Stepping down from an advanced calculator

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the challenges of transitioning from an advanced graphing calculator to a simpler model, specifically the CASIO fx-260, for solving equations. A user seeks guidance on inputting a specific equation without using parentheses and expresses concern about the order of operations. The suggested method involves calculating the denominator first, then using the reciprocal to multiply by the numerator. There is a recognition of the limitations of simpler calculators in tracking order of operations, which can lead to potential errors. Ultimately, the conversation highlights the importance of understanding calculation order when using basic calculators.
mindheavy
Messages
62
Reaction score
0
This is kind of sad, but I'm beginning to realize how much I rely on my graphing calculator any more for solving equations and whatnot. I am trying to incorporate a much simpler calculator from time to time (CASIO fx-260) and am struggling with some very basic operations.

Say I have the equation \tau_A=\frac{5kN\cdot.040}{\frac{\pi}{2}\cdot(.04^4)} and I want to input this without using parenthesis. What is the order to type this in the calculator with?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
If you have a calculator that won't track order of operations for you, and I have one that let's you type it out on the screen to confirm it's correct, I would just go with the latter and restrict myself to only using it for basic calculations.

As for your guy, I would start with .04, raise it to the power of 4, multiply by pi, divide by 2, hit the "1/x" key, then multiply by all the stuff in the numerator consecutively. The thing I would be worried about when entering this expression into the calculator is if I try to do divide by, then enter .04, then raise to the 4th power, that it would divide by .04 before raising everything I have so far to the 4th power (some calculators will recognize a Pemdas violation I believe, but some won't).
 
Thanks, following the order you laid out got the correct answer. I hadn't thought of doing the denominator then reciprocating it to multiply by the numerator, but I see it now!
 
Use those bracket buttons, for example, numerator / ( ... ) =

Oh sorry, you said without using parentheses. Odd :).
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top