Post Reply 
Larger stack size
12-30-2020, 02:19 PM (This post was last modified: 12-30-2020 10:35 PM by robve.)
Post: #31
RE: Larger stack size
(12-29-2020 06:31 PM)Dave Britten Wrote:  
(12-29-2020 06:29 PM)Massimo Gnerucci Wrote:  Mathematically none that I know of.

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.

No, no, no! The Ti 84 Plus is not that bad. Let's take a look at Ti BA II Plus Professional. Quoting from the manual:

Choosing Calculation Methods
When you choose chain (Chn) calculation method, the calculator solves problems in the order that you enter them. (Most financial calculators use Chn.)
For example, when you enter 3[+]2[x]4[=], the Chn answer is 20 (3+2=5, 5*4=20).


The worst part is that Chn is the default method on all of these calculator models. Their AOS^tm (algebraic operation system) is only optional, and "solves problems according to the standard rules of algebraic hierarchy."

Apparently financial calculators only offer one register to calculate with, i.e. a stack of one register (an accumulator). Why bother calculating with a stack of four registers? Confused

PS. Funny that they introduce fancy names for standard stuff, like AOS^tm and also APD^tm (automatic power down). I'm sure their marketing department had some say in this crap.

- Rob

"I count on old friends to remain rational"
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: 1 Guest(s)