order of operations in a straight equation

[JEL]

If I was making calculators I'd have to make them how the general populous wanted or expected them or face a failed business model.

Well, Apple's iPhone doesn't seem to be a failed business model even though its calculator confuses YOU by doing things correctly

 

[C3PO]

Well, Apple's iPhone doesn't seem to be a failed business model even though its calculator confuses YOU by doing things correctly

That's OK. I never see anyone in the workshop, or in the noisy part of science, use iPhones anyway.

 

[JEL]

@C3PO; are you to dissing a calculator for doing math correctly? :lol: Since when did inferior technology become smart and preferable to superior technology?

 

[Moach]

@C3PO; are you to dissing a calculator for doing math correctly? :lol: Since when did inferior technology become smart and preferable to superior technology?

since it started looking better... read my rant about Flash and it's foul programming ways in my post about a new language... it's a sad state of affairs, this one :facepalm:

 

[jthill]

JEL, calc.exe is a calculator simulator, not a fourth grade arithmetic tutor. It's too bad your classmates needed a tutor, and embarrassing for them to be exposed as such posturing, ignorant little boys, but it's really not calc.exe's fault. Many real four-function calculators work the way calc.exe's four-function calculator does.

 

[Moach]

for all intents and purposes, i thoroughly recommend SpeedCrunch

the best about it, is how it allows you to input equations in programming-like notation :thumbup: - a must-have for programmers and geeks everywhere

 

[JEL]

read my rant about Flash and it's foul programming ways in my post about a new language... it's a sad state of affairs, this one :facepalm:

The iPhone calculator isn't made with flash.
In fact you can't even run flash on the iPhone

JEL, calc.exe is a calculator simulator, not a fourth grade arithmetic tutor. It's too bad your classmates needed a tutor, and embarrassing for them to be exposed as such posturing, ignorant little boys, but it's really not calc.exe's fault. Many real four-function calculators work the way calc.exe's four-function calculator does.

It's not ignorance to want to progress toward better technology.

 

[Moach]

flash not running on IPhone is a problem caused by another problem.... Flash itself being one, and Apple the other.... (i find it hard to trust gadgets i can't take apart)


what i meant mostly, is that in this media-torn world, it so seems, pretty always trumphs smart...
hence my bickering with adobe and all assortments of java-like programming languages and the fact that a nice-looking calculator would very likely be taken more seriously than a mathematically correct one :facepalm:

 

[C3PO]

@C3PO; are you to dissing a calculator for doing math correctly? :lol: Since when did inferior technology become smart and preferable to superior technology?

You missed my point completely. In my experience people who have an iPhone care more about fashion than solving engineering problems. Sure they could calculate the best business model for selling a car, but if they had a flat tire they wouldn't have a clue how to fix it.
Basically people that would die on day 2 in a post-apocalyptic world. :lol:

IMHO the one area where an iPhone is superior tech is in the pricing. It's certainly useless as a phone if you live outside a major city area. The GSM part of it is in the bottom 10% of the marked.

 

[Urwumpe]

No, you misunderstood me here. When I said the mathematical language, I was talking about the language of symbols (+²√∑∂ etc) and expressions used to write equations rather than the words (like trivial used as the example) to explain things.

Exactly that is what I still mean. Just try to understand what...

[math]a \in Z + a > 0 \Rightarrow a \in N[/math]
...is supposed to say.

This is technically legal and it is just nonsense. Despite following a clear logic and the intention of the author being sure visible.

---------- Post added at 11:39 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:34 AM ----------

@C3PO; are you to dissing a calculator for doing math correctly? :lol: Since when did inferior technology become smart and preferable to superior technology?

Actually I consider using a calculator critical as well. I just saw it in a training course, in which we had been supposed to calculate a few simple percentage values in one exercise. I did it without calculator, and was not only done first, but also had the correct results, while many of the calculator users needed a long time because they never understood what they are actually doing there, they also often got the wrong results. (If you need a pocket calculator to find out what 1% or 10% of something is, you are really in trouble. And if you know what 1% and 10% is, the rest of the calculations is just simple addition)

It is one thing using a pocket calculator to get the exact fuel mass of a rocket design. But you should at least be able to estimate the result in your head to check the results of the pocket calculator.

For most stuff, you don't need it and for the really challenging stuff, most pocket calculators simply suck.

 

[agentgonzo]

Exactly that is what I still mean. Just try to understand what...

[math]a \in Z + a > 0 \Rightarrow a \in N[/math]
...is supposed to say.

This is technically legal and it is just nonsense. Despite following a clear logic and the intention of the author being sure visible.

OK, this is where we disagree. I don't consider that to be a legal mathematical expression. Yes, it's clear what the author is trying to say, but I don't consider it to be a correct expression in the same way that I don't consider "me want 3 cake" to be a valid sentence even though the intent is clear: "I want three cakes".

 

[Urwumpe]

I don't consider that to be a legal mathematical expression.

Prove which rule of mathematics the inventor of this line violated. I can't, I can only prove that there is more than three possible interpretations even if you already guess the context right, plus many more if you are interpreting this free of context.

 

[Artlav]

Let's redefine PI as 3, since 3.141592... is too hard for common people to use, and the loss of accuracy is negligible - you can always add a correction later!

 

[agentgonzo]

Prove which rule of mathematics the inventor of this line violated. I can't, I can only prove that there is more than three possible interpretations

[math]a \in Z + a > 0[/math] is implicitely [math](a \in Z + a) > 0[/math] and can be interpreted as either [math](a \in Z) + a[/math] or [math]a \in \{Z + a\}[/math], neither of which make sense. Either way, arguments about semantics are boring.

I'm also assuming you meant [math]\mathbb{Z}[/math] and [math]\mathbb{N}[/math], otherwise both Z and N are undefined.

 

[C3PO]

Let's redefine PI as 3, since 3.141592... is too hard for common people to use, and the loss of accuracy is negligible - you can always add a correction later!

The US congress already voted on that bill, and it was thrown out.

The reason wasn't accuracy, but there's a verse in the bible that says it's 3.

Edit: Correction!
It was passed unanimously in the Indiana House of Representatives in 1897, but it died in the state Senate.

 

[agentgonzo]

The reason wasn't accuracy, but there's a verse in the bible that says it's 3.

Really??? Can you let me know which one?

 

[Urwumpe]

[math]a \in Z + a > 0[/math] is implicitely [math](a \in Z + a) > 0[/math] and can be interpreted as either [math](a \in Z) + a[/math] or [math]a \in \{Z + a\}[/math], neither of which make sense. Either way, arguments about semantics are boring.

You could also interpret it as "a is element of the set Z appended with a". Also legal math. The most secure way to write it is [math]Z \cup \{ a \}[/math], but especially in computer science, the way to write it as [math]Z + a[/math] is popular.

 

[C3PO]

Really??? Can you let me know which one?

(I Kings 7, 23)
And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it about.

30/10=3 :facts:

:thumbup:

 

[agentgonzo]

You could also interpret it as "a is element of the set Z appended with a". Also legal math. The most secure way to write it is [math]Z \cup \{ a \}[/math], but especially in computer science, the way to write it as [math]Z + a[/math] is popular.

Yes, I know. I was skipping over that because 'and' and 'add' are different. Computer science is a different field (whilst closely related).

 

[JEL]

many of the calculator users needed a long time because they never understood what they are actually doing there, they also often got the wrong results.

I believe you, but that's where we are, whatever we may think about it. Crying over bad education won't change anything anytime soon. Obama gives tax-breaks to the rich (for noble reasons or not, that's another debate)... republicans cheer (because tax-breaks allow their kids to avoid public schools)... forget all about public schools changing for the better anytime soon. That's just where we are. People on the 'floor-level' of society are where they are, and those on the 'upper-floors' aren't coming down to help.

The facebook vote currently stands at about 21,000 getting it correct with about 7,000 getting it in-correct.
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=question&id=175468245841388&qa_ref=nac&post_id=176251852429694

The 7,000 either use their head or a calculator that doesn't help them.
The 21,000 either use their head or a calculator that DOES help them.

The numbers don't really tell us for sure if all 21,000 actually CAN do math. A part of the 21,000 might just have used a calculator that got it right for them. But even so, THAT would, IMO, still be better than if they were among the 7,000 group

Since we can't better the education anytime soon, we can atleast opt for the calculators that are the most fool-proof and require the least amount of pre-knowledge to use successfully.
That's my opinion anyway. Maybe later we can get better education.