begin Adam Majer quotation: > _Any_ calculator that isn't a piece of crap will follow the standard > precedence rules. Those rules _must_ be obeyed otherwise the real > numbers that everyone loves so much would not even form a field [this > will probably not mean anything to you but...] > > If you want 1*2+5*50 to be equal to 350 then enter is as (1*2+5)*50=7*50=350 > > AFAIK, a $5 calculator will follow precedence.. > > I hope you realize your error by now..
Well, let's see. I have two cheap calculators right here, one a nearly 20-year old Casio FX-115 scientific calculator, and the other a fairly new Texas Instruments TI-1795SV (four-function with memory). Both are infix, not RPN. Casio: 1+2*3=7 TI: 1+2*3=9 I suspect that "scientific" vs. "four-function" is the distinction here. The scientific calculator has parenthesis buttons to facilitate entering complex expressions, while the four-function does not. Your math-theory objection is really irrelevant to all this. For a four-function calculator used for simple accounting tasks, you don't want it to get too clever with the numbers you're entering, because mostly you're working your way down a column entering numbers in a sequence. You need a running total after each one, which would make no sense if the calculator was waiting for you to finish so it could go back and apply precedence rules. Craig
pgpeFsBI1NXh9.pgp
Description: PGP signature
