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 :(