You said every single post is wrong - present tense. So you only referred to posts I was writing at that moment, which wasn’t any. Weird of you, but thanks for agreeing I’m never wrong!
= Doesn’t mean equals
There is no “=” button on the Sinclair Executive, and you aren’t saying the += button means “equals”, you’re saying it omits the manipulation of the (non existent) stack. So your fake cackling makes no sense.
Which part of you’ve been proven wrong so there’s nothing further to discuss didn’t you understand?
The part where you haven’t proven anything, of course. If you’d proven your assertion about the Sinclair Executive you would have:
An example in the manual of it obeying order of operations in violation of right to left execution; or
The specifications saying how much stack memory it had; or
A video of someone using it to show it using order of operations in violation of right to left execution; or
An emulator where you can see the same.
You have none of that. Instead you have an example in the manual where the calculator executes strictly left to right, but you have said, without evidence, that a button on the calculator is preventing us from seeing its normal behaviour. And you call this “proof”! That’s the standard of proof I’d expect from a washed up maths teacher I suppose.
But it doesn’t end there, because you accept that the Sinclair Cambridge only executed left to right. So no, you haven’t proven anything.
says person contradicting the manual which says you cannot do it 🤣🤣🤣🤣
You can’t evaluate that expression without splitting it up? I can. Just fuckin’ evaluate it normally! That sentence is talking about the calculator’s capability, my unskilled friend, and if your mathematical ability is only as good as a calculator from the 70s it does explain things.
Yes, a calculator where the brackets are built-in, unlike this calculator 🙄
“The brackets are built in” is a nonsense statement concocted by a moron. Find a citation for it. Brackets are notation; RPN doesn’t use them.
What you’ve said by implication is that a calculator doesn’t need buttons for brackets in order to calculate a complex expression.
So, we understand it’s not a lack of brackets buttons holding back the Sinclair Cambridge (and Executive). What is holding them back then, is lack of a stack. If you mean something else than brackets buttons, explain what. Bet you’ll deflect.
says person ignoring that we’ve already established that they did have a stack.
If you’ve established it, you’d have evidence in the form of one of the four bullet points above. You don’t; you only have an example which doesn’t show use of a stack.
a(b+c)+d(e+f) is the example from the manual - go ahead and tell us how you can do it without brackets and without splitting it up.
I’d write it out in rpn but am waiting for you to agree that a notation which doesn’t use brackets… does not use brackets. I mean if by “it needs brackets” you mean “does not need any brackets” then sure, it’s only as dumb as your other ideas about English.
It’s right there in the examples!
You’re saying that example tells you what would happen when the += key was not pressed a second time? Do explain how an example tells you what happens in a situation other than the one in the example.
the proof is right there in the example that it doesn’t 🙄 A fact which you still haven’t admitted to
Nope, still not a proof of anything except that, in that example, the calculator executes from left to right. If you want to prove it could do something else, you have to actually do that. I’m waiting!
We don’t use terminology with things we don’t teach them
You don’t teach them that ab means a×b? Good grief, it’s worse than I thought.
“That’s pro–” oh do be quiet, I just told you I don’t care what you call it, and you told me it doesn’t exist and you don’t teach it to kids. You did not say “we teach this concept, but with a different name”. All evidence suggests you aren’t actually capable of understanding the difference between a concept and the name for that concept. Probably why you think English present tense cannot be used to talk about any time except the present moment.
they don’t emulate basic four-function calculators
Then find a basic calculator and take a video of it behaving differently, or find a manual with an example of it behaving differently.
I just realised, your issue with MS Calc in standard mode makes no sense - if you press 2+3+×5, it behaves exactly as the example in the Sinclair Executive manual. So I’m pretty sure according to you that proves that it obeys the order of operations, right?
No idea what you’re talking about
I washed myself recently, but you never wash yourself, do you?
Guess what happens you you omit the circled keypress…
Well, it would be a guess, wouldn’t it. That’s all you have, a guess. Because it’s not anywhere else in the manual so you’re just making up what you want to happen. But because the spec sheet for the calculator says it has no stack, we actually do not need to guess.
Do you understand yet what evidence means? It’s what I have, and you don’t because you’re forced to guess.
Which part did you not understand in the second one was a chain calculator
It’s an immediate execution calculator, just like ms calc in standard mode. So why does ms calc work in the exact same way as an immediate execution calculator?
Different programmers
And one project manager overseeing the behaviour, yes.
You 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!