Post Reply 
Larger stack size
12-30-2020, 02:11 PM
Post: #30
RE: Larger stack size
(12-30-2020 01:49 PM)ijabbott Wrote:  
(12-29-2020 06:31 PM)Dave Britten Wrote:  Between calculator models, there certainly seems to be. Smile

The TI 84 Plus is worse than I thought: it's left-associative in classic mode, and right-associative in Math Print mode. The exact same key sequence will give you a different result depending on which of the two display modes you're in! I think Casio has the right idea of making it clearly right-associative, with a forced ( in line-I/O mode.

The Casio solution is a good technique. For the TI, you can understand why they would have made it left-associative in classic mode for consistency with other binary operators, and perhaps for consistency with earlier AOS models.

Back to HP Land, the HP-27S also has a left-associative exponentiation operator, but it displays partially evaluated results as it goes, so that [3] [x^y] [3] [x^y] [3] is finally displayed as 27^3.

Interestingly, the fx-CG500 (the calculator formerly known as ClassPad) will display the entry as 3^3^3 without any parentheses, but still evaluates it as right-associative (i.e. 7.63E12 rather than 19683). The fx-991MS 2nd Edition also does not include parentheses, but evaluates this as left-associative. The TI Voyage 200 - and presumably 92 and 89 - are right-associative, and will even automatically change your input to 3^(3^3) after entry if pretty print mode is turned off (if it's on you get a tower of superscripts).

Very strange to see so much inconsistency on this, even between calculators from a single manufacturer.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Messages In This Thread
Larger stack size - Dave Britten - 12-28-2020, 06:10 PM
RE: Larger stack size - hth - 12-28-2020, 06:38 PM
RE: Larger stack size - Dave Britten - 12-28-2020, 07:58 PM
RE: Larger stack size - Massimo Gnerucci - 12-28-2020, 07:37 PM
RE: Larger stack size - BruceH - 12-28-2020, 11:22 PM
RE: Larger stack size - Sylvain Cote - 12-28-2020, 11:43 PM
RE: Larger stack size - Peet - 12-29-2020, 12:36 AM
RE: Larger stack size - Gene - 12-29-2020, 01:14 AM
RE: Larger stack size - Dave Britten - 12-29-2020, 03:37 AM
RE: Larger stack size - toml_12953 - 12-29-2020, 04:41 PM
RE: Larger stack size - Valentin Albillo - 12-29-2020, 02:52 AM
RE: Larger stack size - Peet - 12-29-2020, 08:46 AM
RE: Larger stack size - Paul Dale - 12-29-2020, 08:54 AM
RE: Larger stack size - RMollov - 12-29-2020, 12:18 PM
RE: Larger stack size - Gene - 12-29-2020, 01:50 PM
RE: Larger stack size - Dave Britten - 12-29-2020, 04:20 PM
RE: Larger stack size - Allen - 12-29-2020, 04:47 PM
RE: Larger stack size - Valentin Albillo - 12-29-2020, 04:59 PM
RE: Larger stack size - Allen - 12-29-2020, 05:56 PM
RE: Larger stack size - Albert Chan - 12-29-2020, 06:20 PM
RE: Larger stack size - Dave Britten - 12-29-2020, 06:26 PM
RE: Larger stack size - Massimo Gnerucci - 12-29-2020, 06:29 PM
RE: Larger stack size - Dave Britten - 12-29-2020, 06:31 PM
RE: Larger stack size - ijabbott - 12-30-2020, 01:49 PM
RE: Larger stack size - Dave Britten - 12-30-2020 02:11 PM
RE: Larger stack size - robve - 12-30-2020, 02:19 PM
RE: Larger stack size - Valentin Albillo - 12-29-2020, 09:07 PM
RE: Larger stack size - robve - 12-29-2020, 10:10 PM
RE: Larger stack size - Gene - 12-29-2020, 05:23 PM
RE: Larger stack size - Mike (Austria) - 12-29-2020, 06:18 PM
RE: Larger stack size - Massimo Gnerucci - 12-29-2020, 06:23 PM
RE: Larger stack size - JSBach - 01-04-2021, 12:21 PM
RE: Larger stack size - John Keith - 01-04-2021, 03:58 PM



User(s) browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)