I’ll take that as an admission of being bad faith the whole time then, exactly as I said.
If you send a screenshot that doesn’t contain a word and then can’t admit that this is true
says person who was sent a screenshot of how their claim about the calculator order of operations is wrong and can’t admit it 🙄
then can’t admit that this is true
You need remedial reading classes as well dude.
can’t about that you denied all of this wrongly
That’s quite a word salad. You wanna try that again and make sense this time?
we’re not at a point where me reading more is in my interests
Yet again admitting you were bad faith the whole time 🙄
it will not get us to a point where we can have a discussion on even terms.
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.
show me that it’s worth it,
Go back and read every textbook reference I have already posted, you know, those things you keep stubbornly ignoring in every single reply.
If you want a discussion
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.
that there is a chance that I could convince you of even the smallest thing
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.
admit that you made an error
says person who still can’t point out a single error that I have made ever 🙄
talk about what you actually want to talk about
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.
I am capable of admitting a mistake, sorry but I already did so at the bottom of this comment:
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?
I am capable of admitting a mistake, sorry but I already did so at the bottom of this comment:
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 🙄
I’ll take that as an admission of being bad faith the whole time then
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.
I don’t see an admission of anything
and you complain of other people’s reading comprehension. You have to click the preview, genius.
As my own show of good faith, I do see that one of your textbooks (Chrystal) has the convention that a number “carries with it” a + or -, which is suppressed in the case of a term-initial positive number. If you demonstrate it worth continuing the discussion, I’ll explain why I think this is a bad convention and why the formal first-order language of arithmetic doesn’t have this convention.
so why didn’t you then? Why did you ask for more screenshots instead of just reading more?
did so extensively
So you did read more and so then continued to lie about what the book said. Got it.
That was first clear when you were given conclusive evidence of calculators working other than how you said they did
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
you even agreed,
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
yet (falsely) said “that’s a niche, chain calculator”
Not false - it was right there in the manual! 😂
instead of addressing how it can be that this calculator and many others
NO other calculators work that way, as seen in the first manual you posted.
don’t work how you think they should.
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
It was made crystal clear when you said that “no textbook uses the term juxtaposition”
Yep!
when a textbook you were quoting from actually did use the term,
A 1912 textbook 🙄
“oh, sorry, I meant ‘no recent 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.
‘no recent textbook’” you denied and deflected
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.
you cannot. admit. a. mistake
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
admit that when you wrote that no textbook uses the term juxtaposition you were actually wrong
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 🤣🤣🤣
It’ll feel good, I promise
Nope, lying never feels good
You have to click the preview, genius.
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.
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.
Do you see the contradiction between the following two statements:
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.
but evaluates what you typed in so far because you pushed the equals button
You get the same result if you don’t press the plus button at that point.
You did explicitly claim, that all basic calculators evaluate left to right, which was already proven false by the very first manual you posted(!)
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
Not false - it was right there in the manual! 😂
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.
They all work the same way except for chain calculators
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?
Yep, no admission of being wrong about anything in there
It’s weird that your pettiness goes as far as not taking the W when it’s handed to you, dude.
Do you see the contradiction between the following two statements
Nope!
Maths textbooks never use the word “juxtaposition”
Use of the present tense, no reference to the past at all
A textbook from1912
before you or I was even born
Need to work on your comprehension dude if you see a contradiction there
Is a textbook from 1912 not a textbook?
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
Does “never” mean something different where you’re from?
Is there no difference between past tense and present tense where you are from?
Your exact words were “Maths textbooks never use the word”.
Yep, exact use of present tense there
Do you stand by that statement now?
Yep
Do you want to admit it was incorrect?
Nope
This is actually even clearer than the lie
Not a lie. Nothing I have ever said is a lie
where you said you didn’t use different screenshots
Never said that either liar. Noted lack of screenshots, or have you still not worked out how to do that yet?
You get the same result if you don’t press the plus button at that point
No you don’t! a+bxc and (a+b)xc aren’t the same thing! 🤣🤣🤣
In what example in the manual
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 🤣🤣🤣
There is no such example
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 🤣🤣🤣
The annotated screenshot you keep posting is an example of left-to-right evaluation
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. 🙄
You’re just wrongly claiming that pressing the + button for the second time changes the behaviour of the manual
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+ 🙄
You’re just wrongly claiming that pressing the + button for the second time changes the behaviour of the manual
says person lying about how a += button works 🙄
Your screenshot says that “calculations can usually be reconstructed as simple chains”
Yep, therefore it is a chain calculator, Mr. needs to go to remedial reading classes
You’re using that as evidence that the calculator is not a normal calculator
can’t do that with a normal calculator, which you would know if you had one! 🤣🤣🤣
It’s so interesting that you couldn’t find anything in the manual saying, “this is a special kind of calculator”
says person lying about the screenshot saying you can use chains with it 🙄
A mystery.
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
Buddy, “chain calculators” as you call them are exactly the basic, four-function, stackless, cheapo calculators you can buy for three quid
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
can’t admit that they’re normal,
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 I have one lying around somewhere,
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
Want to make a bet on what it’ll output?
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 your pettiness goes as far as not taking the W when it’s handed to you, dude
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 🙄
Use of the present tense, no reference to the past at all
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!”
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 wai
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.
Note that pressing it turns a+b into (a+b) and not a+b+
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
“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.
It’s so interesting that you couldn’t find anything in the manual saying, “this is a special kind of calculator”
says person lying about the screenshot saying you can use chains with 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!
with a proven liar. Nope.
Pathetic, but expected.
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
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.
It’s weird that you’re pretending that you admitted to begin wrong
Because every single textbook you’ve cited, I absolutely guarantee it… was written in the past!
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 🤣🤣🤣
How shall we make sense of this conundrum?
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.
“I never use drugs” doesn’t mean the same as “I am not using drugs at the moment”
Yes it does, because “I never use drugs” isn’t the same as “I have never used drugs” 🙄
So yeah, you absolutely said the wrong thing
I absolutely didn’t Mr. I can only find it in a 1912 textbook 🤣🤣🤣
your reason for using it is stupid.
says person trying to bring a 1912 textbook into the argument only to avoid admitting having been wrong 🙄
If you were any kind of reasonable person and not someone incapable of admitting the slightest mistake
So not like you, which I’m not 😂
you would have said, “oh, sorry, I meant that textbooks don’t use the word ‘juxtaposition’ any more”
It’s already there in the use of the present tense
Mate, try and keep track. We’re talking about a specific calculator and its specific manual.
And it specifically says you are wrong 🙄
Your calculator is not relevant to that one.
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
“Says person lying” is your favourite
statement of fact
deflection
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 🙄
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
17
even though they can make scientific calculator modes work correctly!
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 🤣🤣🤣
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.
yet there’s such a simple explanation! They’re emulating basic four-function calculators that have existed for decades
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. You get a hint of this in the manual, because it says (pg 6), “a problem such as (a+b)c + (d+e)f cannot be done as a simple calculation, it must be split into two parts.” There is no reason that it would need to be split if the calculator had a stack, as it could store (a+b)c on the stack while the user entered (d+e)f. It can’t though, because it doesn’t have a stack. You have no explanation for why this calculator could not perform this calculation without splitting it.
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.
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. You get a hint of this in the manual, because it says (pg 6), “a problem such as (a+b)c + (d+e)f cannot be done as a simple calculation, it must be split into two parts.” There is no reason that it would need to be split if the calculator had a stack, as it could store (a+b)c on the stack while the user entered (d+e)f. It can’t though, because it doesn’t have a stack. You have no explanation for why this calculator could not perform this calculation without splitting it.
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.