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
Attachment:
pgpH6Tg5gdqJe.pgp
Description: PGP signature