What is the correct result?

[Matt Agajanian]

Hi all.

Here’s another question that popped up. Since TI postures itself as the pinnacle of calculators in education, how is it that at what is their current order of hierarchy, they can claim that their way is the right hierarchy when Casio’s, Sharp’s, and other hierarchies are improper evaluation methods?

(04-17-2024 12:03 AM)toml_12953 Wrote:  

(04-16-2024 10:59 PM)Matt Agajanian Wrote:  So, since terms include 4ac (from the quadratic equation), 1/3a (meaning 1 divided by 3a because 3a is a term), 32e, 29c, and so forth, why does TI of all companies put implied multiplication down the hierarchy list? You’d think TI would have a handle on the dynamics of mathematics. And then again, TI had the hierarchy of implied multiplication's higher in priority before. So why the switch?

In mathematics, you don’t write everything on one line. There’s no ambiguity since you can clearly see what terms go where. In the physical sciences, it’s tougher to determine. TI uses the mathematical conventions.

Since that is so, why does Casio provide Line IO and TI provide Classic?