manual - go ahead and tell us how you can do it without brackets and without splitting it up.
exists in the use of the += button - is never discussed in the manual.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAAH! (deep breath) HAHAHAHAA! It’s right there in the examples! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
you just made it up
says person making up that the lack of brackets keys is somehow not the reason you can’t do expressions with multiple brackets in them, even though they can’t come up with a way to do so 🤣🤣🤣
you’ve been called out on
nothing. You still haven’t come up with a way to do an expression with multiple brackets on a calculator that has no brackets. How can I do a(b+c)+d(e+f) on a calculator with no brackets, and GO! 🤣🤣🤣
You could get out of all this by just admitting that the Sinclair Executive had no stack and operates from left to right.
the proof is right there in the example that it doesn’t 🙄 A fact which you still haven’t admitted to
Sure there is.
says person unable to produce any Maths textbook that it’s in, because there isn’t any such thing
What you mean is, you prefer not to use the term “implicit multiplication”
No, I mean there is literally no such thing, hence why it’s not in any Maths textbooks
if you google the term, you can find the definition
If you Google unicorns and fairies you can find them as well, but you won’t find them in any Science textbooks either.
like a mathematician
exactly what I did, unless you think there are Mathematicians who would entertain discussion about fairies being real beyond “there’s no such thing”?
In your imaginary classroom you can make your poor students use whatever terminology you like
We don’t use terminology with things we don’t teach them. Do you think some teachers teach their students about unicorns and fairies being real?
I, and the rest of the internet, can use the terminology we agree upon.
Yes, delusional people can agree upon their delusions, no disagreement from me there! 🤣🤣🤣
Read to the end of the comment before shooting off your comment, and you wouldn’t be such an embarrassment.
No embarrassment from me - I’ve proven everything in the comment wrong.
they don’t emulate scientific calculators
they don’t emulate basic four-function calculators
In both cases they just give wrong answers
I have never used Microsoft Maths Solver but it bears no resemblance to a calculator so I don’t care
I’ll take that as an admission of being wrong - all software calculators (MathSolver wasn’t the only one I discussed, which you would’ve known had you bothered reading it), somehow bear no resemblance to actual calculators, got it. Been telling you that all along BTW 🤣🤣🤣
You still haven’t come up with a good explanation
which part didn’t you understand in different programmers work on different parts?
And honestly, I think it’s disgusting that you never wash yourself.
No idea what you’re talking about, must be another case of Projection.
Do you not remember that there were two manuals?
Which part did you not understand in the second one was a chain calculator? You’re going round in circles again
Either way, you have no explanation
I already explained dude. Saying I didn’t doesn’t magically make it disappear.
Try and find one that gives an example of typing in a + b x c and getting a+bc. You can’t.
Umm, the first one does, as I already pointed out 🤣🤣🤣 Guess what happens you you omit the circled keypress…
if people have been using these (“niche!!!1”) calculators for decades
Go ahead and see if you can find any engineers using them. I’ll wait
The only reason you must do so is to pass high school maths
and for planes to not fall out of the sky
The goal of the game is for you to put the brackets in, OK?
says person proving how often they make wrong assumptions. 🤣🤣🤣🤣 You could’ve just asked me about it, but no, you literally never check facts first, just launch into provably wrong made up statements 🤣🤣🤣
so I’m hoping you’re smart enough to work it out!
Person it refers to agrees with me - who woulda thought?? 🤣🤣🤣
You said every single post is wrong - present tense. So you only referred to posts I was writing at that moment, which wasn’t any. Weird of you, but thanks for agreeing I’m never wrong!
= Doesn’t mean equals
There is no “=” button on the Sinclair Executive, and you aren’t saying the += button means “equals”, you’re saying it omits the manipulation of the (non existent) stack. So your fake cackling makes no sense.
Which part of you’ve been proven wrong so there’s nothing further to discuss didn’t you understand?
The part where you haven’t proven anything, of course. If you’d proven your assertion about the Sinclair Executive you would have:
An example in the manual of it obeying order of operations in violation of right to left execution; or
The specifications saying how much stack memory it had; or
A video of someone using it to show it using order of operations in violation of right to left execution; or
An emulator where you can see the same.
You have none of that. Instead you have an example in the manual where the calculator executes strictly left to right, but you have said, without evidence, that a button on the calculator is preventing us from seeing its normal behaviour. And you call this “proof”! That’s the standard of proof I’d expect from a washed up maths teacher I suppose.
But it doesn’t end there, because you accept that the Sinclair Cambridge only executed left to right. So no, you haven’t proven anything.
says person contradicting the manual which says you cannot do it 🤣🤣🤣🤣
You can’t evaluate that expression without splitting it up? I can. Just fuckin’ evaluate it normally! That sentence is talking about the calculator’s capability, my unskilled friend, and if your mathematical ability is only as good as a calculator from the 70s it does explain things.
Yes, a calculator where the brackets are built-in, unlike this calculator 🙄
“The brackets are built in” is a nonsense statement concocted by a moron. Find a citation for it. Brackets are notation; RPN doesn’t use them.
What you’ve said by implication is that a calculator doesn’t need buttons for brackets in order to calculate a complex expression.
So, we understand it’s not a lack of brackets buttons holding back the Sinclair Cambridge (and Executive). What is holding them back then, is lack of a stack. If you mean something else than brackets buttons, explain what. Bet you’ll deflect.
says person ignoring that we’ve already established that they did have a stack.
If you’ve established it, you’d have evidence in the form of one of the four bullet points above. You don’t; you only have an example which doesn’t show use of a stack.
a(b+c)+d(e+f) is the example from the manual - go ahead and tell us how you can do it without brackets and without splitting it up.
I’d write it out in rpn but am waiting for you to agree that a notation which doesn’t use brackets… does not use brackets. I mean if by “it needs brackets” you mean “does not need any brackets” then sure, it’s only as dumb as your other ideas about English.
It’s right there in the examples!
You’re saying that example tells you what would happen when the += key was not pressed a second time? Do explain how an example tells you what happens in a situation other than the one in the example.
the proof is right there in the example that it doesn’t 🙄 A fact which you still haven’t admitted to
Nope, still not a proof of anything except that, in that example, the calculator executes from left to right. If you want to prove it could do something else, you have to actually do that. I’m waiting!
We don’t use terminology with things we don’t teach them
You don’t teach them that ab means a×b? Good grief, it’s worse than I thought.
“That’s pro–” oh do be quiet, I just told you I don’t care what you call it, and you told me it doesn’t exist and you don’t teach it to kids. You did not say “we teach this concept, but with a different name”. All evidence suggests you aren’t actually capable of understanding the difference between a concept and the name for that concept. Probably why you think English present tense cannot be used to talk about any time except the present moment.
they don’t emulate basic four-function calculators
Then find a basic calculator and take a video of it behaving differently, or find a manual with an example of it behaving differently.
I just realised, your issue with MS Calc in standard mode makes no sense - if you press 2+3+×5, it behaves exactly as the example in the Sinclair Executive manual. So I’m pretty sure according to you that proves that it obeys the order of operations, right?
No idea what you’re talking about
I washed myself recently, but you never wash yourself, do you?
Guess what happens you you omit the circled keypress…
Well, it would be a guess, wouldn’t it. That’s all you have, a guess. Because it’s not anywhere else in the manual so you’re just making up what you want to happen. But because the spec sheet for the calculator says it has no stack, we actually do not need to guess.
Do you understand yet what evidence means? It’s what I have, and you don’t because you’re forced to guess.
Which part did you not understand in the second one was a chain calculator
It’s an immediate execution calculator, just like ms calc in standard mode. So why does ms calc work in the exact same way as an immediate execution calculator?
Different programmers
And one project manager overseeing the behaviour, yes.
happens - present tense
happened - past tense. Even you wrote that in different tenses 🤣🤣🤣 I’ll take that as another admission that you were wrong then
Every single post you make is wrong! You are continuously wrong all the time, and I’m guessing always have been wrong as well 🤣🤣🤣
No it’s not. We’ve already settled that you claim was wrong and moved on, and I already said so at the time Mr. abysmal reading comprehension, and we know you hate long responses, so go back and read the short replies again 🤣🤣🤣
that’s because it has no brackets keys dude. We’ve already been over it. You’re so wrong you’ve run out of arguments to make and you’re now trying to rehash other stuff
brackets keys
no brackets keys 🙄
says person deflecting from the fact that they’ve been proven wrong, again, and can’t man up and admit to having been wrong, again 🙄
which you were proven wrong about.
there’s no such thing as “implicit multiplication” is why we weren’t talking about it
says person trying to pretend they didn’t say “even though they (developers) can make scientific calculator modes work correctly!” - which I then proved wrong, so more deflection ensues
which they don’t make them work correctly
I see you didn’t even try any of them (nor even read my thread about them). Had you done so, you would’ve discovered that ones such as the Microsoft Maths Solver sometimes does, sometimes doesn’t, so where in your “sane” explanation can you account for the same calculator only sometimes obeying the rules. Spoiler alert: different programmers with different ideas of what the order of operations rules are, as I have been saying all along - you’re wrong again dude. 🤣🤣🤣 yet again charging into easily proven wrong statements, rather than checking facts first
which you were proven wrong about by the manual you posted. So we’re all done then. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out
Not, according to you, contradicting my statement, so thanks for agreeing with me! I am never wrong! Yay!
You underlined some crap in the manuals that doesn’t mean what you said it meant. I mean really, “the fact they wrote you can rearrange calculations to make chains means it’s a super special niche type of calculator!!!” Pathetic.
Why’d you bring up your calculator if you don’t actually want to talk about it? More deflecting, eh? It’s a scientific calculator, isn’t it. I bet it is.
Are not necessary to evaluate such expressions. You can use a calculator that uses RPN. This was accomplished in early calculators such as HP’s line, but was not available on mass market models because… it requires a stack. To give you an idea of how expensive and bulky memory was at this time, those early stack-based calculators had just three stack levels and a handful of registers. Now do you get why pocket calculators had no stack?
If you believe that the Sinclair Executive had a stack, how did you use it? Go on, you’ve got the manual. It should be easy enough to work out. But until then, you have no explanation for why the calculator could not perform the expression without splitting it, since bracket keys are not necessary to do so.
You also have no explanation for why this - surely quite important - subtle distinction you assert, without evidence, exists in the use of the += button - is never discussed in the manual. You have no explanation, because there is none, because that’s not how the calculator works, and you just made it up. You’ve been called out on this in so many ways, and each time your attempts at deflection and dissembling get more and more pathetic.
You could get out of all this by just admitting that the Sinclair Executive had no stack and operates from left to right.
Sure there is. What you mean is, you prefer not to use the term “implicit multiplication”. I don’t give a toss about your juvenile preferences though; if you google the term, you can find the definition. You may not like it; you may want to call it something else, but you can just deal with it like a mathematician, because understanding definitions regardless of their names is part of the requirements. In your imaginary classroom you can make your poor students use whatever terminology you like, but I don’t believe you’re a teacher, and even if you were, I don’t have to pass your exam, so I, and the rest of the internet, can use the terminology we agree upon.
(Just as we can agree upon a different order of operations! Heh)
Read to the end of the comment before shooting off your comment, and you wouldn’t be such an embarrassment.
I have never used Microsoft Maths Solver but it bears no resemblance to a calculator so I don’t care.
You still haven’t come up with a good explanation for why in MS Calculator, typing 2 + 3 x 5 in standard mode gives 25, but in scientific mode gives 17.
And honestly, I think it’s disgusting that you never wash yourself.
Do you not remember that there were two manuals? I reminded you in the last comment so uh, that’s concerning.
Do you not remember that you agreed that one (the Sinclair Cambridge) works purely left-to-right? You called it a “chain calculator” - a term that I believe you made up. But, you did admit that it works that way. You only quibbled about an almost identical calculator using an almost identical calculator IC because you think that pressing the += button conjures up RAM from the ether.
Either way, you have no explanation for why MS Calc behaves the same way as this “niche” “chain” calculator from the 70s, which mysteriously behaves exactly the same way as this free calculator I had in a drawer from the 2010s, behaves the same as every calculator we had in primary school, behaves the same as this no-name calculator you can buy for under £3, behaves the same as all the basic, four-function calculators on this archive. Try and find one that gives an example of typing in a + b x c and getting a+bc. You can’t.
And why were we talking about all this? Not just because you can’t agree to objective facts, or admit when you made a mistake in your writing! No, it was about order of operations. Because if people have been using these (“niche!!!1”) calculators for decades, if people have been using MS Calc for decades, and if those tools have been useful, then there can’t be any universal rule that you simply must evaluate mathematical expressions according to a particular order of operations. The only reason you must do so is to pass high school maths, or to communicate succinctly with people who are using the same order of operations.
Let’s play a game. In this game, I’m thinking of an expression, for example (2 + 3) x 5. I’m going to write the expression down but I’m going to omit the brackets if and only if the brackets instruct that the expression be evaluated left-to-right. OK? So in the example, I’d write down 2 + 3 x 5. If the expression were 2 + (3 x 5), though, I’d write down 2 + (3 x 5). The goal of the game is for you to put the brackets in, OK?
Here we go: can you work out where the brackets went in the expression 5 - 6 x 3?
You put the word “smart” in your name, so I’m hoping you’re smart enough to work it out!
After playing the game, as a reward, you can tell me the stack depth on the Sinclair Executive, since you still didn’t do that. You never answer questions :(
Which part of “every single post” do you have trouble comprehending? Honestly dude, need to go back to school and learn to read 🙄
= doesn’t mean equals??? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Which part of you’ve been proven wrong so there’s nothing further to discuss didn’t you understand? 🙄 See above about learning to read
says person contradicting the manual which says you cannot do it 🤣🤣🤣🤣
but sure, go ahead and tell us how you can do a simple calculation that has multiple brackets, but without brackets, and without splitting it up, I’ll wait 🤣🤣🤣
Yes, a calculator where the brackets are built-in, unlike this calculator 🙄
Brackets
says person ignoring that we’ve already established that they did have a stack. Dude, you’re just going in circles.
says person who has yet to show how it can be done without brackets, since it can’t be done without brackets. 🙄 a(b+c)+d(e+f) is the example from the manual - go ahead and tell us how you can do it without brackets and without splitting it up.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAAH! (deep breath) HAHAHAHAA! It’s right there in the examples! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
says person making up that the lack of brackets keys is somehow not the reason you can’t do expressions with multiple brackets in them, even though they can’t come up with a way to do so 🤣🤣🤣
nothing. You still haven’t come up with a way to do an expression with multiple brackets on a calculator that has no brackets. How can I do a(b+c)+d(e+f) on a calculator with no brackets, and GO! 🤣🤣🤣
the proof is right there in the example that it doesn’t 🙄 A fact which you still haven’t admitted to
says person unable to produce any Maths textbook that it’s in, because there isn’t any such thing
No, I mean there is literally no such thing, hence why it’s not in any Maths textbooks
If you Google unicorns and fairies you can find them as well, but you won’t find them in any Science textbooks either.
exactly what I did, unless you think there are Mathematicians who would entertain discussion about fairies being real beyond “there’s no such thing”?
We don’t use terminology with things we don’t teach them. Do you think some teachers teach their students about unicorns and fairies being real?
Yes, delusional people can agree upon their delusions, no disagreement from me there! 🤣🤣🤣
No embarrassment from me - I’ve proven everything in the comment wrong.
they don’t emulate scientific calculators
they don’t emulate basic four-function calculators
In both cases they just give wrong answers
I’ll take that as an admission of being wrong - all software calculators (MathSolver wasn’t the only one I discussed, which you would’ve known had you bothered reading it), somehow bear no resemblance to actual calculators, got it. Been telling you that all along BTW 🤣🤣🤣
which part didn’t you understand in different programmers work on different parts?
No idea what you’re talking about, must be another case of Projection.
Which part did you not understand in the second one was a chain calculator? You’re going round in circles again
I already explained dude. Saying I didn’t doesn’t magically make it disappear.
Umm, the first one does, as I already pointed out 🤣🤣🤣 Guess what happens you you omit the circled keypress…
Go ahead and see if you can find any engineers using them. I’ll wait
and for planes to not fall out of the sky
You know the order of operations rules predate use of Brackets in Maths by many centuries, right? How do you think they knew what to do, without brackets? I’ll wait 🤣🤣🤣
says person proving how often they make wrong assumptions. 🤣🤣🤣🤣 You could’ve just asked me about it, but no, you literally never check facts first, just launch into provably wrong made up statements 🤣🤣🤣
Person it refers to agrees with me - who woulda thought?? 🤣🤣🤣
You said every single post is wrong - present tense. So you only referred to posts I was writing at that moment, which wasn’t any. Weird of you, but thanks for agreeing I’m never wrong!
There is no “=” button on the Sinclair Executive, and you aren’t saying the += button means “equals”, you’re saying it omits the manipulation of the (non existent) stack. So your fake cackling makes no sense.
The part where you haven’t proven anything, of course. If you’d proven your assertion about the Sinclair Executive you would have:
You have none of that. Instead you have an example in the manual where the calculator executes strictly left to right, but you have said, without evidence, that a button on the calculator is preventing us from seeing its normal behaviour. And you call this “proof”! That’s the standard of proof I’d expect from a washed up maths teacher I suppose.
But it doesn’t end there, because you accept that the Sinclair Cambridge only executed left to right. So no, you haven’t proven anything.
You can’t evaluate that expression without splitting it up? I can. Just fuckin’ evaluate it normally! That sentence is talking about the calculator’s capability, my unskilled friend, and if your mathematical ability is only as good as a calculator from the 70s it does explain things.
“The brackets are built in” is a nonsense statement concocted by a moron. Find a citation for it. Brackets are notation; RPN doesn’t use them.
What you’ve said by implication is that a calculator doesn’t need buttons for brackets in order to calculate a complex expression.
So, we understand it’s not a lack of brackets buttons holding back the Sinclair Cambridge (and Executive). What is holding them back then, is lack of a stack. If you mean something else than brackets buttons, explain what. Bet you’ll deflect.
If you’ve established it, you’d have evidence in the form of one of the four bullet points above. You don’t; you only have an example which doesn’t show use of a stack.
I’d write it out in rpn but am waiting for you to agree that a notation which doesn’t use brackets… does not use brackets. I mean if by “it needs brackets” you mean “does not need any brackets” then sure, it’s only as dumb as your other ideas about English.
You’re saying that example tells you what would happen when the += key was not pressed a second time? Do explain how an example tells you what happens in a situation other than the one in the example.
Nope, still not a proof of anything except that, in that example, the calculator executes from left to right. If you want to prove it could do something else, you have to actually do that. I’m waiting!
You don’t teach them that ab means a×b? Good grief, it’s worse than I thought.
“That’s pro–” oh do be quiet, I just told you I don’t care what you call it, and you told me it doesn’t exist and you don’t teach it to kids. You did not say “we teach this concept, but with a different name”. All evidence suggests you aren’t actually capable of understanding the difference between a concept and the name for that concept. Probably why you think English present tense cannot be used to talk about any time except the present moment.
Then find a basic calculator and take a video of it behaving differently, or find a manual with an example of it behaving differently.
I just realised, your issue with MS Calc in standard mode makes no sense - if you press 2+3+×5, it behaves exactly as the example in the Sinclair Executive manual. So I’m pretty sure according to you that proves that it obeys the order of operations, right?
I washed myself recently, but you never wash yourself, do you?
Well, it would be a guess, wouldn’t it. That’s all you have, a guess. Because it’s not anywhere else in the manual so you’re just making up what you want to happen. But because the spec sheet for the calculator says it has no stack, we actually do not need to guess.
Do you understand yet what evidence means? It’s what I have, and you don’t because you’re forced to guess.
It’s an immediate execution calculator, just like ms calc in standard mode. So why does ms calc work in the exact same way as an immediate execution calculator?
And one project manager overseeing the behaviour, yes.
I know you haven’t worked out where the brackets go! Go on, try again, you’re very very very smart I’m sure you can do it!
Check.
Any operation will show the accumulator… because there’s no stack.
It’s what you’ve been harassing people over for years.
Multiple internally-consistent systems work just fine, proving they’re not the part of math that’s universal.
says person proving he didn’t try it 🤣🤣🤣 I’ll take that as an admission of being wrong then
‘It MUST be done one way!’ Plainly not, if programmers keep doing it differently. It’s still math.