when talking about four-function calculators that do not have a stack
Chain calculators, as the second one said in the manual
Insisting ‘but it does have a stack!’ is the problem
The first one does have a stack. 🙄 You refusing to see it is the problem
And read usernames
Your mind’s been bleached - explains a lot 😂
The Sinclair Executive in that manual does not have an equals key
It has a += key. If the next keypress is a number it’s interpreted as +, if the next key pressed isn’t a number, like the x button, it’s interpeted as equals Duuuuhhh It even explicitly points out to you that the result of that keypress is (a+b) 🙄
What the fuck are you talking about?
The example in the manual. What are you talking about? 😂
It was neither, liar. It was doing (a+b)xc, which, since it doesn’t have brackets, it tells you to do a+b=xc=, so as to evaluate the a+b first, because if you don’t press the equals at that point, and just enter a+bxc=, it will put the a+ on the the stack, and do the multiplication first, just like my calculator does
Yeah hey which of us said += and which of us said “press the equals” afterward?
Yeah hey which of us said += and which of us said “press the equals” afterward?
I said both. you said “does not have an equals key” - even though it quite clearly does, but you wanted to gaslight us into believing it doesn’t have one because it proved you were wrong 🤣🤣🤣
That just displays the accumulator. It’s why the very next page of this very short manual says (a+b)c+(d+e)f “cannot be done as a simple calculation, it must be split into two parts.” Because there’s no stack.
Which is a single value stack, 🙄 but this calculator does indeed have a multivalue stack, so as to be able to do a+bxc, where it will put a+ on the stack (that’s two values, a and +), calculate bxc, then pop the stack and do the addition. If you instead want to do (a+b)xc, you have to press equals after a+b so that it will get evaluated before the Multiplication, because it doesn’t have Brackets keys 🙄
(a+b)c+(d+e)f “cannot be done as a simple calculation, it must be split into two parts.” Because there’s no stack
No, that’s because it doesn’t have any brackets keys 🙄 You can get away with one set of brackets as per the method shown, but you can’t do that with multiple brackets. You really have no idea how Maths or calculators work! 🤣🤣🤣
Here’s an online emulator for the Sinclair Cambridge, the upgraded scientific model
We’ve already established that’s a chain calculator Mr. needs remedial reading classes 🙄
Chain calculators are the subject - we are talking about chain calculators - they’re the ones with only an accumulator. Comfort yourself by insisting that’s a stack, if that gets your rocks off, but the topic is calculators where 2+3*4 gets 20.
Like it does on the Sinclair Executive, because that calculator is also a chain calculator.
But y’know what, let’s pretend it isn’t - let’s play make-believe and say the Sinclair Executive could totes mcgoats do (a+b)c+(d+e)f, despite the very fucking short manual explicitly saying the opposite. Do you understand there are calculators that can’t? When you sneer ‘those are chain calculators,’ do you actually believe chain calculators are a thing that exists, and not just an imaginary excuse to nuh-uh at a stranger on the internet?
Chain calculators, as the second one said in the manual
The first one does have a stack. 🙄 You refusing to see it is the problem
Your mind’s been bleached - explains a lot 😂
It has a += key. If the next keypress is a number it’s interpreted as +, if the next key pressed isn’t a number, like the x button, it’s interpeted as equals Duuuuhhh It even explicitly points out to you that the result of that keypress is (a+b) 🙄
The example in the manual. What are you talking about? 😂
Yeah hey which of us said += and which of us said “press the equals” afterward?
I said both. you said “does not have an equals key” - even though it quite clearly does, but you wanted to gaslight us into believing it doesn’t have one because it proved you were wrong 🤣🤣🤣
That just displays the accumulator. It’s why the very next page of this very short manual says (a+b)c+(d+e)f “cannot be done as a simple calculation, it must be split into two parts.” Because there’s no stack.
Here’s an online emulator for the Sinclair Cambridge, the upgraded scientific model. Enter 2 + 3 x 4 =. Tell me what it says.
Which is a single value stack, 🙄 but this calculator does indeed have a multivalue stack, so as to be able to do a+bxc, where it will put a+ on the stack (that’s two values, a and +), calculate bxc, then pop the stack and do the addition. If you instead want to do (a+b)xc, you have to press equals after a+b so that it will get evaluated before the Multiplication, because it doesn’t have Brackets keys 🙄
No, that’s because it doesn’t have any brackets keys 🙄 You can get away with one set of brackets as per the method shown, but you can’t do that with multiple brackets. You really have no idea how Maths or calculators work! 🤣🤣🤣
We’ve already established that’s a chain calculator Mr. needs remedial reading classes 🙄
Chain calculators are the subject - we are talking about chain calculators - they’re the ones with only an accumulator. Comfort yourself by insisting that’s a stack, if that gets your rocks off, but the topic is calculators where 2+3*4 gets 20.
Like it does on the Sinclair Executive, because that calculator is also a chain calculator.
But y’know what, let’s pretend it isn’t - let’s play make-believe and say the Sinclair Executive could totes mcgoats do (a+b)c+(d+e)f, despite the very fucking short manual explicitly saying the opposite. Do you understand there are calculators that can’t? When you sneer ‘those are chain calculators,’ do you actually believe chain calculators are a thing that exists, and not just an imaginary excuse to nuh-uh at a stranger on the internet?
No they’re not…
And when that was proven wrong the goalposts got moved to chain calculators, because neither of you are man enough to admit you were wrong 🙄
You have been since you were proven wrong about all basic, non-scientific, non-graphing calculators 🙄
Which isn’t all basic, non-scientific, non-graphing calculators 🙄
No. the topic was…
which was proven wrong
It can’t, because no brackets keys, the calculator does have a stack, as per the manual in which (2+3)x4=20 and 2+3x4=14
Do you understand the claim was that none of them can?
It’s right there in the manual! 🤣🤣🤣
‘Not all basic non-scientific et cetera!’
Okay - but some. Yes? Some calculators are chain calculators.
Are you capable of discussing chain calculators, and comprehending that they have a different notation?
Where the fuck does the manual say 14?
You’d tell me a goddamn abacus has brackets in secret.