|Re: Show me|
Message #40 Posted by Valentin Albillo on 30 June 2004, 8:33 a.m.,
in response to message #39 by Chris Woodhouse
"The method you described is the only method I ever remember seeing or using, to add a long list of numbers, so yes that is how I would do it by hand too. The method is virtually identical if that list contains only two numbers"
Yes, but that's not my example, which clearly states "a list of 10 or 12 elements", not two. You can't change my example to what you'd like it to be, and then argue that it doesn't hold.
For lists of more than two numbers, the fact is that people don't follow the "natural" RPN way, but rather another quite different method, and they don't see any intermediate results, which they don't want or need anyway. That's my example, it's universal, and I rest my case that it's a perfect counterexample and an incredibly frequent one at that, happening all the time.
"If you believe it would show something more substantive, I will happily buy you dinner"
Thanks but come to think of it, I agree with you on this one, it would be useless. As the old saying reads: "There are none so blind as they who refuse to see."
"My request was for a "real world" example. This may or may not be a real world example but the fact that it "appears on an engineering book" doesn't mean it is a real world problem."
Uh !? Making your own definitions once again ? It does appear in an engineering book yet it isn't "a real world problem" for you ?? Great. As long as you make your own definitions on the fly and stick to them, it'll be quite difficult to win an argument against you. Wish I could do the same, instead of trying to be rational and objective ...
It seems to me that you somehow believe as a matter of faith that nothing in this world would ever require more than 4 levels. And if someone presented you with such an evidence, you would claim it doesn't apply. Great attitude, I like it.
"This statement shows a clear bias against RPN."
Bias against RPN !? Me ?? You obviously don't know me, at all, nor did you ever read my articles, postings, letters, books, hear my lectures, see me attending customers trade fair after trade fair at the HP booth, etc, etc. It's like Palmer said, cults tend to demonize anyone dissenting of their beliefs. Else, why would you try an "ad-hominem" attack, labeling me as "biased-against-RPN" ? Are you so devoid of real arguments to try such a low trick ? What's next ? That I'm not a USA citizen ?
" The intermediate values may not always be needed, but they are often very useful."
Or not. In my example, why on Earth would you want to know or even see how much is it the chicken plus the fish, the chicken plus the fish plus the dessert, the chicken plus the fish plus the dessert plus the wine, etc, etc ? Wouldn't your mind accept that many times intermediate results are a nuisance, useless numbers noone wants to even look at ?
"Quote: Did you get it correctly first time ? (8816.232) Yes on an HP 48GX [...] I was pretty sure 4 wasn't enough, that is why I used my 48GX."
Ah, I see !! A new change of rules !! I thought we were discussing classic 4-level RPN vs. true algebraic and now you introduce n-level RPL (not RPN) into the discussion, so that my arguments, examples and questions cease to apply !
And it catches me with the guard low, not having prepared anything against multi-level RPL ! Wow !
Clever, Chris, very clever. Except for the fact that you chickened out and had to resort to just plain *cheating* , using one of the top-of-the-line, most advanced RPL (*not* RPN) models to essentially avoid trying my example and answering my questions in a classic RPN machine, as intended, because you feared that 4-level wasn't enough (you just were "pretty sure", not downright positive; that would require carefully pre-scanning the expression, isn't it ?), while I can compute said expression without even batting an eyelid even in the *lowest*, bottom-of-the-line SHARP machine I own. Doesn't that ring a bell ?
But I'm done with you. The moment you learn how to conduct a proper, rational discussion, without "ad-hominem" attacks, without redefining terms on the fly, without trying to be both judge and defendant, without changing the rules at your convenience, and, if at all possible, with a positive attitude to see if your learn something worthwhile, I'll be amenable to resume this argument.
But as it is, I'm tired of this, and regrettably, as I feared, I'm losing my time with you.
Long live RPN !
Take care, and best regards from V.
Edited: 30 June 2004, 9:11 a.m.