"Not fit for purpose"

[Nicko]

Although we had calculators at school, we were taught with slide rules and were only allowed to use calculators in the O’level year. The idea being we knew how to do the calculations and how to do rough estimates so we knew if the calculator gave a stupid answer.
you would also be suprised how high you can stack chairs, the year above me on their last night stacked all the chairs from the assembly hall into a massive pyramid in the quadrangle, took a photo, and put the chairs back. Left the photo on the headmasters place at breakfast.

Sounds like you went to one of those 'posh' schools Dave..... :smiling2:

Nick

[Guest]

I've not seen this RPN system before, but it strikes me as being just an alternative way of doing calculations either sequentially - just like the old fashioned bog standard calculator, or in 'scientific' order. You - the operator - are still left with the problem of deciding which method of entry will give you the answer you need rather than the answer the machine decides you need.

But isn’t that problem impossible to remove? It eventually always boils down to:—

Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?

Incidentally, the article you have linked to also makes the point that this method is more difficult to learn.

I read that too, and I wonder if that is because literally everyone in the world who ever learned to do arithmetic, was first taught so using the traditional method. There’s no way to test that, unfortunately, other than teaching a couple of schools worth of kids to use RPN from the start, I suppose.

Which computer calculator are you using Laurie? My PC has two types of calculator - the normal default one (sequential) and a scientific one (BODMAS). They give different answers.

FWIW, the system calculator on macOS in both standard, scientific and programmer modes says 2 + 2 ÷ 2 = 3, as does Spotlight (the system’s search tool that has a calculator built in too).

If they can't be consistent, why should I be?

To show people how it should be done. I generally refuse to lower myself to someone else’s standards if they’re clearly making mistakes, instead using terminology etc. correctly in my replies. If that confuses them, then maybe they’ll learn something. (Of course, it’s possible all they’ll learn is that they think I’m wrong )

Last example, how many times have you been asked to fill in your weight on medical forms? The correct answer should be given in Newton’s, because weight is a product of mass and gravity. What they really want is your mass, which is given in Kilos! Weight changes minutely depending upon height above sea level, mass is a constant.

That, though, is a result of scientific understanding moving on but not units. Go back a few hundred years and not even scientists realised there was a difference between weight and mass, so the gram was defined as a weight — when later on, it dawned that what it was actually defining, is a mass.

Also, since this is essentially a thread about pedantry: in the SI, names of units are not capitalised — the name of the unit is newton. not Newton

[Tim Marlow]

Also, since this is essentially a thread about pedantry: in the SI, names of units are not capitalised — the name of the unit is newton. not Newton :smiling3:

Not me buddy, autocorrect got that one wrong!

[Tim Marlow]

That, though, is a result of scientific understanding moving on but not units. Go back a few hundred years and not even scientists realised there was a difference between weight and mass, so the gram was defined as a weight — when later on, it dawned that what it was actually defining, is a mass.

Going further into pedantry …
Actually, the gram was defined as a volume of water, not a weight per se, and it’s adoption in the metric system was predated by the understanding of mass by about 100 years……

[Dave Ward]

Strange that metric system was brought up. As a design engineer, I worked for a British Company, we were totally metric, and I was tasked with designing a gas engine conversion - we made diesel engines, so I had to do different pistons etc etc. As a diesel, there were no spark plugs, or electric ignition system, so I had to work up a system from scratch. I value engineered everything, even going for over specced bearings, as they were the cheapest I could find. It worked nicely, looked elegant & was within budget. UNTIL our US subsidiary started bleating about metric bearings! What was the cheapest bearing in Europe was one of the most expensive in the US, and they had to have a certain percentage of American produced parts to qualify as 'US Made' . The US was geared up to large diesels, and I had to redo the design to use clunky parts designed for engines 3 times the size! All because the US is one of the 3 countries in the world that have not accepted the metric system! ( The other two are Liberia & Myanmar! ). The design looked terrible, patched together with oversized parts - I always kept quiet when anyone asked who has designed the monstrosity! Consolation was that it worked pretty well!
Dave

[Guest]

I'm getting a nose bleed!

Thank heaven I made enough pennies for an early retirement simply by knocking nails into bits of wood.

The only calculation I ever needed was if I could finish a roof in time before the British Legion Bar opened.....:thumb2:

Well said 570.
453 still using the stick system to measure.
Few would know what I was talking about I feel .

[dave]

Sounds like you went to one of those 'posh' schools Dave..... :smiling2:

Nick

Not that posh, back in the day it was a workaday boarding school for children of military officers, doctors, farmers etc., most of the cars picking up at the end of term were Ford Cortinas and the like.

[Guest]

Going further into pedantry …
Actually, the gram was defined as a volume of water, not a weight per se

As the weight of a volume of water:

Gramme, le poids absolu d'un volume d'eau pure égal au cube de la centième partie du mètre , et à la température de la glace fondante.

[Tim Marlow]

But as it would have been used by measuring other materials as a standard, and using a balance beam as a comparison tool, gravity is taken out of the equation. It therefore becomes mass by default because the definition given is that of an amount of substance…ergo its “mass”.

[Nicko]

I think this thread is a good measure of the weather being too hot for sticking bits of plastic together and painting them......

Nick

[Tim Marlow]

Strange that metric system was brought up. As a design engineer, I worked for a British Company, we were totally metric, and I was tasked with designing a gas engine conversion - we made diesel engines, so I had to do different pistons etc etc. As a diesel, there were no spark plugs, or electric ignition system, so I had to work up a system from scratch. I value engineered everything, even going for over specced bearings, as they were the cheapest I could find. It worked nicely, looked elegant & was within budget. UNTIL our US subsidiary started bleating about metric bearings! What was the cheapest bearing in Europe was one of the most expensive in the US, and they had to have a certain percentage of American produced parts to qualify as 'US Made' . The US was geared up to large diesels, and I had to redo the design to use clunky parts designed for engines 3 times the size! All because the US is one of the 3 countries in the world that have not accepted the metric system! ( The other two are Liberia & Myanmar! ). The design looked terrible, patched together with oversized parts - I always kept quiet when anyone asked who has designed the monstrosity! Consolation was that it worked pretty well!
Dave

In my experience North Americans don’t seem to use A4 as a paper standard either. Many years back we were carrying out contract pharmaceutical manufacturer for a Canadian company who (reasonably) wanted copies of all documentation, including SOPs etc. Trouble is, when we sent the electronic copies they wouldn’t format properly on their standard paper, which was smaller. They wanted us to reformat all the docs onto the smaller standard, which was a huge amount of reworking. When the meeting started getting a little “precious “ I suggested a work around which generated a bit of a sense of humour failure . I said “why don’t we scan some blank A4, Fax it over, and then you can photocopy as much as you want for use in printing”……..

[outrunner]

After all this prevaricating I think I will stick to my Abacus.

Andy.

[spanner570]

Andy, I've not tried that. Does it taste o.k., or is it a Lager?!

[Guest]

In my experience North Americans don’t seem to use A4 as a paper standard either.

They’ve got their Letter and Legal standards for paper size, both of which are slightly wider than A4 as well as a bit shorter (Letter) or longer (Legal). Letter is by far the most common, and most American “A4”-size books you may come across, are Letter-size. A4 paper is apparently about as hard to get in North America as Letter paper in much of the rest of the world.

More than you probably care to learn about this subject:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_size#North_American_paper_sizes

I suggested a work around which generated a bit of a sense of humour failure . I said “why don’t we scan some blank A4, Fax it over, and then you can photocopy as much as you want for use in printing”……..

So did they take you up on that offer?

[Andy the Sheep]

Nice and fully enjoyable summer talk!
It gave me the chance to learn another shade of the English language: square meters and meters squared... In Italian there is nothing similar; we just have "metri quadrati" for "square meters" but no equivalent to "meters squared". If we have to say that a number/measure is "squared" we say "...al quadrato" meaning that we are multiplying that number/measure by itself or "...al cubo" when we mean "cube"... but I'm getting tedious so...
... have the most possible fresh day and stay safe.
Andrea.