Equations of this kind need >4 stack levels for solving:
. .
They don't look too difficult for school.
Equations of this kind need >4 stack levels for solving:
Thanks for the really good example. Seems, it needs 5 stack level. If I was faced with such calculations frequently, I would prefer a RPL calculator to RPN, but in school, to better understand arithmetic and keep the overview I would calculate denominator and numerator separately and then divide. This takes 4 stack level and one memory register.
We did exactly this: The WP34S, 31S, and 43S offer you the choice of either the traditional 4-level stack for ... ummh ... traditionalists or an 8-level stack for users who want to calculate "sans soucis". I don't assume you can get new people excited about RPN when you stick to the limitations of 1972. And I don't think an 8-level stack requires any extra explanations - feed it like you feed a 4-level stack and it will simply work, just without any need to care for overflow.Peet wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 10:43 pmIn my opinion the main problem with a stack of more than 4 levels is, that it would not be compatible with either RPN (because of the T register) or RPL. I don't assume that you can get new people excited about RPN if you introduce another variant of the two established ones. There would be more need for explanation than advantages. Optional, maybe. But by no means as a default.
Cars have had four wheels for over 100 years, I don't think 6 or 8 wheel cars are more advanced - it's more specialized, and those who prefer 4 wheels don't consider them traditionalists. I never saw a 4 level stack to be a limitation, but rather as a given and sufficient.Walter wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 11:04 pm...the traditional 4-level stack for ... ummh ... traditionalists or an 8-level stack for users who want to calculate "sans soucis". I don't assume you can get new people excited about RPN when you stick to the limitations of 1972. And I don't think an 8-level stack requires any extra explanations - feed it like you feed a 4-level stack and it will simply work, just without any need to care for overflow.
Hear, hear! I hope that all the new calculators coming out will adhere to that philosophy!
Well, I can only speak for our projects - we offer a choice of 4 or 8 stack levels with each of our calculators. But maybe I missed your point.toml_12953 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 15, 2021 3:24 pmHear, hear! I hope that all the new calculators coming out will adhere to that philosophy!
As a very recent convert to RPN, I completely disagree. For me, a big part of RPN's appeal is how natural and effortless it feels, the calculator gets out of your way and lets you focus on solving problems. A 4 level stack is definitely an arbitrary technical limitation that could completely disrupt your calculations if you needed to solve a deeply nested equation that demands greater than 4 stack levels. At that point, why not just use a calculator with textbook input? It'd be a lot easier…Peet wrote: ↑Fri Oct 15, 2021 12:54 amCars have had four wheels for over 100 years, I don't think 6 or 8 wheel cars are more advanced - it's more specialized, and those who prefer 4 wheels don't consider them traditionalists. I never saw a 4 level stack to be a limitation, but rather as a given and sufficient.
Maybe this really is better for you. For me, RPN is not nostalgic but more suitable for my calculations than other input methods.
Alternative: use a RPL calculator.