+2489 I may have created more ambiguity with my post.
I notice Asinus has started a discussion on this topic on the German forum. And there’s EP’s reference to this post, here: http://web2.0calc.com/questions/help_57875#r1
The “this is not a bug” comment may have implied that 48/(2)(9+3) =2 is true because of the parentheses. It is not. I’m sure the “not a bug” had to do with the nature of how Web2.0calc’s complier interprets variables. Not that this is a true statement.
This sentence implies it should not do that:
“Herr Massow’s calculator is the only one I know of that that does this, and it’s probably because it allows the use of variables.”
I understood this because of his previous comments not directly related to this post, I learned the only way to concatenate variables on the web2.0 calculator is to place parentheses around them: (a)(b), else “ab” will be treated as a variable named “ab” instead of implicit multiplication of “a” and “b”. Using this a(b) will cause the calc to treat it as function “a” with argument “b”.
You can place parentheses around numbers in other calculators, but it returns 288. At lot of calculators will solve for variables x and y, but few, if any, allow a value to be directly assigned to a variable. So, it just explains why web2.0calc treats literal numbers as variables (and gives a wrong answer).
This statement . . .
“Of course, if you put the explicit multiplication operator in: 48/(2)*(9+3) or leave the parentheses off the 2 then it returns 288, the normal solution for numeric values.”
implies that 2 is an abnormal result and is clear that 288 is the normal result for numeric values.
This statement …
“Implicit multiplication of variables takes precedents over division – a noted exception, dating back to the late 1960s, to the normal convention of mathematical hierarchy.”
makes it is clear that the multiplication of variables takes precedents over division. But the example above has no variables in it. I suppose, if pressed, he would agree it is in fact a bug, because there are no variables in the parenthetical operators.
---------------------------------
I have several instructables and comments by our troll relating to the forum’s calculator -- including a humorous one starting with, “I wish Herr Massow would stick to neutering his pets instead of his calculator. . . .”
This comment preceded a lament that all the constants except for pi and e are gone.
“ . . . Now I have to manually enter the constants to calculate how hyper-polarized I am. What a bummer!”
http://web2.0calc.com/questions/can-i-suggest-adding-phi-read-more-or-something#r4
I suggested he just use the maximum value – it would be correct most of the time.
