memes

parent

Sharp calculator obeying The Distributive Law

[–] SmartmanApps@programming.dev 0 points 6 months ago* (1 child)

Because every single textbook you’ve cited, I absolutely guarantee it… was written in the past!

But being used in schools right now, and you're desperately trying to twist my words around to mean something else because you can't find any textbooks which say juxtaposition, except for one from 1912 🤣🤣🤣

How shall we make sense of this conundrum?

You're the only one who has issues with understanding present and past tense dude, you're the only one trying to use a 1912 textbook in the argument.

“I never use drugs” doesn’t mean the same as “I am not using drugs at the moment”

Yes it does, because "I never use drugs" isn't the same as "I have never used drugs" 🙄

So yeah, you absolutely said the wrong thing

I absolutely didn't Mr. I can only find it in a 1912 textbook 🤣🤣🤣

your reason for using it is stupid.

says person trying to bring a 1912 textbook into the argument only to avoid admitting having been wrong 🙄

If you were any kind of reasonable person and not someone incapable of admitting the slightest mistake

So not like you, which I'm not 😂

you would have said, “oh, sorry, I meant that textbooks don’t use the word ‘juxtaposition’ any more”

It's already there in the use of the present tense

Mate, try and keep track. We’re talking about a specific calculator and its specific manual.

And it specifically says you are wrong 🙄

Your calculator is not relevant to that one.

So when you said all, you didn't really mean all, so an admission that you were wrong about "all". Got it. Thanks for playing. Glad we're done with the "basic" calculator topic then

“Says person lying” is your favourite

statement of fact

deflection

says person talking about calculators that don't have brackets because he's absolutely proven wrong about The Distributive Law, and is trying to deflect away from admitting being wrong about that 🙄

the calculators we all had in primary school, If you press the following sequence of buttons: 2 + 3 x 5 =, the answer it will give is

even though they can make scientific calculator modes work correctly!

Nope! They don't! With the exception of MathGPT, they all ignore The Distributive Law, you know, the actual original topic 🤣🤣🤣 The Windows calculator in Scientific mode says 8/2(1+3)=16, because, when you type it in, it changes it to 8/2x(1+3). It's hilarious how you just keep making easily proven wrong statements and bring more embarrassment upon yourself, instead of just, you know, checking facts first 🤣🤣🤣

Note that neither MathGPT, nor the Sharp calculator, forcibly add in a multiply sign where it doesn't belong. Welcome to dumb programmer who has forgotten how The Distributive Law works and didn't bother checking in a Maths textbook first.

yet there’s such a simple explanation! They’re emulating basic four-function calculators that have existed for decades

No they're not! Just like they're also not emulating Scientific calculators that have existed for decades! 🤣🤣🤣

parent

[–] FishFace@piefed.social 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 child)

The only reason we're still talking about the old textbook is because you said that something never happens which, in fact, has happened. I'm glad though that I can now honestly say "I never make mistakes" because all mistakes I've made are in the past, which we know such a present-tense sentence has no bearing on, because the present tense concerns only this current moment and no others!

I never make mistakes, I never eat or drink, I never breathe (holding my breath as I write, you see), I never move, but never stay still! Well you've opened up a whole new genre of nonsense poetry! I assume you'd really agree that I am never wrong - right?

Now, it's strange you didn't take up my offer to show this calculator of yours (that you were so proud of that you tried to insert it into a conversation about a different one) so come on, show me a picture of it! Or better yet, a video of you typing in 2+3×5=. I can hardly admit that I was wrong about my general statement about basic calculators if I can't even confirm that yours exists. My offer stands, even if you still want to insist that my freebie calculator is a "niche" one (what niche are you even saying the are used in? You never said. And have you given up on calling them "chain calculators"?)

Nothing to say about the nonexistent stack depth of the Sinclair Executive huh? Guess you finally checked out the spec sheet for its chip and found out how many bytes of memory it had. You get a hint of this in the manual, because it says (pg 6), "a problem such as (a+b)c + (d+e)f cannot be done as a simple calculation, it must be split into two parts." There is no reason that it would need to be split if the calculator had a stack, as it could store (a+b)c on the stack while the user entered (d+e)f. It can't though, because it doesn't have a stack. You have no explanation for why this calculator could not perform this calculation without splitting it.

Now, you've done a silly with the software calculators there, you see, we're talking about order of operations, not how calculators render implicit multiplication. We can get to your la-la beliefs on the latter at some point, but you really ought to keep these things straight in your mind.

But 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. I do, and it's because they're emulating basic, four-function calculators which had no stack.

parent

[–] SmartmanApps@programming.dev 1 point 6 months ago (1 child)

you said that something never happens

happens - present tense

which, in fact, has happened

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

parent

[–] FishFace@piefed.social 0 points 6 months ago (1 child)

Every single post you make is wrong!

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 :(

parent

[–] SmartmanApps@programming.dev 1 point 6 months ago* (1 child)

Not, according to you

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?

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 🤣🤣🤣

You put the word “smart” in your name,

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?? 🤣🤣🤣

parent

[–] FishFace@piefed.social 0 points 6 months ago (1 child)

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.

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 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!

parent

[–] SmartmanApps@programming.dev 1 point 6 months ago (2 children)

You said every single post is wrong - present tense

Nope! I covered the past as well Mr. Abysmal Reading Comprehension

There is no “=” button on the Sinclair Executive, and you aren’t saying the +=

and what's that second symbol in +=?? 😂

you aren’t saying the += button means “equals”,

Yes I am! 😂 I told you exactly when it's interpreted as a plus, and exactly when it is interpreted as an equals 🙄

you’re saying it omits the manipulation of the (non existent) stack

No, I'm saying omitting that keypress will evaluate a+bxc, instead of (a+b)xc, because it does have a stack. It's not complicated. All my calculators work the same way, even the one I have that doesn't have brackets keys (though according to you it doesn't have a stack if it doesn't have brackets keys 😂 )

The part where you haven’t proven anything, of course

Well, that part never happened, so...😂

An example in the manual of it obeying order of operations in violation of right to left execution

says person proving they didn't read it! 😂 Go ahead and type in a+=bxc+=, I'll wait.

Also...

Oh look. it remembers the division whilst we enter other things! I wonder how it does that?? 🤣🤣🤣 And look, it remembers four numbers, not, you know limited to three numbers like you insisted was it's limit! 🤣🤣🤣

Also, (a+b)/(c+d) has three operands, and somehow it manages to remember all of them. I wonder how it does that, considering you said it could only take one operand! 🤣🤣🤣

The specifications saying how much stack memory it had

You know the stack isn't hardware, right? Go ahead and find any calculator manual which specifies how big the stack is. I'll wait 😂

A video of someone using it to show it using order of operations in violation of right to left execution

says person who hasn't provided a video of anyone entering 2+=3x4+= and it going "left to right". Also, you have failed to explain how it is possible to do a(b+c)+d(e+f) without brackets and without splitting it up

An emulator where you can see the same

You're arguing about calculators that precede the internet, and you're expecting an emulator to exist for it?! 🤣🤣🤣 But sure, go ahead and find an emulator for you calculator, type in 2+=3x4+=, and tell me what you get. I'll wait 🤣🤣🤣

You have none of that.

says person who has none of anything 🤣🤣🤣

Instead you have an example in the manual where the calculator executes strictly left to right,

No it doesn't! 🤣🤣🤣

but you have said, without evidence

says person, who said without evidence that it goes strictly left to right

that a button on the calculator is preventing us from seeing its normal behaviour

No idea what you're talking about. It explicitly shows you how it works 🙄

You can’t evaluate that expression without splitting it up? I can.

and yet, you have still failed to explain how 🙄

Just fuckin’ evaluate it normally!

Normally is a(b+c)+d(e+f)=, but sure, go ahead and explain to us how you can evaluate that "normally" without brackets and without splitting it up. I'll wait, again 🤣🤣🤣

That sentence is talking about the calculator’s capability

which is limited because no brackets keys.

my unskilled friend

says person who claims you can do a(b+c)+d(e+f)= without brackets and without splitting it up, but sure, go ahead, and tell us how we can do that oh master genius of the universe - we're all waiting for your almighty instruction! 🤣🤣🤣

Brackets are notation; RPN doesn’t use them

and so is the missing + in 2+3, and yet we know it's there, which you have acknowledged you saw in the textbook 🤣🤣🤣

What you’ve said by implication is that a calculator doesn’t need buttons for brackets in order to calculate a complex expression

Nope, I've explicitly said they are required, for complex equations, as per the manual telling you that you can't do it, unless you split it up, liar

So, we understand it’s not a lack of brackets buttons holding back the Sinclair Cambridge

says person who has still not said how to magically do it without brackets and without splitting it up. We are still awaiting your almighty instruction master genius 🤣🤣🤣

What is holding them back then, is lack of

Brackets

Bet you’ll deflect

says person still deflecting from how to magically do a(b+c)+d(e+f)= without brackets and without splitting it up

If you’ve established it, you’d have evidence in the form of one of the four bullet points above

Yep, point 1. I'll take that as an admission of being wrong, yet again 🤣🤣🤣

I’d write it out in rpn

Is it an RPN calculator? No it isn't Mr. deflection

You’re saying that example tells you what would happen when the += key was not pressed a second time?

Nope, it's right there in the manual that pressing it a second time puts it in brackets, and I've asked you, oh master genius of which we are not worthy, what answer it would give if we don't press it a second time. Not complicated, and yet you still avoid answering 🤣🤣🤣

Do explain how an example tells you what happens in a situation other than the one in the example

Yes, because I want you to explain it. I already know what answer it's going to give, and you do too, which is why you're avoiding answering 🤣🤣🤣

Nope, still not a proof of anything except that, in that example, the calculator executes from left to right.

No it doesn't! It puts (a+b) on the stack whilst we type out the rest of it, duuuhhh!! 🤣🤣🤣

You don’t teach them that ab means a×b?

NOW you're getting it! We teach them that ab=(axb), as I have been saying all along 🤣🤣🤣 You know, like in this textbook...

“That’s pro–” oh do be quiet

says person deflecting form the fact that Products and "implied multiplication" aren't the same thing, oh Mr. just Google it to see how it works 😂

I just told you I don’t care what you call it

says person who apparently doesn't care if I call a horse a unicorn, even though we know unicorns don't exist

and you told me it doesn’t exist

Yep, hence why you won't find it in any Maths textbooks 🙄

You did not say “we teach this concept, but with a different name”.

Correct. We don't teach them about the mythical "implied multiplication" that gets mentioned by people who got the wrong answer 😂

All evidence suggests you aren’t actually capable of understanding the difference between a concept and the name for that concept.

says person that evidence suggests can't tell the difference between a horse and a unicorn, nor the difference between 1 and 16 😂

find a manual with an example of it behaving differently

You already provided one! 🤣🤣🤣

if you press 2+3+×5, it behaves exactly as the example in the Sinclair Executive manual

Yep! Which is (2+3)x5, and not 2+3x5. 🙄 The manual even explicitly tells you that is how to do an expression with one set of brackets, and yet the Windows calculator returns that answer when you enter an expression without brackets. 🙄 It's hilarious that now you're even proving yourself wrong 🤣🤣🤣

So I’m pretty sure according to you that proves that it obeys the order of operations, right?

Nope! 2+3x4=14, not 20 🤣🤣🤣 (2+3)x4=20, which is the answer the Windows calculator gives when you type in 2+3x4.

I washed myself recently

says proven liar - I knew that was Projection on your part🤣🤣🤣

Well, it would be a guess

Hence proof that you don't understand Maths nor calculators 🙄

That’s all you have, a guess

Nope. I have a calculator which behaves the exact same way 🙄

So why does ms calc work in the exact same way as an immediate execution calculator?

you know they have Standard in the name, and that's definitely not Standard, right?? 😂

it’s not anywhere else in the manual

It's right there in the manual that you have to do that second press to put it in brackets 🙄

And one project manager overseeing the behaviour, yes.

and yet, all different parts behaving in different ways. Sounds like the Project Manager needs to get sacked! 😂

I know you haven’t worked out where the brackets go!

says person who hasn't read the book, and thus, apparently, doesn't know how they did it before we started using brackets 🤣🤣🤣

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] FishFace@piefed.social 1 point 6 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Nope! I covered the past as well Mr. Abysmal Reading Comprehension

"You are continuously wrong all the time" is in the present tense which, by your logic, only covers the present moment. "All the time" can no more change that than "never" can change that.

The second clause is only a guess from you, so I don't really care about it.

There is no “=” button on the Sinclair Executive, and you aren’t saying the += means equals

Yes I am!

It can't mean equals if part of its function is addition. "Add, and update the display with the current accumulated value" (which is what the button actually does) does not mean "update the display with the current accumulated value". That is only part of its meaning; saying that something means only part of its meaning is simply not correct.

I’m saying omitting that keypress will evaluate a+bxc, instead of (a+b)xc.

I know you are. And that claim is not supported by the manual. That sequence of keypresses is not there.

All my calculators work the same way, even the one I have that doesn’t have brackets keys (though according to you it doesn’t have a stack if it doesn’t have brackets keys 😂 )

Still waiting for that video!

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

Go ahead and type in a+=bxc+=, I’ll wait.

This was not an example in the manual of it obeying order of operations in violation of right to left execution, so you have failed to provide that evidence.

The specifications saying how much stack memory it had; or

You know the stack isn’t hardware, right? Go ahead and find any calculator manual which specifies how big the stack is.

A stack requires hardware to operate; it requires memory. In early calculators, the stack was, in fact, a dedicated area of memory, because the amounts of memory we are talking about are so small that there was no way to dynamically assign memory to different functions.

You would not necessarily find the stack size in the manual, but you would expect to find it in the technical specifications. As an example of the kind of evidence you're looking for this guide to using the HP-41 specifically mentions its 5-level stack. Note that this calculator was introduced in 1979, 7 years after the Sinclair Executive, and had 64 memory registers (in the original model; this could be expanded).

So, off you go.

A video of someone using it to show it using order of operations in violation of right to left execution; or

You just tried to deflect this. I'm quite happy to post a video showing how my free calculator works, but you indicated you would dismiss it as a "chain calculator". If you give any indication that you're not going to dismiss it, I'll happily provide one. For now, we are talking about the evidence you could provide.

An emulator where you can see the same.

You’re arguing about calculators that precede the internet, and you’re expecting an emulator to exist for it

Weird thing to be skeptical of. Here's a link to an emulator for the Sinclair Cambridge

Note that you can type in the exact same sequence of keys we're talking about on this calculator: 2 + 3 × 5 =, and it will produce 25.

That is four different ways you could have demonstrated that this calculator has the capability to operate other than in immediate execution mode, and your responses were:

deflect
deflect, and an incorrect assertion about how early stacks worked
deflect
deflect, and an incorrect preconception about the emulation of early calculators.

Instead you have an example in the manual where the calculator executes strictly left to right,

No it doesn't!

I'll explain this once more. In the manual, the calculation we are discussing is rendered as 2.6 + 5 + x 9.1. We can tell the calculator executes this left-to-right because it gets the answer 69.16 and not 48.1. You are saying that, if a different sequence of keys had been pressed, then the calculator would do something produce 48.1 You have no evidence for that claim, because that sequence of keys is not in the manual, and nor is that result. I have evidence that it cannot happen, because it is impossible with the calculator's hardware.

Oh look. it remembers the division whilst we enter other things!

Yes, the calculator has an operator register. Explain what I have said that you think this contradicts, and why. Note that it cannot remember more operators.

And look, it remembers four numbers. Also, (a+b)/(c+d) has three operands, and somehow it manages to remember all of them

No, it can't. You enter four numbers, but it only remembers three (the one you're currently entering, the accumulated total, and one manually stored number). You can see how it works from the diagram: at each step, the next number is calculated from those three values.

(a+b)/(c+d) has four operands (did you get operand confused with operator?).

It doesn't need to remember them all for the same reason that when you add up 4 + 6 + 23 + 21 + 5 + 8 + 1 you only need to remember the running total ("the accumulator"), not all 7 operands in the sum.

Normally is a(b+c)+d(e+f)=, but sure, go ahead and explain to us how you can evaluate that “normally” without brackets and without splitting it up.

That's not an evaluation, that's an expression with an equals sign at the end, which doesn't make any sense. The original expression has brackets, so I'm not sure what you mean by "without brackets" unless you want me to rewrite it in a notation that doesn't use brackets. I just meant I'd first add b to c, then add e to f, then multiply those two values by their respective coefficients. No splitting needed.

Brackets are notation; RPN doesn’t use them

and so is the missing + in 2+3, and yet we know it’s there, which you have acknowledged you saw in the textbook 🤣🤣🤣

If we were talking about whether you need a plus-sign before a number to express that it is positive, the expression 2+3 and its evaluation to 5 would be sufficient evidence that you do not. Likewise, when we are discussing whether you need brackets to express that addition is to be performed before multiplication, the expression 2 3 + 5 x in RPN and its evaluation to 25 is sufficient to show that no brackets are needed. There are no brackets in the RPN expression 2 3 + 5 x, and its correct value is 25.

Nope, I’ve explicitly said they are required

You've said that the brackets can be "built-in" meaning, according to you, that there are no buttons for them. Look man, either the brackets buttons are required for evaluating complex expressions, or they aren't. Make your mind up, then we can talk about this some more.

Bet you’ll deflect

says person

You know, every time you say "says person", it actually is a deflection. So thanks for proving that one.

Just to recall: I asked, "if you mean something else than brackets buttons, explain what" and you did not do that. Indeed, you didn't even quote that sentence in your reply where you seem to delight in quoting every single clause on its own. Interesting!

a problem such as (a+b)c + (d+e)f cannot be done as a simple calculation

that’s because it has no brackets keys dude

I’d write it out in rpn

Is it an RPN calculator?

No, it's not, but you didn't ask how I'd calculate it on this specific calculator, which I have always agreed can't do it. Rather, you just asked how I'd calculate it without splitting it up, and without using brackets keys. I'd write it out in RPN, which does not require brackets keys, and does not need to split it up.

This was your point that you raised, genius, and you forgot what it was about. Embarrassing.

You’re saying that example tells you what would happen when the += key was not pressed a second time?

Nope

Finally!

No it doesn’t! It puts (a+b) on the stack

You really need to get better at explicitly distinguishing between strings of symbols and their numeric counterparts. What it does is it puts the result of adding b to a into the accumulator.

So I’m pretty sure according to you that proves that it obeys the order of operations, right?

Nope

But you insist that the Sinclair Executive obeys the order of operations. And MS Calc behaves the same as the Sinclair Executive. They behave exactly the same - if they don't, find an example of the Sinclair Executive behaving differently. If they do, what's your problem with MS Calc? It's behaving the same as a physical calculator.

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.

Nope. I have a calculator which behaves the exact same way

Try to keep up. We're talking about the Sinclair Executive. Is your calculator one of those? No?! So indeed, you're guessing about how the Sinclair Executive works without that keypress.

So why does ms calc work in the exact same way as an immediate execution calculator?

[not an answer to the question]

I'm just going to replace your deflections with some text like that, to show where you've failed to answer.

It’s right there in the manual that you have to do that second press to put it in brackets

And yet the manual does not say "you have to do that second press to put it in brackets" and there is no example without that second press to compare to soooooo... you're guessing.

and yet, all different parts behaving in different ways.

Uh huh! Keep going!

I know you haven’t worked out where the brackets go!

[not working out where the brackets go]

Thanks for not playing!

We teach them that ab=(axb)

So, you do teach them the concept of implicit multiplication. You just don't use the same words. Cool! Thank fuck for that!

parent

[–] FishFace@piefed.social 1 point 6 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child)

P.S. I have no idea why you're so skeptical that the Sinclair Executive can execute other than left-to-right, to the point of reading an example where the operations are executed left-to-right as evidence that it can execute in another order. But if you really cannot accept, due to some weird glitch in your programming or whatever, what about:

The Monroe 20. The example is typed in as 1 + 2 × 4 - 5 ÷ 6 = and the result is given as 1.16 (repeating). That has been executed left-to-right; the result would be 8.16 (repeating) if executed with the usual operator precedence.
The Montgomery Ward P300. An example is typed in as 8.3 + 2 ÷ 4 - 6.8 =, with the result given being -4.225. That has been executed left-to-right; the result would be 2 if executed with the usual operator precedence.
The Omron 88. An example is typed in as 98 + 76 - 54 × 32 ÷ 10 =, with the result being given as 384. That has been executed left-to-right; the result would be 1.2 if executed with the usual operator precedence.

And to round it all out here is an issue of Electronic Design with an article (read p41, "Which Arithmetic") that explicitly says that, in 1978, "all scientific calculators" except those of TI and HP used immediate execution. I dunno how many sources for this you need; I'm guessing you'll find some way of deciding that when a magazine says "all scientific calculators except TI and HP" it means something completely different.

I mean, it's just like I said: the basic, four-function calculators are all like this. Scientific Calculators used to all be like this, until technical developments were made that allowed otherwise. Feel free to browse more manuals on that website if you want, it's quite interesting! If you were to, you'd have a better understanding of how these calculators - which I practised with in primary school, but which you, because you didn't, assert don't exist - actually work.

As an extra favour to you, I found the manual of the scientific calculator I had at home when I was growing up - this is what I used whenever I needed a calculator for homework until we were instructed to get a specific calculator, from some specific school year. That calculator was:

The Casio fx-110. And what do you know, it has an example of typing the keys: 56 × 3 - 89 ÷ 5.2 + 63 = and printing the answer 78.19230769. The answer, if executed with usual operator precedence, would be 213.88461538.

So indeed, it's not just basic calculators. So let's go from here: there were millions and millions of calculators sold on which, if you type 2 + 3 × 5 it would give the answer 25.

parent

[–] FishFace@piefed.social 1 point 5 months ago

Silence descends. @smartmanapps@programming.dev is nowhere to be found. A blissful sense of intelligence and sanity is restored, yet one thread remains loose: why the fuck was I talking about calculators this whole time?

Well, weary traveller to the depths of this rabbit-hole, who probably doesn't exist, let me tie off that loose end. (OK I admit it, I'm just miffed I was never able to bring this back to The Point because Captain Denial over here can't admit a single mistake)

The point is simply this: if a calculator works with some order of operations other than the normal one, so that in the operation of that calculator, 1 + 2 × 4 - 5 ÷ 6 = 1.16, and if this calculator proves useful for the solution of actual problems, there cannot be anything wrong with this set of rules.

Ages ago, Donald tried to claim that some scenario he came up with proved that left-to-right evaluation gave you wrong answers. One only needs to imagine how one would use an immediate execution calculator to tackle such a problem to see that his scenario does nothing of the sort.

So if you need to work out "Alice gave me 3L of juice, then Bob gave me two 5L cartons of juice, how much juice do I have?" You'd write down, with ordinary notation, 3 + 2 × 5 (and get 13), but on an immediate execution calculator you'd have to type in 2 × 5 + 3, but you'd still get the right answer of 13, because you know how to translate the scenario into the correct notation for the context. If you were talking to someone who insisted on ignoring ordinary rules of precedence and just proceeding left-to-right, you could write down the exact same string and they too would get the right answer of 13.