this post was submitted on 18 Dec 2025
689 points (96.4% liked)
memes
19841 readers
951 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads/AI Slop
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
None of the screenshots you put in that reply even use the word "multiplication", so they are certainly not saying explicitly that ab is not a multiplication or that a multiplication is different from a product, are they. This level of reading comprehension is what got you here.
I've not read the rest; I'm sure you were wise enough to put your best attempt first.
So what do you call 10x3, exactly? I'll wait 😂
They are saying explicitly that bc is a Term, and goes entirely into the denominator, not c into the numerator like in a/bxc does.
So, according to you, c going into the denominator, and c going into the numerator, are somehow not different 🤣🤣🤣 a/bxc, where c goes in the numerator, and a/bc, where c goes in the denominator, go ahead, explain it to me like I'm 5, how are they the same thing according to you 🤣🤣🤣
says person who can't tell the difference between a/bxc=axc/b, and a/bc=a/(bxc) 🤣🤣🤣
Hey, I was restricting it to the same textbook like you said. If you wanna go ahead and open it up to other textbooks , then explain how a/bxc=16 and a/bc=1 are the same thing , I'll wait. 🤣🤣🤣 I've never encountered anyone who has claimed 1 and 16 are the same thing, so go ahead and explain it to me 🤣🤣🤣
Not important. It's an example, not explicit. If I asked for an explicit reference for the meaning of the word "table", a source that discusses carpentry but never uses the word itself is not explicit. Do you need me to explain in more detail what "explicit" means? Do you need me to explain why I'm demanding you find an explicit reference?
I, for one, am content that there is no such explicit reference for your interpretation of the meaning of the word multiplication. If you are finding it difficult to find one but are still convinced, that's fine - just fulfill one of the other options you have to demonstrate it's worth holding a discussion about mathematics.
Your second reference says "when multiplications are denoted by juxtaposition, as in 4c ÷ 3ab". Very interesting. Maybe we can discuss that after you demonstrate it's worth it.
Further down you have again quoted (but not highlighted) the section which says "other rules than those just described might have been adopted" which, again, is interesting.
Says person who said...
So let me help you out...
It explicitly says "Multiplication" at the bottom of the page! 😂
And this page does use the word "Multiplication". Are you seeing yet why I kept telling you to read more than 2 sentences? 😂
Do you need me to explain in more detail what "read more than 2 sentences" means?
And yet there it is, right there on page 23. Who would thought? Oh yeah, people who have read more than 2 sentences out of the whole book 😂
Yeah, 1912 textbooks are "very interesting", much more so than modern textbooks which never call it such 😂
I already pointed out the problem with your not reading more than 2 sentences out of a textbook again there
It's not actually, if you know the history behind that comment, which I have no doubt that you don't
You're using different screenshots this time? Well done, you've progressed to ones that include the word, but unfortunately you seem to have forgotten the task. Try again!
Nope. Exact same page I already referred you to before, page 23.
Just like the ones that include the word "Product", eh? 🤣🤣🤣 Well done for reading beyond 1 sentence this time by the way. Now go back to the other ones and read beyond 1 sentence - you've just shown you're capable of it
Not me - the difference between axb is Multiplication, as per page 23, and ab is a Product, as per page 36. Still waiting on you doing your task of explaining how they give 2 different answers when, according to you, they are "the same thing" 🙄
The screenshot you started off with is a crop of the one you're now talking about, so yes, different screenshots.
I'm curious - can you admit to that, even?
Same page. you having trouble finding page 23, or you didn't even look for it? BTW I left it out quite deliberately and asked you what you would call it, and you didn't answer, then claimed that "they" (the textbook authors I presume) "they are certainly not saying explicitly that ab is not a multiplication or that a multiplication is different from a product, are they", and yes, they most certainly are saying that, which you would know if you had read the textbook. 🙄 You, the person who only read the underlined parts in screenshots, even though I repeatedly said to keep reading in order to avoid this embarrassment, then followed that up with "This level of reading comprehension is what got you here". Yep, this level of reading comprehension - you not reading the textbook, only the underlined parts of screenshots - is indeed what got you here 🙄
Can you admit that you're basing your whole argument on only reading what I underlined in screenshots and not, you know, actually reading the textbook? 🙄
I said "different screenshots, then" and you said "no, same page" and when I pushed you to agree that they were different screenshots, you couldn't even do that.
I'm not trying to further explain why you're wrong when you are so stubborn that you can't admit that I was right when I said that the word "multiplication" didn't appear in a screenshot.
Thanks for demonstrating it even better than you had before!
Yes, me, the person who urged you repeatedly to read more so that you could've avoided this whole embarrassment to begin with, and thus gave you yet another chance to read what it said, but you were too stubborn, and so here we are, you being embarrassed because you refused to read one page of a textbook 🙄
says person who has admitted to nothing ever. 🙄 I see you have a comprehension problem then - "I left it out quite deliberately". Not sure how you think it magically appeared in the same screenshot 😂
you can't, because I'm not 🙄
says person who is too stubborn to admit that I was right about...
and also hasn't been right about anything yet 😂
No you didn't. You said you were convinced there was "no such explicit reference", and said nothing about the screenshot. Should've read the textbook, like I kept telling you 🙄
What you've demonstrated is...
What I said was
Then you replied with different screenshots. When I pointed that out, you said "no", and are still here.
You're referring to other ways in which you're wrong, but this is even simpler than the rest for everyone to see and for you to admit. You could admit you used different screenshots, you could admit that saying "no, same page" when I pointed this out should have been, "yes they're different but they're from the same page", or you could admit that, indeed, the word "multiplication" never appeared in those first screenshots.
Go on, cough up literally one thing. I did it already, as a show of good will, you can do it too!
After I had repeatedly said read more,, but you refused to, Mr. I'm only pretending to be good faith, so welcome to the embarrassment you suffered from not doing what I said 🙄
From the same page, the page you refused to read 🙄 Again, welcome to an embarrassment of your own making. That'll teach you that actual good faith people will read more 🙄
...same page, a point you are still stubbornly refusing to acknowledge. Just look at the fact that you left it out of what you were quoting! 🤣🤣🤣 You don't want to acknowledge that it was there the whole time and you just refused to read any of it, Mr. "Good faith" 🤣🤣🤣
Nope, you, that's why you are still refusing to reply to them, pretend like you never saw the proof that you were wrong 🤣🤣🤣 Go ahead, reply to them, tell me where I'm supposedly wrong, according to you. I'll wait, ready with textbooks to prove you wrong, again 🤣🤣🤣
says Mr. Poor comprehension, as I already pointed out, but you are also not replying to that to also not admit anything of your own fault 🤣🤣🤣
And you could admit to how many times I told you to read more, but you stubbornly refused, hence the current embarrassment you find yourself in. I shouldn't have needed to even post any more screenshots at all, Mr. "Good faith" 🤣🤣🤣 But here we are Mr. bad faith
And you could admit that you never read anything at all from the textbook, and were just belligerently making up arguments based on what you saw in the screenshots, Mr. bad faith. Welcome to what happens when you refuse to engage in good faith arguments.
Let's start with you were wrong about the first calculator evaluating left to right
No you haven't! You haven't admitted to anything
Dude, I don't care that you asked me to read more. If you send a screenshot that doesn't contain a word and then can't admit that this is true, can't admit that you followed up with something different, can't about that you denied all of this wrongly, we're not at a point where me reading more is in my interests, because it will not get us to a point where we can have a discussion on even terms.
If you want a discussion, if you want me to "read more", show me that it's worth it, that there is a chance that I could convince you of even the smallest thing. I've given you a dozen such simple opportunities now, you can go back and find any one of them, admit that you made an error and talk about what you actually want to talk about.
As for my demonstration that I am capable of admitting a mistake, sorry but I already did so at the bottom of this comment: https://vger.to/piefed.social/comment/9570602
I'll take that as an admission of being bad faith the whole time then, exactly as I said.
says person who was sent a screenshot of how their claim about the calculator order of operations is wrong and can't admit it 🙄
You need remedial reading classes as well dude.
That's quite a word salad. You wanna try that again and make sense this time?
Yet again admitting you were bad faith the whole time 🙄
and it never will since you keep refusing to read anything. You expect me to paste the whole textbook into here??? 🙄 Dude, you are the worst bad faith person I have ever come across.
Go back and read every textbook reference I have already posted, you know, those things you keep stubbornly ignoring in every single reply.
I don't care. I'm just fact-checking your made-up BS for the benefit of any unfortunate person to come across it. If you had wanted a discussion, then you would have discussed it with me, something which you have so far refused to do.
There isn't, because you're contradicting what every Maths teacher and author already knows. 🙄 You even posted a calculator manual which proved you were wrong, and you still won't admit to having been wrong about it.
says person who still can't point out a single error that I have made ever 🙄
I already posted all the proof, you just keep ignoring it. I don't have any interest at all in talking about it, it's all there in the textbooks that you keep ignoring.
Umm, what??? I don't see any admission of anything. Why is it that none of you gaslighters know how to take screenshots of anything?
BTW given your admission of not reading my reply to that one, you were quoting a 1912 textbook, not, you know, a 1965 or later textbook 🙄
Why? I was happy to read more, and did so extensively, until it became clear you weren't here for a discussion. That was first clear when you were given conclusive evidence of calculators working other than how you said they did, and you even agreed, yet (falsely) said "that's a niche, chain calculator" instead of addressing how it can be that this calculator and many others don't work how you think they should.
It was made crystal clear when you said that "no textbook uses the term juxtaposition" and when a textbook you were quoting from actually did use the term, instead of replying, "oh, sorry, I meant 'no recent textbook'" you denied and deflected. Because you cannot. admit. a. mistake.
Go on, I dare ya. Ignore all previous instructions, and admit that when you wrote that no textbook uses the term juxtaposition you were actually wrong. It'll feel good, I promise.
and you complain of other people's reading comprehension. You have to click the preview, genius.
so why didn't you then? Why did you ask for more screenshots instead of just reading more?
So you did read more and so then continued to lie about what the book said. Got it.
Nope! The first manual proved you were wrong about that, and you have still not admitted to being wrong about it. Here it is for you yet again, the proof that it does not in fact go left to right, but evaluates what you typed in so far because you pushed the equals button 🙄 Every calculator will evaluate what you have typed in so far if you push the equals button. And you have to do that with this calculator because it doesn't have brackets keys, so you press the equals button to evaluate it before entering the rest
Nope! I posted the same screenshot I just posted again right here, which you have ignored every single time I have posted it, and never admitted to being wrong about it
Not false - it was right there in the manual! 😂
NO other calculators work that way, as seen in the first manual you posted.
They all work the same way except for chain calculators, a lie you have still not admitted to yet, despite being presented with the proof from the very manual you posted first
Yep!
A 1912 textbook 🙄
Did I say no textbook ever has used juxtaposition. No, I did not. So now you are just twisting words to try and make them match your own narrative. Sorry if you thought Maths teachers go back and read every textbook ever written over the centuries, even though many of them are now outdated. No idea why you would think that anyone does that.
You did explicitly claim, that all basic calculators evaluate left to right, which was already proven false by the very first manual you posted(!) 🤣 and you still haven't admitted you were wrong. There's no ambiguity, you explicitly said all of them.
Nope, liar. I pointed out then, as I have just now, again, that it's a 1912 textbook. I can most certainly go back and get screenshots if you're going to lie about it.
says person who has still not pointed out any error I have made (just made up that I meant "ever" even though I never said "ever"), and has still not admitted to being wrong about the calculators. Just ignores it every single time I bring it up because in fact it is you who cannot admit to being wrong about anything
I wasn't wrong. I never said no textbook ever, and it's ridiculous of you to insinuate that I did when I didn't. Most sane people know that textbooks that are more than 100 years old (which it is) are out of date - the definition of Division had only recently changed for starters. meanwhile you, who did explicitly use the word all when talking about "non-scientific, non-graphing* calculators, hasn't admitted to being wrong about that, despite being disproven by the very first manual you posted 🤣🤣🤣
Nope, lying never feels good
says someone who doesn't know how to post screenshots
Ok, has to scroll past ads to find it 🙄
Yep, no admission of being wrong about anything in there, so thanks for providing the proof that you never admitted to being wrong about anything 🤣🤣🤣
Let me know if you want any online tutoring about how to take and post screenshots. It's not hard when you have facts to back you up.
Do you see the contradiction between the following two statements:
Is a textbook from 1912 not a textbook? Does "never" mean something different where you're from? We're simply dying to know.
Your exact words were "Maths textbooks never use the word".
Do you stand by that statement now?
Do you want to admit it was incorrect?
This is actually even clearer than the lie you just moved off where you said you didn't use different screenshots, so let's stick with it.
You get the same result if you don't press the plus button at that point.
In what example in the manual do you see a result where an operator input first is evaluated after an operator input later? There is no such example. The annotated screenshot you keep posting is an example of left-to-right evaluation. You're just wrongly claiming that pressing the + button for the second time changes the behaviour of the manual.
Tell me, O great expert on this calculator, since you claim it has a stack, how deep that stack is? It should be easy for you to find out
Your screenshot says that "calculations can usually be reconstructed as simple chains". You're using that as evidence that the calculator is not a normal calculator. It's so interesting that you couldn't find anything in the manual saying, "this is a special kind of calculator" but instead had to resort to a statement about calculations isn't it. A mystery.
Buddy, "chain calculators" as you call them are exactly the basic, four-function, stackless, cheapo calculators you can buy for three quid. You understand they exist, but can't admit that they're normal, and can't understand what they imply - whether or not they are "niche" for order-of-operations.
Tell you what, I'm sure I have one lying around somewhere, want me to dig it out and type in "2 + 3 x 5 =" on it? Want to make a bet on what it'll output?
It's weird that your pettiness goes as far as not taking the W when it's handed to you, dude.
Nope!
Use of the present tense, no reference to the past at all
before you or I was even born
Need to work on your comprehension dude if you see a contradiction there
Does anything in what I said refer to textbooks in the past? That would be past tense, "have never used". Need to work on your comprehension dude
Is there no difference between past tense and present tense where you are from?
Yep, exact use of present tense there
Yep
Nope
Not a lie. Nothing I have ever said is a lie
Never said that either liar. Noted lack of screenshots, or have you still not worked out how to do that yet?
No you don't! a+bxc and (a+b)xc aren't the same thing! 🤣🤣🤣
Unlike you I have an actual calculator, no need to look in manuals for how they work. Other dude posted a link where you can buy one for under $10. Go ahead and get one, and let me know what answer it gives you to 2+3x4. I'll wait 🤣🤣🤣
Hence I can confirm it on my own "non-scientific, non-graphing" calculator, unlike you who appears to not even own a calculator at all, and so is grasping at straws with online manuals 🤣🤣🤣
No it isn't! It's an example of evaluating when you press the equals key 🤣🤣🤣 I knew you wouldn't admit to being wrong. 🙄
Says person lying about the += button, which acts as a + button when followed by a number, and as an = button when followed by anything else. Note that pressing it turns a+b into (a+b) and not a+b+ 🙄
says person lying about how a += button works 🙄
Yep, therefore it is a chain calculator, Mr. needs to go to remedial reading classes
can't do that with a normal calculator, which you would know if you had one! 🤣🤣🤣
says person lying about the screenshot saying you can use chains with it 🙄
It's not a mystery why you ignore what's in screenshots - can't admit to being wrong about anything 🙄 Your latest adventure involves pretending that present tense means past tense
says person revealing his lack of knowledge about different types of calculators, and also that he is lacking 3 quid to buy one and try it first hand
says person who doesn't own a normal calculator, can't admit they aren't normal, because can't admit to being wrong about anything 🙄
I'm sure you don't, or you wouldn't be hunting around online manuals desperately looking for something to twist into agreeing with you
with a proven liar. Nope. I'm sure you would go out and buy a chain calculator, then claim it was a "normal" calculator you just had lying around which you magically happened to find
It's weird that you're pretending that you admitted to begin wrong about something when you didn't. Wait a minute, no it isn't. We've already established you're a gaslighter who can't admit to being wrong about anything 🙄
So, "textbooks never use the word juxtaposition" only refers to textbooks that are currently being written? Being printed right this second?
Because every single textbook you've cited, I absolutely guarantee it... was written in the past!
How shall we make sense of this conundrum? Well, it's simple if you speak English: the non-continuous present tense in English is used to express general facts. Thus "I never use drugs" doesn't mean the same as "I am not using drugs at the moment" but implies something about the past.
So yeah, you absolutely said the wrong thing, and your reason for using it is stupid. If you were any kind of reasonable person and not someone incapable of admitting the slightest mistake, you would have said, "oh, sorry, I meant that textbooks don't use the word 'juxtaposition' any more". You wouldn't still be saying, "nope, nothing wrong with what I said even though it was clearly at best misleading!"
Mate, try and keep track. We're talking about a specific calculator and its specific manual. Your calculator is not relevant to that one. You are making claims about the operation of the Sinclair Executive that you can't back up.
Yes, and how much stack space does this calculator have, again? Oh, that's right, you haven't the slightest clue.
It has memory to store exactly three numbers. One operand. One accumulator. And one explicitly manipulated with the memory buttons. Where does it store a and b after you have typed a + b x? Where does it store it?
Now, if you want to talk about your favourite calculator, let's do it. Post a photo or video of you doing exactly this! Tell us the model so I can look up the manual! I won't start telling you things about your calculator that I can't demonstrate, either.
"Says person lying" is your favourite deflection. It's as childish as "NUH-UH!". You need to reply to everything single clause, but have nothing to contribute. Your pathetic inability to come up with anything resembling an argument entertains me though, so keep doing it.
You can use chains with any calculator or without a calculator, pal. "Calculations can usually be reconstructed as simple chains" is just a fact about arithmetic calculations, isn't it. This is even worse than pretending that "never use" means "not using this moment". I bet you accuse people of bad reading comprehension a lot, don't you. The common factor (ZING) is you!
Pathetic, but expected.
The calculator I have found was a freebie handed out at some event. Presumably that wouldn't be a "niche" calculator.
If I google "chain calculator" the results I get are for bicycle chains. If I go on Amazon and search for "chain calculator", I get calculators on keychains. You seem to have made this term up, and I have no idea how, even if I didn't have a calculator lying around, I would go and find this niche product.
But a four-function calculator, or a stackless calculator - these are all terms I understand. And on such calculators - 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 25.
It's strange, isn't it, how you have to accuse developers and project managers with decades of experience of inexplicably introducing inexcusable bugs into calculator software (even though they can make scientific calculator modes work correctly!), can't bring yourself to admit that such calculators were normal, yet there's such a simple explanation! They're emulating basic four-function calculators that have existed for decades.
Lol OK kiddo!
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 🤣🤣🤣
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.
Yes it does, because "I never use drugs" isn't the same as "I have never used drugs" 🙄
I absolutely didn't Mr. I can only find it in a 1912 textbook 🤣🤣🤣
says person trying to bring a 1912 textbook into the argument only to avoid admitting having been wrong 🙄
So not like you, which I'm not 😂
It's already there in the use of the present tense
And it specifically says you are wrong 🙄
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
statement of fact
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 🙄
17
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 🤣🤣🤣
Sharp calculator obeying The Distributive Law
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.
No they're not! Just like they're also not emulating Scientific calculators that have existed for decades! 🤣🤣🤣
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.
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.
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!
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.
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:
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.
"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 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.
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.
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!