Talk:Calculator

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Article Comment

Moved this comment from the article:

We need information on history of calculators, early mechanical calculators, etc...

Please make comments about articles on the talk pages. :^) —Frecklefoot 19:08, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)


[edit] Drawbacks

As it stands currently, I take exception to the Drawbacks section, as it gives the impression that .999 repeating is not, in fact, equal to one, when it is.

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_that_0.999..._equals_1

I have edited that section so as not to leave people with that false impression, and linked to that article. 24.255.211.121

I think the real point to be made here is that some calculators can only represent fractions such as 1/3 approximately. Isn't this because of rounding up or down rather than arithmetic underflow, which is when a number is so small it is represented by zero? —Vadmium 23:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes. However, it leaves people with a false impression, that .999 repeating isn't equal to one, which it is. If the point of wikipedia is to educate people about topics, then this article, when using .999 repeating as an example of the disadvantages of calculators with respect to a lack of precision, most people will make the assumption that that would imply that .999 repeating is less than one, which it isn't.

If you can think of a good reason why not to inform people of this subtle point I'd love to hear it.24.116.23.122

Alright - user DreamGuy seems to take exception to the inclusion of this fact in the article, and feels that it's inappropriate. I would truly enjoy hearing from DreamGuy himself as to his problem with this information and why it needs to be left out. It seems to me to be the logical continuation and conclusion of the paragraph

I have no desire to waste further time on arguing this point, as this is too insignificant to merit my time.

However, my last action on this matter is to put it to the wikipedia community whether or not this information should be included.


Votes for : - me keelerm Votes against: - DreamGuy

24.116.23.122 06:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

If it's too insignificant to waste your time, how is it that you kept reverting it to your version and insisted that your version be the way it should bem against accepted history of this article and the explanations i gave in my edit comments, and also went to ak for page protection tolock it to get your way?

This is simply an obnoxious abuse of the way things are supposed to work here. Some anon editor comes in from out of nowhere and forces his opinion in an article in a way that makes no sense for a statement that is highly disputed and then gets the admins to lock it his way against the comments of multiple editors here (mine and Vadmium above). So some nobody who hasn;t even signed up for an account manages to overrule two real editors. Marvelous. The admin you got to lock it must have been particularly clueless.

So, anyway, while we have two votes against the way it is and only one (from an obnoxious pushy anon editor) in favor of the way it is, it should be unlocked so we can fix the damage. If it stays locked, fine I guess, just another article here permanently messed up thanks to a policy that treats people with no experience, credentials, ability or common sense as more important than real editors. DreamGuy 04:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


All I'm looking for here DreamGuy is for you to engage in a civilized debate on the subject, rather than merely using the edit summary on the page to converse after you revert the edit. I have worked on quite a few pages on wikipedia as an anonymous editor, and have resolved other issues on other articles in a well reasoned discussion on the article through the talk page. That's all I'm asking for, is for you to not simply revert edits due to your belief - I'd appreciate it if you would discuss it in a polite manner on the talk page, come to a consensus on the issue, and then, whatever the consensus on the edit is, that is the action that is taken. I am not new to wikipedia, or editing articles, and I would appreciate it if you would treat me no differently than other editors with accounts. I choose to remain anonymous due to my own perogatives, which I would appreciate if you would respect.

That being said, there is currently no consensus on the subject, with you against the edit, and me for. Vadmium has also commented, but no one else has weighed in on the issue.

I do appreciate you taking the opportunity to finally discuss this on the talk page, and had you availed yourself of this earlier, the page would not have needed to be protected so that you would discuss it. 24.116.23.122 04:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Over-reliance on a calculators precision is, I guess, a drawback. point-9 recurring does equal one. It does seem a little out of context in that paragraph. How about a See also: link to Proof_that_0.999..._equals_1 (which seems like a good article) ? Wizzy…☎ 09:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

DreamGuy is right the fact that 0.999... recurring equals 1 is not relevant to this article. The article is discussing a drawback due to the fixed precision representation of numbers by calculators. In my opinion, the statement should be deleted and a better explaination of the effects of fixed precision calculation should be presented as the explaination right now could use some improvement. Cedars 01:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The fact that 0.999... recurring is precisely equal to 1 is true, but irrelevant. One needs an infinite number of 9's to make it true, and no calculator has that many decimal places. It's also true that 0.333... recurring is precisely equal to 1/3, but the problem that calcuators have is that they don't keep enough 3's, so the number they store is NOT precisely 1/3.

I stumbled across this page and jumped in late, but I'll suggest another wording for this section, and a slight variation on the exercise.

Built-in inaccuracy due to fixed-precision arithmetic is a drawback occurring in all ordinary digital calculators. To obtain an example of this potential problem, the following exercise may be performed: enter the number one, divide by three, to reach 0.333 (followed by as many 3s as the calculator's precision can handle), multiply by three to get back to a theoretical value of one, and then subtract one. The result theoretically should be zero, but on most calculators, it will not be. On some calculators the intermediate value of one divided by three times three will be displayed as .999 recurring to the limits of the calculator's display. Others will make use of internal registers that have higher precision than the calculator's display to show this intermediate result as 1., but on many of these calculators, subtracting one from the result will demonstrate that there is still a residual error. The problem in this example is that in order to represent 1/3 in decimal notation with perfect precision, one needs an infinite number of decimal places. But calculators only provide a finite number of decimal places, thus some precision is lost.

Rcochran 17:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


I have copyedited this article. I agree that calculators are not totally accurate, but equally I think it's dangerous to use the 0.999...=1 debate as a way of proving or disproving this. Most people find the 0.999...=1 very hard to believe (regardless of calculators), as I think this discussion has proven. Therefore, I have also rewritten this section so that it gets the point across without using this specific example. I hope this is agreeable to all. Davidbod 10:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Graphing calculator

Graphing calculator has been a re-direct to calculator for nearly a year. Can we start a discussion about whether graphing calculators are ready yet to have their own article?? 66.245.2.190 17:15, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Go to Graphing calculator. Find yourself at Calculator. Click on the redirected from link. Edit that page, taking out the #REDIRECT line. Add long, informative article .. Wizzy 11:42, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] History

The article doesn't mention that TI submitted a patent for the handheld calculator in 1967, which they (as well as the Wikipedia article on TI) define as "inventing the handheld calculator". However it seems that the patent application didn't stop other companies from introducing handheld calculators. It seems that the handheld calculator introduced by Canon in 1970 was in partnership with TI. Someday someone who knows the correct story on this stuff should probably add a note about this. Ken6en 11:30, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Human Calculators

This article neglects to mention what people used for calculators before mechanical calculators. I know very little about this area, but it seems as if someone who did could add a section after abacus to talk about using human labour to produce calculations.

Especially of interest may be firing solutions in WWI/WWII-era submarine (I believe the person in charge of that was called a calculator, IANANO), and the scores of women that signed up to become calculators for the war effort.

Unfortunately, I know very little about this. Not even enough to make a heading with a stub. --Eienmaru 13:23, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki Calculator

Is there any way to have a functining calculator on this page? For example. I'm pretty sure there is free Java scipts available on the internet for such things. Piyrwq 02:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia section Q

I'm a tiny bit concerned the trivia section may soon/eventually get to the stage that it is no longer very encyclopaedic, due to the growing number of examples of 'upside-down 7-seg display writing'. I added/edited a couple myself in the section's early days, but (foolishly?) didn't expect the expansion into a veritable dictionary of phrases, most of them representing genres appealing to the major demographic of calculator users (college students). Should we do something about this, or just let it run free? --Wernher 22:22, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I moved it to a separate article: Calculator spelling

[edit] Pi on calculator picture

Did anyone else notice that pi is wrong in the picture? pi = 3.14159, not 3.14158. Is this an easter egg? 'Cause that would be cool.

Well spotted! I took the pic and put pi on the calculator. I knew pi was 3.1415926535 so I can't explain how I came to use 3.14158 - Adrian Pingstone 21:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
There is no way to for that kind of calculator to tell Pi,so someone the photographer must know the wrong valua of Pi.
The above anonymous comment makes no sense. As I clearly explained above, I entered the wrong value for pi into the calculator - Adrian Pingstone 13:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How calculators work

This article should include how calculators actually work. I haven't been able to find out how they do anywhere on the internet. --Anonymous

You're probably right; we should include a rough guide as to how calculators do their stuff. IMO this can easily be explained in a concise step-by-step text linking calc functionality to the relevant detailed articles on WKP about computers, since calcs is nothing more than specialized digital computers. That is; if you know the fundamentals of computers, you actually know calcs as well. --Wernher 13:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia: Melcor 635

So, if you asked it arccos(0), what happened? Melchoir 01:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia, turning off calculator

Wikiwizzy deleted my trivia input of turning off a solar powered calculator. I think that the comment that 'just put it in the dark' was a no duh but my input of '- *A way to turn off a solar powered calculator is by hold down the numbers 5 and 6 and pressing the on button.' was put quite rightly in the Trivia section. It is another way to turn off a calculator and it is quite commonlyused. Should I put it back in?--Shaliron 08:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, I find it difficult to believe this. Doesn't just pressing the on button work ? Which calculator - all of them ? I have never seen this. Do you have a reference ? Anyone else seen this ? Wizzy…☎ 08:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
The 5-6 method doesn't work on my TI-34 calculator, and Shaliron implies that it works on any one. Perhaps you could put it in an article on a specific model, but it doesn't belong here. --Blainster 19:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
This works on all non-scientific calculators. That means all simple math calculators, the ones used at primary school level. I've yet to see one that doesn't work like that. Just hold down 5 then 6 and then the on button, all at the same time.--Shaliron 06:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rotary calculators

Blainster, I'm not familiar with the Curta, but the rotary calculators were important and predominant. Where would you put them? -- Perspective 00:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm no expert either but there is an article on the Curta, and it looks to be rotary driven by a hand crank. My point in reverting was that the Curta didn't come out until 1948, which made the sentence self-contradictory after your edit. Perhaps there is some confusion about the differences which you can sort out. It looks like the Curta was hand-held and the earlier ones were desktop models. By all means add what you wish to the main article, just be careful to fit it in where it makes sense. I would like to see alot more detail in the individual company articles. It was astounding to see that there were no articles yet on Friden or Marchant until I started them earlier this month. --Blainster 05:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Order?

"Also, most everyday calculators do not follow the proper order of operations in mathematics; therefore, if someone were to type (on an average calculator) "2+4×2", they may get 12 (i.e., the answer to "(2+4)×2"), instead of 10, the correct answer (i.e., the answer to "2+(4×2)")."

I have yet to have seen a calculator in the last 10 years that gets simple BODMAS rules wrong, no matter how cheap. I think saying "most" in the above part is a bit much. Mouse Nightshirt 00:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I have several calculators of this type, most of them of the <$5 (US) variety. They are "compute as you go" with the display as the only accumulator. I don't know about the "most", either, but they do still exist. Ted 01:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is one of the latest calculators I got that has this "feature": Texas Instruments 307. Another is: Sharp EL-233G. Ted 06:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I totally disagree with this. If using a scientific calculator that allows for equations to be written (rather then single operations) then it will give the correct answer. If input into a normal (simple) calculator it will do the arithmetic as it goes because that is simply all it can do, it does not wait until the user stops inputting operations to calculate the answer. I am removing this comment from the article as it is personal opinion with no reference. It is simply incorrect. 58.6.42.80 01:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, technically 12 in the example would be correct if input into a simple calculator as it would be seen by the calculator as (((2)+4)*2). This order confusion is a human error not understanding the calculator rather than a calculation error. This is true as the calculator must be able to define the difference between 2+4*2 and (2+4)*2 which is done so by the way in which the user inputs the data (for an example, this is similar reasoning to switching numbers in 2-3 to 3-2 and calling the result a calculation error when it is the user that has changed the arithmetic of the calculation). As the article previously stated, it would recommend that there is no way to calculate 2+4*2, which is simply false. 58.6.42.80 01:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Calculator Picture

I think that the new calculator picture is not a basic calculator photo, it is a scientific calculator. Should we revert to the old one?--Shaliron 02:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I prefer the old one, though I'm not that fussed. Vadmium 05:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
No need to revert, let's have both at the top of the article, they're both valuable pics - Adrian Pingstone 08:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Hell, the '1337' calculator made me smile, plus it's a really popular model of scientific calculator. Both are up there, so it's no real problem GoldenTie 08:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of decimal in calculators

Shouldn't this article mention the use of the decimal system in modern calculators? Heck, the Floor function page mentions this. See also Binary-coded decimal.

[edit] The calculator guy

Does anyone remember that guy that was doing 1+1+1+1+1+1+1... for seemingly forever?

[edit] Potential picture modification

Would anybody have any objections if I created modified versions of the basic and graphing calculator pictures to use a plain white background for this article, so that they would be consistent with the scientific calculator's picture? Jumbo Snails 20:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bringing this article up to good article status

This is a nice, detailed but not overly long article, and I think achieving WP:GA and perhaps eventually WP:FA would be a great project. One of the first orders of business might be fixing up citations, what are some other changes that the community sees as necessary? Jumbo Snails 20:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/a/l/Talk%7ECalculator_7a24.html"