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 🤣🤣🤣
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.
I mean, it’s just like I said: the basic, four-function calculators are all like this. 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.
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
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 different. You have no evidence for that claim, because that sequence of keys is not in the manual. 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 the operator after another operator is pressed.
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!
Nope! I covered the past as well Mr. Abysmal Reading Comprehension
and what’s that second symbol in +=?? 😂
Yes I am! 😂 I told you exactly when it’s interpreted as a plus, and exactly when it is interpreted as an equals 🙄
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 😂 )
Well, that part never happened, so…😂
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! 🤣🤣🤣
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 😂
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
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 🤣🤣🤣
says person who has none of anything 🤣🤣🤣
No it doesn’t! 🤣🤣🤣
says person, who said without evidence that it goes strictly left to right
No idea what you’re talking about. It explicitly shows you how it works 🙄
and yet, you have still failed to explain how 🙄
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 🤣🤣🤣
which is limited because no brackets keys.
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! 🤣🤣🤣
and so is the missing + in 2+3, and yet we know it’s there, which you have acknowledged you saw in the textbook 🤣🤣🤣
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
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 🤣🤣🤣
Brackets
says person still deflecting from how to magically do a(b+c)+d(e+f)= without brackets and without splitting it up
Yep, point 1. I’ll take that as an admission of being wrong, yet again 🤣🤣🤣
Is it an RPN calculator? No it isn’t Mr. deflection
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 🤣🤣🤣
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 🤣🤣🤣
No it doesn’t! It puts (a+b) on the stack whilst we type out the rest of it, duuuhhh!! 🤣🤣🤣
NOW you’re getting it! We teach them that ab=(axb), as I have been saying all along 🤣🤣🤣 You know, like in this textbook…
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 😂
says person who apparently doesn’t care if I call a horse a unicorn, even though we know unicorns don’t exist
Yep, hence why you won’t find it in any Maths textbooks 🙄
Correct. We don’t teach them about the mythical “implied multiplication” that gets mentioned by people who got the wrong answer 😂
says person that evidence suggests can’t tell the difference between a horse and a unicorn, nor the difference between 1 and 16 😂
You already provided one! 🤣🤣🤣
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 🤣🤣🤣
Nope! 2+3x4=14, not 20 🤣🤣🤣 (2+3)x4=20, which is the answer the Windows calculator gives when you type in 2+3x4.
says proven liar - I knew that was Projection on your part🤣🤣🤣
Hence proof that you don’t understand Maths nor calculators 🙄
Nope. I have a calculator which behaves the exact same way 🙄
you know they have Standard in the name, and that’s definitely not Standard, right?? 😂
It’s right there in the manual that you have to do that second press to put it in brackets 🙄
and yet, all different parts behaving in different ways. Sounds like the Project Manager needs to get sacked! 😂
says person who hasn’t read the book, and thus, apparently, doesn’t know how they did it before we started using brackets 🤣🤣🤣
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.
I mean, it’s just like I said: the basic, four-function calculators are all like this. 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.
“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.
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 know you are. And that claim is not supported by the manual. That sequence of keypresses is not there.
Still waiting for that video!
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.
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.
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.
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:
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 different. You have no evidence for that claim, because that sequence of keys is not in the manual. I have evidence that it cannot happen, because it is impossible with the calculator’s hardware.
Yes, the calculator has an operator register. Explain what I have said that you think this contradicts, and why. Note that it cannot remember the operator after another operator is pressed.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
Finally!
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.
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.
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.
I’m just going to replace your deflections with some text like that, to show where you’ve failed to answer.
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.
Uh huh! Keep going!
Thanks for not playing!
So, you do teach them the concept of implicit multiplication. You just don’t use the same words. Cool! Thank fuck for that!