|
That's no reason to display nonsense. How about RPN[^]? The problem is that RPN is like pointers: Absolutely simple and many people just don't ever get it.
What's so hard about 4 3 * 4 + 3*?
Edit: fixed the link
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|
CodeWraith wrote: That's no reason to display nonsense.
It's not nonsense. It literally is the history. Just because the history doesn't make sense when done all at once, does not mean it IS NOT the history.
Social Media - A platform that makes it easier for the crazies to find each other.
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it.
Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
|
|
|
|
|
Back when programmable calculaters were still a thing, it was only HP (as far as I know) who preferred to use a notation (RPN) that provided absolute clarity (as well as a history, if you need it at all). All others simply showed the keys in the order in which they were pushed, useful or not.
Looking back, I don't think it mattered. Calculators were only the first generation of brain pacemakers. Look at the modern, much more powerful pacemakers and how they are used. Everything is well as long as the heads of those zombies stay nicely hollow and empty. Who cares what nonsense you display as long as the zombies are happy and keep stroking their pacemaker and fill someone's pockets?
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, but looking through the History you don't see steps, you see only final equations. And they are wrong.
Mathematics is an exact science - you can't interpret it as you wan't.
|
|
|
|
|
People using the calculator in standard mode are not interested in doing "mathematics!" They just want to do some quick calculations. 
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Andrew x64 wrote: eople using the calculator in standard mode are not interested in doing "mathematics!" They just want to do some quick calculations
Real mathematics starts with differential equations. Everything before that is trivial.
CQ de W5ALT
Walt Fair, Jr., P. E.
Comport Computing
Specializing in Technical Engineering Software
|
|
|
|
|
Beat me to advocacy of RPN. There was a small amount of time getting used to my first HP calculator in college. After that, I almost can't use a standard one. I grimace when forced to use a calculator with an equals button.
PCalc on my phone allows RPN, so, I'm mostly happy after the screen died on my HP48.
|
|
|
|
|
|
PCalc seems to be an iphone app, so maybe the HP48GX emulator might be a better choice: i48 on the App Store
|
|
|
|
|
I already knew RPN from FORTH before I ever got a programmable calculator. FORTH's most important data structure is the stack and RPN just shows in which order parameters are pushed onto the stack and processed by operators. Just one step away from assembly, but a very neat language.
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|
No, it's the way a "standard" calculator works.
1 + 3 * (evaluate so far gives 4) * 3 = 12.
"Proper" calculators use operator precedence, but unless they come with parentheses the statndard ones don't.
If you try it on Android's Calculator app, it evaluates as it goes:
1 + 3
4but then uses precedence:
1 + 3 x
4
1 + 3 x 3
10(But that has parentheses!)
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
If you do precisely the same key / button sequence in scientific mode, it gives the answer 24. Given that I use calculator in both modes, but most of the time just use whatever mode it re-opens in for a quick calculation, this is a bit of a worry... Never noticed it before. The behaviour is the same in the Windows 8 calculator too.
I can see why (with no parentheses available in "standard" view) but it's not exactly intuitive. Would help if the history automatically inserted parentheses where default operator sequence has been used.
|
|
|
|
|
If you think about it, it's not really a problem.
Those who are used to the "Proper" way of doing things will automatically make sure it's in "Scientific" mode before they do anything (mine lives in "Programmer" mode even though I rarely use it); those who are used to an "old fashioned" cheapo desk calculator will leave it in "Standard" so the additional buttons don't confuse them ... 
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
You will agree with me when i say that it is possible to omit checking if it is in scientific or standard mode. And why should i, if i wan't to perform some basic calculations.
Then to confirm the result i will check the history, i see correct equation and i assume result is correct. It could be, but not necessary.
In win7 at least you had different forms of calculator, so you can easily see which mode you are using.
In win10 if you don't pay attention to exact buttons (and why should you, if you use physical keyboard), you can't tell, since both calculators are of same size. This is very poor UX.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree. I normally only need standard mode and will switch to it, if I have other windows open in the background and don't want the thing taking up half the screen. Other times though if it's in scientific and I've got multiple screens or not doing other stuff, I'll leave it like that. (I use the Win8 calculator, even on Win10, as it saves so much real estate.) I must say I'd never considered the results of my calculations would differ depending on how many buttons I had on screen. 
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: mine lives in "Programmer" mode even though I rarely use it
programmer mode can't use / don't give real / floats
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Really, I wouldn't even expect it to be smart enough to apply order of operations correctly. A spreadsheet is a better tool for complex calculations anyway.
Cool, so I learned something new anyway...never knew about the parentheses available under scientific and standard. If those were available in standard mode, there would be no problem.
I have to admit that my math skills aren't what they used to be...depend totally on calculators and spreadsheets for even simple calculations anymore. 
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
|
|
|
|
|
In APL, all operators have equal precedence. To a certain degree, I can understand the arguments for it.
For the very basic operators, it is easy to follow: Do multiplications before additions. But advanced programming languages (APL not the least) has so many operators for which there is no obvious or "natural" precendece. If you want to minimize the number of parentheses, you must have a list of operator precedence available at all times.
I guess that you can trust Visual Studio graying down "unneccessary" parentheses, and remove those. But when you read such minimal-parentheses code, you need that precedence list to see what is happening. You see lots of programmers adding "unneccessary" parentheses so that their C code looks halfway like Lisp  , "just to be sure", and in a hardcopy output you have a terrible job finding the matching parenthesis. As a general rule: If your program code to any significant degree depends on operator precedence, or multiple levels of parentheses to override the defaults, then you need to break down your expressions into simpler sub-expressions. The compiler will anyway assign a memory location to hold the value of each subexpression, so you might as well do it yourself, and give a descriptive name to it!
In languages like APL there is one single rule: Left-to-right. Any parenthesis indicates a deviation from this rule: Watch out! So APL programs are never Lisp-like (well, that is one of the reasons ). I sort of like it. Even though I grew up with "multiplications before additions", I cannot off hand tell whether a logical XOR is done before or after a logical shift or an equality test. Which operators have higher precedence tahan preincrement but lower than postincrement? I don't know. I can't list those lower than preincrement, and can't tell just why bitwise negation goes before casting, while logical OR goes after. APL never gives you problems like this.
|
|
|
|
|
I can see your point.
But, idea behind calculator is: in Standard mode any new operation it calculates as x += 1 or x *= 2, so new operation is applied to result of all previous operations. Which, personally, i don't like, because this can be achieved by pressing "=" button after every operation, but i can understand.
Anyway, problem to me is not this Standard vs Scientific (although using 2 different design algorithms in 1 program is usually really bad thing to do), but that History contains wrong equation. Which means that if you didn't check in which mode you are, result that you used can be wrong. Which can induce different set of problems.
|
|
|
|
|
48 is correct, as per natural [germanic based] language which is expressed left to right. same way you read a sentence, in the order presented.
it's 24 if it's "bodmas", but seeing as bodmas is younger than natural language it's absolutely not new math rules,
in fact it's the original and oldest math rules.
and btw: any accountant
1. will tell you 4 X 3 + 4 X 3 = 48, anything else and the auditors will have your skin.
2. in accounting brackets BRACES mean something completely different than others suggest,
.... i.e. 4 X 3 + (4 X 3) = 0 ... 4 X 3 + (4) X (3) = 48 ... 4 X (3 + 4) X 3 = -84
so those old rules are:
- still very much alive
- very important to the person that provisions the money for your pay/salary.
Message Signature
(Click to edit ->)
|
|
|
|
|
The simple calculator chains together what you are entering following the natural reading order. This has been known as the Arithmetic Order of Operations.
This is kinda like "interpreted" programming such as JavaScript which is processed line by line.
The Algebraic Order of Operations (FOIL, PEMDAS, et al) is followed by the scientific calculator; and is like "compiled" programming, in which you can declare an object anywhere within the class, before or after it is called.
Director of Transmogrification Services
Shinobi of Query Language
Master of Yoda Conditional
|
|
|
|
|
In related news;
Political Calculations: Court Upholds Math Order of Operations[^]
I have no problems with the software performing as if it is limited like a hardware-calculator, but it should not produce the history it does without explanation.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
miki-bgd wrote: This is really insulting for anyone who knows how to count up to more then 10. |
Everyone knows that after 10 comes oneteen twoteen, etc up to ten teen
CQ de W5ALT
Walt Fair, Jr., P. E.
Comport Computing
Specializing in Technical Engineering Software
|
|
|
|
|
But do I really want to work in Kosovo?
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
