Comment on ))<>((
lolcatnip@reddthat.com 1 month ago
I’ve never seen a calculator that had brackets but didn’t implement the conventional order of operations.
masterspace@lemmy.ca 1 month ago
SmartmanApps@programming.dev 1 month ago
There’s no pemdas paradox, just people who have forgotten the order of operations rules
Even two casios won’t give you the same answer:
The one on the right is an old model. As far as I’m aware Casio no longer make any models that still give the wrong answer.
lolcatnip@reddthat.com 1 month ago
Ah, I wasn’t thinking of calculators that let you type in a full expression. When I was in school, only fancy graphing calculators had that feature. A typical scientific calculator didn’t have juxtaposition, so you’d have to enter 6÷2(1+2) as 6÷2×(1+2), and you’d get 9 as the answer because ÷ and × have equal precedence and just go left to right.
SmartmanApps@programming.dev 1 month ago
A typical scientific calculator didn’t have juxtaposition, so you’d have to enter 6÷2(1+2) as 6÷2×(1+2)
That’s not true
you’d get 9 as the answer because ÷ and × have equal precedence and just go left to right
Well, more precisely you broke up the single term 2(1+2) into 2 terms - 2 and (1+2) - when you inserted the multiplication symbol, which sends the (1+2) from being in the denominator to being in the numerator. Terms are separated by operators and joined by grouping symbols.
lolcatnip@reddthat.com 1 month ago
I’m not sure what you’re getting at with your source. I’m taking about physical, non-graphic scientific calculators from the 1990s.
SmartmanApps@programming.dev 1 month ago
isolatedscotch@discuss.tchncs.de 1 month ago
my dumb ass reading this: “Team rock paper nscissors”
lolcatnip@reddthat.com 1 month ago
RTS = rock taper scissors FPS = frock paper scissors