Talk:Calculator

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Mathematics (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject Mathematics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Mathematics rating:
B Class
Mid Importance
 Field: General
One of the 500 most frequently viewed mathematics articles.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / Vital
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
 
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is a vital article.

Current Knowledge of Calculators[edit]

I just tried to improve the article by adding the mention that there are calculators performing exactly the same functions as all the now historical electronic calculators and those comments were removed. It is relevant to an article titled "Calculator" that the same technology once available only on a hand-held device is now available on the web and on mobile devices and now a whole calculator can be built in minutes that uses any conceivable equation on a calculator button. This is very relevant to the evolution of the calculator and I'm not understanding why this was removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Bartmess (talkcontribs) 20:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Article Comment[edit]

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)

Graphing calculator[edit]

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)

History[edit]

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)

Information added MaltaGC 21:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
One more tidbit ... TI released the four function Datamath (around $40) at the same time the SR-50 was released. I have both of these calculators ... do you want photos? I remember the price of the SR-50 to be $150, although that may have been a discounted price for TI employees. I don't remember hearing about the SR-10 ... which puzzles me as I worked at TI from 1972-1974. eisenbeis, 8 Dec 07. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eisenbeis (talkcontribs) 14:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Just read an article where the db800 by Digitron was described as the first European pocket calculator. Should it be mentioned in the History section? --Killing time, till it retaliates. (talk) 18:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Human Calculators[edit]

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)

Wiki Calculator[edit]

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)

Trivia section Q[edit]

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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.179.85.3 (talkcontribs) 06:06, 17 October 2005

Pi on calculator picture[edit]

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.11.87 (talkcontribs) 07:00, 17 September 2005

Well spotted! I took the pic and put pi on the calculator. I knew pi was 3.14159265358979323846264 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 value of Pi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.108.104.120 (talkcontribs) 16:11, 30 November 2005
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)
LOL @ 1337 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.162.133.64 (talk) 05:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Ah, so someone noticed. I cleaned up Mr Pingstone's picture and "adjusted" the value of Pi whilst I was at it to see if anyone would spot the error. Kodabar (talk) 02:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

How calculators work[edit]

This article should include how calculators actually work. I haven't been able to find out how they do anywhere on the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.164.243.231 (talkcontribs) 20:06, 1 October 2005

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)
I agree, there should be information about how the calculator chips and circuitry work and stuff. Could someone look into it? There's no information elsewhere.-someone else —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.17.188.189 (talk) 03:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC).
That is outside the scope of the article in my opinion, especially since different calculators will calculate different ways. One way might be using an interpreter to convert an arithmetic expression into postfix notation (Reverse_Polish_notation) and then evaluating the expression using an algorithm. If you ever learn how to create a calculator by programming you could get a decent grasp of the different ways to do this, but as I said, it seems beyond the scope of the article. 67.11.141.177 20:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
While some calculators might be built around computers, the first calculators certainly were not: they were built using simple boolean logic, without any programmability. Notinasnaid 21:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


Surely this is key? The computer article makes much of the fact that for a device to properly be considered a computer, it needs to be programmable. I am removing some references to calculators as computers since they do not fullfill this criteria and are very far from being Turing Complete 188.220.171.33 (talk) 21:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Someone else has reverted your removals, quite justifiably. The references you had removed were to certain calculators being analog computers. The term "analog computer" is well established, predating the development of stored-program digital computers. Turing-completeness does not apply to analog computers, nor do they need to be programmable in the same sense a digital computer is. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 06:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Drawbacks[edit]

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 16:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

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)

Trivia: Melcor 635[edit]

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

Trivia, turning off calculator[edit]

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)

joke warning: "what happens if you leave a solar-powered calculator on too long?" answer: "the sun burns out!" Bob Emmett (talk) 05:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Rotary calculators[edit]

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)

Order?[edit]

"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)

New Calculator Picture[edit]

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)

Use of decimal in calculators[edit]

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.

The calculator guy[edit]

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

Potential picture modification[edit]

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)

Bringing this article up to good article status[edit]

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)

In my opinion, I think the article is starting to become overly long and we should trim it down. I added a few sources too.Shindo9Hikaru 22:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Scientic notation comment[edit]

Most calculators of this type can print numbers up to ten digits or decimal places in full on the screen. Scientific notation is used to notate numbers up to 9.999999999*1099. If a larger number or a mathematical expression yielding a larger number than this is entered (a common example comes from typing "100!", read as "100 factorial") then the calculator will simply display "error". It is very difficult to store the memory necessary to calculate larger numbers in so small an instrument.

On a HP 48G/GX the maximum number is 9.99999999999E499. It has twelve displayed digits (above the suggested up to value of ten), and fifteen are used in calculation. Because HP is mentioned two paragraphs down this paragraph should refect the best specification of the listed companies.

It is very difficult to store the memory necessary to calculate larger numbers in so small an instrument.

In the age of fantastically huge memories this just doesn't seem right. Primary reason for such technical limitations: cost.

I believe that the section needs split into a section on scientic calculators and another on graphical calculators. The wording in the section as it stands is confusing and subsequently inaccurate.

  • Quite right: that is just nonsense. The limit comes from an arbitrary choice made by the designers, or designers of components or software used, not related to cost. I have removed it. Notinasnaid 22:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

A few too many images?[edit]

Anybody but me think we should get rid of a few images like the one of a kid using a calculator?Shindo9Hikaru 23:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, and also one of the basic calculators--Sergei Frolov 05:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, any other opinions before I go do that?Shindo9Hikaru 01:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

What's with the "1337" leet image in that calculator?? WinterSpw 05:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The 1337 one needs to stay :P --82.10.90.89 (talk) 15:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

How does a modern calculator actually work?[edit]

I strongly suggest we add a "How (pocket) calculators work" to the article. I found an interesting explanation here: http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2001-03/984867136.Cs.r.html Basically, it suggests that calculators convert operations (at least addition) into binary notation, do the calculation then convert it back to base 10. But what about trigonometric functions and square roots? How does a calculator know the answer there? It's clear logic gates are involved, but it would be interesting to see an explanation that makes sense. Would anyone know how to explain this in the article? I might if I find some more background info, but if someone understands it already then that might save time. Brisvegas 12:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I have included a basic explanation of the internal working, and as for the details, someone can expand. Also http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/gadgets/other-gadgets/calculator.htm is useful.Yottamaster (talk) 13:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

What constitutes an appropriate external link?[edit]

As the primary developer of a new online calculator, I would like to add a link to it under the 'Virtual' heading of this article. I see that many others are already listed, some of which are only marginally relevant or useful. I understand that it's against Wikipedia policy to add a promotional link to your site, yet clearly this section is designed to be a listing of online calculators. Is there any reason I shouldn't add the link? Thanks in advance for any feedback. (The site in question is http://www.visualcalculator.com/) Ebengeer 12:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It's been a little over a week with no response so I'm assuming there are no obvious objections, especially given the nature of the existing links. I'm putting the link in. If anyone does have an objection, please discuss it with me here first before removing it. Thanks, Ebengeer 15:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The word "calculator" denoted a person who did such work for a living ...[edit]

I've deleted that text. The article Computer states "Originally, the term "computer" referred to a person who performed numerical calculations". Both articles are unlikely to be correct and, since I've seen books from 1930s whose acknowledgments included thanks to the computers, it's this article that is likely wrong. If you restore the text, please include a source. Thanks. tooold 22:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Anekin 101[edit]

If you think major sections of the article should be deleted please set out your arguments here first. Your idea of what is 'very unnecessary' may be different from those of other contributors.

Mrslippery (talk) 10:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed I will, even though I already adequately explained it in the edit summary. Per WP:EL, Wikipedia articles must only contain a minimum of external links which are of particular relevance to the article. A random online calculator written in JavaScript fails these rules. Per WP:NOT#LINK, Wikipedia articles are not web directories or lists of links. Even though one or two of the online calculators were quite good, they added nothing to the article about calculators, and were nothing that people can't find with a quick web search (very unnecessary). So besides being untidy, they clearly failed the policies I've stated, so removed. • Anakin (talk) 13:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
It's worth adding that the other bunch of external links in the article are also candidates for removal, but it's harder to decide what's useful or not. If we make a case for one web site to stay, a hundred others also have a case for being there. I believe it would be better not have an external links section in this article at all, add relevant information into the article body, and ignore the rest. • Anakin (talk) 13:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Having made your argument, now wait and see what others thing. Your opinion is not sufficient to justify such a large scale deletion. I, for one, do not agree with your case and think the links should be retained. They provide useful content not found in the article.

Mrslippery (talk) 14:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's my argument. I think the policies are very clear - there is absolutely no way they justify these JavaScript calculators - you must see that surely??! But if you want to see what "others think", then you should go and find a another opinion. I suggest Wikipedia:Third opinion. • Anakin (talk) 14:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I do not think the argument is clear. Nor do I see your name amongst the past contributors to this article. I think it would be courteous to put your case forward and then see what others think. What is your hurry? Mrslippery (talk) 15:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not in a hurry. I am just trying to clean up the article – and whether I have contributed to it before or not is not relevant. Can you not see that Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#LINK make the case very clear? These links spam up the article and make it excessively untidy, and add absolutely nothing worthwhile to it. They're just so unnecessary – everybody has a pocket calculator or the one that comes on the computer. Then there are more easily found all over the web. Even Google is a calculator. E.g., google:(1+2)*(3+4). Letting everybody under the sun fill a Wikipedia article about calculators with random links to online ones is a recipe for disaster. And as I said above, I believe the article would be better if efforts were made to remove most of the other external links as well. • Anakin (talk) 16:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Anakin. We do not link to various cookbooks in the Cookbook article and as stated above, the links are not about calculators. --NeilN talkcontribs 16:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
...but cookbook does link to articles about various cookbooks, some of which contain links to on-line versions of the book or a similar web site. Anyway, I'm with Mrslippery - such a large scale deletion should be discussed here first to determine consensus. The external links illustrate a variety of different calculator types - astronomical calculators, graphing calculators, complex number calculators etc. They are not all just "pocket calculators", and some of them add value to the article. Although the list may need culling, let's do this with some thought, and not just take the easy scattergun approach. I am restoring the links for the moment. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
But the point is, per the guidelines, we're not supposed to be linking to any of them. How are you going to decide what's useful and what's not? How is that fair to people who want to add more? They see that there are some calculators already, and decide, "Oh, I'll add mine". How is it fair to remove some online calculators and endorse others? They all have to go. People can find them with Google if they want them. • Anakin (talk) 16:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion[edit]

I think that some of the links should be removed per the following guidelines WP:NOT#LINK and WP:EL. Specifically, here are the issues:

WP:EL

  • Links should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links. Simply, the list of external links is too long.
  • Links normally to be avoided:
    • Links mainly intended to promote a website. CasioKingdom violates this.
    • Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. Links such as Whiteboard Calculator and Sinclair's Cambridge calculator violate this.
    • Direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content All the links in the Virtual calculators section and TIs history link violate this.

WP:NOT

  • excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia Once again, the list is simply too long.

I think its pretty clear that the External Links section needs serious cleanup. Billscottbob (talk) 17:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that the list needs cleanup, and maybe the majority of the links should be removed. What I object to is the wholesale "all external links are bad" deletion approach that Anakin appears to be taking. WP:EL says "Each link should be considered on its merits". We do intelligent link pruning and control on articles all the time. It takes a bit more effort than simply deleting links wholesale, but it is worth it. If someone proposed a more moderate and considered cleanup of the list then I would probably agree. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I reviewed them one by one before I removed them initially. It just worked out that my criteria for judging them (WP:EL, as best as I could follow it) resulted in them all failing. What are your criteria for determining what should stay? What is your answer to the question I asked above? • Anakin (talk) 18:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Gandalf61. It is important to follow the right process in such matters and be respectful of past contributors. It is easy to rush around clocking up edits by deleting content, but so much harder to add content that sticks. We want more people to contribute to Wikipedia, but arbitrary deletions discourage contributors. Lets take our time and do it right. I have no strong opinion on whether the links should remain but it could be argued either way. In any case we should allow others time to give their opinions. BTW Anekin 101 it does matter that you have not previously contributed to this article since it suggests that you may not have any knowledge of or interest in the topic. You may not be the best person to judge whether the links are appropriate or not.

One final point to consider when Anekin invokes procedure. Soon after this dispute Anekin 1012 went to an article on Wheel charts that I had just created and deleted it. I thought that a curious coincidence. That deletion has now been reversed by another editor. Mrslippery (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to say anything about the above point about me here, since this page is for discussing content of the calculator article. If anybody is concerned, they may investigate my contributions thoroughly. • Anakin (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Instead arguing over past actions, can we all try to reach consensus? So, what do you think of my proposal? Should we remove all the virtual calculators, Whiteboard Calculator, Sinclair's Cambridge and CasioKingdom? Billscottbob (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I propose we keep Martindale's collection of calculators, Math.com Calculators, Calcenstein and Online calculators listed at Open Directory. Gandalf61 (talk) 22:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Martindale's is quite useful I suppose; my preference is towards removing it but I'll compromise for the sake of peace. Math.com and Dmoz I won't quibble over. Calcenstein I'll grudgingly accept too. (*Sigh*. I never expected any of this to happen when I swept in like a hero to clean up. I was so pleased with that edit — it feels good to kick the crap out of an article.) • Anakin (talk) 00:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Calcenstein does not meet WP:EL because the menu requires flash. Billscottbob (talk) 01:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
So, removal of all virtual calculators (excluding Matindale's, Math.com and Open Directory) and Whiteboard Calculator, Sinclair's Cambridge and CasioKingdom. Is that what we agree on?Billscottbob (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
No. Keep Calcenstein as well but add a note that it requires Flash. WP:EL does not absolutely prohibit such links - instead it says "If you do link to such material make a note of what application is required" and "In an instance where a link to rich media is deemed appropriate, an explicit indication of the technology needed to access the content must be given". Gandalf61 (talk) 08:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Such a long discussion to have over these links! Somebody else can delete them if they want – I've lost interest in this and I'm not exactly making any friends with my viewpoint that they're all junk. *steps out of discussion* • Anakin (talk) 15:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You are right, Gandal. So, removal of all virtual calculators (excluding Matindale's, Math.com, Open Directory and Calcenstein) and Whiteboard Calculator, Sinclair's Cambridge and CasioKingdom. Okay? Billscottbob (talk) 01:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's fine with me. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm happy with it too. • Anakin (talk) 17:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm an idiot.[edit]

Heh. I got pissed off, so I looked it up. I was wrong after all. My apologies. I still don't think that section really belongs here, but I don't really care anymore. Again, sorry, I'll leave you guys and your work alone. EDIT: To be clear, a calculator IS manually programmable, but it is not Turing complete, etc, etc. The article does need clarification, but it's not my place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.167.73 (talkcontribs) 06:13, 17 March 2009

Ref 10 "Schmidhuber"[edit]

Sorry, I don't get it - what is this a reference to? tooold (talk) 07:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Herzstark[edit]

The article says

"In 1948 the miniature Curta calculator, that was held in one hand for operation, was introduced after being developed by Curt Herzstark in a Nazi concentration camp."

However, the Herzstark article makes it clear that his design was already completed in 1938, and what happened in the camp was that he had to reconstruct the drawings from memory. WorldAsWill (talk) 06:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

wang calculator[edit]

the company wang made a desktop calculator in the late 1960's, which used NIXIE tubes to display. it was a scientific calculator, similar to an SR-50, but it actually did the calculations in a suitcase-sized box which was commonly placed in a closet somewhere. Bob Emmett (talk) 05:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Price sensitive?[edit]

The article claims that "The market for calculators is extremely price-sensitive, to an even greater extent than the personal computer market;". If this is so, then how come a calculator costs more or less the same as 15 years ago? xkcd has a nice comment on this:[1]. --Zumbo (talk) 16:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Why isn't this article titled electronic calculator?[edit]

This article is only about electronic calculators. It is not about all calculators. Why does it have the wrong title? Jojalozzo 02:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The content got split in January, making a new article in mechanical calculators. But nobody has moved this one. The redirect electronic calculator appears to be protected, so you'd need to do a move request. See WP:RM. Dicklyon (talk) 03:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Requested move II[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Having said that, there does appear to be some support for an article about calculators in general. If and when that exists as a significant article, it might be time to revisit this to address the ambiguous nature of the name. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

CalculatorElectronic calculator — I apologize for starting over but we want to be clear about the proposal:

Rename this article Electronic calculator and have Calculator redirect to it. Jojalozzo 21:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Support - This proposal addresses concerns about WP:PRIMARYTOPIC since the redirect from Calculator will immediately serve readers who search for that term and it addresses concerns about WP:PRECISION since the title will accurately describe the topic. Jojalozzo 21:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
    PRECISION isn't too much of an issue unless PRIMARYTOPIC is in question, and I don't think it is. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
    PRIMARYTOPIC is definitely in question. I think that's why we have this proposal and why most respondents supported it the first time around. Jojalozzo 22:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
    Then the other move request should be re-opened. This request does nothing to satisfy any PRIMARYTOPIC concerns. If electronic calculators are not the PRIMARYTOPIC for "calculator" then this proposal here should not be implemented. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
    This is true. If there is no primary topic (which I strongly dispute), then Calculator should be a disambiguation page. Either way this move request should fail. –CWenger (^@) 23:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
    Sorry, I revise my too-hasty response. PRIMARYTOPIC is not an issue (the redirect satisfies PRIMARYTOPIC) but PRECISION is an issue because "calculator" is a generic term used to denote any calculator whatever type it is. It is the common name of a class of devices of which the electronic version is only one example. "Calculator: calculator or calculating machine, device for performing numerical computations; it may be mechanical, electromechanical, or electronic." (The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition, 2008) Jojalozzo 03:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I think the common name for this subject is just "calculator". ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support – the current name is too imprecise, since the mechanical part was split out to Mechanical calculator. Titles should be precise enough to reasonably define the topic. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says "If a primary topic exists, the ambiguous term should be the title of, or redirect to, the article on that topic", so that's easily satisfied if this article is the primary topic for the ambiguous term Calculator, as we seem to agree. Dicklyon (talk) 23:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
    But it also says that if there's a primary topic for, in this case, "calculator", then there is no need to disambiguate further if "calculator" is also the commonname. This debate, I think, is just about whether "calculator" is the common name for the subject. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose: It's just common sense, people mean electronic calculator when they say "calculator". A hatnote to mechanical calculator is sufficient. Like ErikHaugan said, PRECISION isn't an issue unless PRIMARYTOPIC is in question—iPhone meant something else before 2007 but we don't redirect to Apple iPhone. –CWenger (^@) 23:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The proposer has not explained why either WP:PRIMARYTOPIC or WP:PRECISION are relevant. This is the primary topic for calculator, so there's no need to change it (and if Calculator becomes a redirect to Electronic calculator it is still the primary topic). As for precision that is only needed if the title is ambiguous, so readers have trouble finding the article; and again if Calculator is a redirect to Electronic calculator it's just as precise or imprecise as before. The only policy I can see that applies is WP:COMMONNAME and the common name is "calculator": that is just the word people use today to refer to handheld (or sometimes desktop) electronic calculating machines.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 00:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose as 'calculator' is the common name. The majority of the article's sources refer to the item simply as a 'calculator'. Even the source titled The History of the Hand-Held Electronic Calculator chiefly uses just 'calculator'. A hatnote suffices. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
That what I would do here, too: narrow the scope in the title, so you can usually just say "calculator". Dicklyon (talk) 01:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support I find the CN/PT arguments unconvincing: by that logic we should move personal computer or even desktop computer to computer. The additional precision of this title would be very helpful to the reader: I personally would expect an article titled "calculator" to cover at least mechanical calculators. I'm not even sure if Calculator should be a redirect here, an overview article or disambiguation page might seem more appropriate. —Ruud 09:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Still oppose, no matter how many times you restart the discussion. Simply "calculator" is the common name for electronic calculators, and what readers will expect to see as the title. Powers T 13:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
    • This sounds like backwards reasoning to me. Yes, I might might not be surprised if an article about electronic calculators would be titled "Calculator", but given an article titled "Calculator", I would expect it to cover mechanical calculator as well, which isn't the case here. —Ruud 14:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
      • I think you may be in the minority there. Certainly the average person would be caught off guard if they went into a store, asked to see the calculators, and was asked "what do you mean, African or European electronic or mechanical?" Powers T 15:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
        • You can't fight here...this is the War Room! This is an encyclopedia, not the Staples catalog. We should cover the whole topic - a couple of paragraphs at least to cover the epic brawling saga of mechanical calculators ( the men who built them...the women who loved them...) before a pointer at Calculator (mechanical), then we can spend the rest of the article on the usual flabby Wikipedia minutia catalog of boring things found in a Staples catalog.--Wtshymanski (talk) 15:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
          • That's a question of scope, not of article title. If you want to change the scope of the article, a requested move is not the way to do it. Powers T 21:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
        • But a store isn't a encyclopedia. If I went to a store and asked for a television, I'd expect to be shown some flat-screen TVs. If I decided to lookup the "Televion set", I'd expect it to cover CRTs. —Ruud 09:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
            • Exactly. An article called "Calculator" should describe everything that anyone has called "Calculator", even if only a couple of lines with a see-also reference to a more detailed article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
              • An article called "London" should describe every city that anyone has called "London". Powers T 12:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
  • ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── No. Do I have to explain the difference? --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As this is simply a common name discussion, it really comes down to the question: what do the majority of people call these devices, calculators or electronic calculators? One does not need to be a rocket surgeon to know that the most common name is simply "calculator". Jenks24 (talk) 16:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
    • You know, just the blink of an eye ago, when I started working, the fellow round the corner from my office was still using an enormous Olivetti mechanical calculator with rows and rows of buttons on it. Am I that old? --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Yes, you are; face it; me, too. But it's still "recentism" to ignore that. And this move to turn everything over to WP:COMMONNAME as if it were the only criterion in WP:AT is what mainly bugs me here. Dicklyon (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
        • And just the other day I was using a slide rule to calculate the answer to my wife's question as to how much it would cost to re-pave the driveway. The article should talk about all calculators, not just the $2.99 bin at Staples. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per ErikHaugen in the previous move discussion. Electronic calculators are clearly the primary topic of "calculator" a hat on the page would be sufficient. Cliff (talk) 20:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
    Well, this move request would result in calculator redirecting to electronic calculator, so this concern will be addressed if it succeeds, I think. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:

On such an important topic, and in which so many are so interested, shouldn't we have an overview article at calculator rather than a redirect? This would then remove the need to have material on the abacus at mechanical calculator, for example. The current division of material between the two articles is artificial and dare I say unencyclopedic; An abacus is not a mechanical calculator as normally understood, but it is a calculator. Andrewa (talk) 21:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree about abacus and mechanical calulator. The Abacus article is sufficient in itself and a hat note at Mechanical calculator should suffice. If there is a need for an overview of calculators, I think Calculator (overview) would be a better title choice since most readers entering the term "calculator" will be looking for an article about electronic calculators, not an overview of all kinds of calculators. Jojalozzo 21:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm... Calculator (overview) is an interesting suggestion. I think it would be a new idea; Camera for example describes all sorts of cameras, and the modern digital camera is a more detailed article. There's no camera (overview) article. Is there a better parallel, I wonder? Andrewa (talk) 04:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Good point. Good parallel. Jojalozzo 04:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

My understanding of our naming guidelines is that this question here boils down to wp:COMMONNAME, and has little to do with PRIMARYTOPIC or PRECISION. Those other issues were relevant to the abandoned move request, but not really to this one. In other words, what do English language reliable sources most frequently refer to this subject as? That is the issue. Does that sound right? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

"Calculator" is an ambiguous term. That is why WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:PRECISION are important concerns. Jojalozzo 00:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
What is the difference between this request and somebody suggesting we move computer to electronic computer because of its ambiguity with human computer? I think we just need to use common sense here. –CWenger (^@) 00:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
There's a huge difference; computer is now universally understood to mean the machine, not the human, whereas many people still have, know of, collect, or even use calculators that are not electronic. Dicklyon (talk) 00:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Then again, Joja, you should re-open the other request. If there's no PT, then this move is no good. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 04:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
In the language of PRIMARYTOPIC, "Calculator" is the "ambiguous term"; we satisfy PT by making it a redirect; read it; that's why he closed the other one, that said to make it a disambig, so we could all agree that this article is the primary topic for calculator and get on with the question of what it would best be titled. That's where precision comes in. The title guidelines used to say that when you change the scope of an article by a merge or split you should consider retitling it to fit; but I think that went away at some point, even though it makes perfect sense and ought to be done here. Dicklyon (talk) 06:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I think we're saying the same thing? If we're agreed that the electronic ones are the primary topic then we're just debating here about what to name the article itself. I'm confused because Joja keeps bringing up PRIMARYTOPIC in this discussion. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I apologize for the confusion. The core of my position is that "calculator" is CN for all types of calculators, certainly for mechanical and electronic ones. PRECISION suggests we distinguish the types of calculators by their article titles, Mechanical calculator and Electronic calculator. PT suggests we use CN as a redirect to Electronic calculator. Jojalozzo 03:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
As for it just coming down to WP:COMMONNAME, that's a nastiness that was inflicted on us by Born2cycle. See WT:AT#Whence COMMONNAME?. I don't buy it; Precision still matters. Dicklyon (talk) 06:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I feel like a broken record, but WP:PRECISION says "If the topic of the article is the primary topic (or only topic) for a desired title, then the article can take that title without modification." So, per COMMONNAME: London, Psychology, etc. Why does precision matter so much more in this case than it does in all those other cases? Nobody is going to be confused, wondering where's the section about Babbage here on calculator? If you want to demote commonname, then, fine, I just like calculator more. When I think of electronic calculators I think "calculator" and having the article titled "electronic calculator" feels stuffy. It makes me wonder if there is some regionalism in play (eg soda vs. pop vs. "cold coke"), like maybe only people near where I live call them calculators but people on the east coast or in some other english speaking country always call them "electronic calculators". "Students, please put your electronic calculators away for the test now." ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Sure, I agree you sound like a broken record. Just because we "can" take the ambiguous term as the title doesn't mean that it's best; yes the electronic calculator can be taken as the "primary topic" for calculator, but it's far from the only topic, and greater precision here just makes a lot more sense. The situation for "London, Psychology, etc" is quite different. Nobody is arguing that people don't call them "calculators", just that given the adjusted scope of the article, that's not a very good title. If that's the title, then probably we should do a merge from mechanical calculator to restore the expected connection between title and contents. Dicklyon (talk) 21:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
No, the split was a good idea. I really think you're overestimating the number of people who will be confused by not finding mechanical calculators at this title. Powers T 23:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Since my remarks weren't based on an estimated number, that seems unlikely. Dicklyon (talk) 00:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Mechanical calculators also are commonly called "calculators". The name for mechanical calculator is equally "stuffy" but it is necessary for precision. This is an encyclopedia where accuracy is primary, not marketing literature aimed at reader buy-in. Jojalozzo 17:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Please maintain optimum article length[edit]

I think there should be a separate page for the history of pocket calculators.Yottamaster (talk) 14:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Internal Working[edit]

The section "Internal working" seems out of date, and is referenced to a 30 year old publication by Usborne, which I recall is a publisher of children's books. I am inclined to delete the whole section, but will hang fire for a couple of days to see if there are any objections, particularly as it has been recently edited. WhaleyTim (talk) 12:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Could we leave it in? We're surrounded by so many magical artificats, it would be nice to explain to people just how the little bird inside the box pecks out the answers to our mathematical inquiries. The section needs expansion - the HP Journal used to spend whole issues on the internals of calculators, back before they became fixated on producing doomeed iPad competitors. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
The problem I have is that it describes a technology that is not current. X and Y registers and segmented displays? We are not in the 1980's. The bird has grown bigger wings. I agree that expansion by someone who knows the subject and can provide good references is required, but, as it stands I am not convinced that it is a useful explaination of how a modern calculator worksWhaleyTim (talk) 00:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
More recentism problems? I bet the cheapest calculators still work about the same way. Dicklyon (talk) 00:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Fair point, but you would need to back it up with some evidence that the Christmas Cracker calculators use the same processor architecture as say a 1980 TI 4 function calculator. WhaleyTim (talk) 00:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Fine,but can anyone read the Chinese literature? --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
You don't need to back it up if you don't claim it. Just report what we find sources on; and report their dates. Dicklyon (talk) 20:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Yeah - fair enough - I was in a bit of a grump when posting that last comment. Still not happy with the section as I do not think it really contributes much, but am not hugely motivated to improve it WhaleyTim (talk) 21:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
It gives a very basic understanding about the operation of a simple calculator. Just like they teach you about the 8085 microprocessor, before you learn other mp's or mc's.Maybe the heading of the section can be changed. Yottamaster (talk) 15:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I have to ask[edit]

Is there any discussion about the mystifyingly named "C" and "CE" keys on most English language labeled calcs? 76.117.247.55 (talk) 17:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Clear and Clear Entry? How is this mystifying? Or is it just not explained in modern calculator manuals any more? --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Manuals!? Who do you know that reads manuals? Cliff (talk) 21:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Very minor edits[edit]

fixed some spelling and links in the history section. This is my first time editing. So please don't get all this is my house crazy on me. I have heard a lot about you editors. So please go easy. Thank you very much for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrandonNajera (talkcontribs) 20:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Casio as-a ckt1 1c.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Casio as-a ckt1 1c.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Casio as-a ckt1 1c.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Line in education section is poorly written.[edit]

"Exams are generally not allowed to use calculators including other computable devices. However, some of which may be too difficult to do in mind so such exams may clearly specify that calculators can be used."

That could do with being rewritten, or even deleted as it appears to be only anecdotal information.

121.74.52.57 (talk) 11:07, 13 December 2012 (UTC)14/12/12

I took it out; it was unparseable and appeared to (be trying to) say "Some do and some don't", which really isn't an encyclopediac observation. And even Barbie knows that "Math is Hard". --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
"Math class is tough!". Powers T 16:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Early designs for electronic calculators[edit]

I worked on electronic calculators during the mid to late 1970's. This article, like most articles on electronic calculators I have seen leaves out a whole segment of calculator designs. The very early electronic calculator designs used 'counting tubes' and later counting circuits that mimicked the mechanical veeder root designs that had a series of counting wheels that went round and round generating a carry to the next wheel when the ten count was reached. The next most mentioned design was the application specific chip sets that immediately preceeded the actual microprocessor designs (the 4004 and 4040 intel chips and the PPS4 and PPS8 rockwell chipsets). However in between the counting tube and counting circuit designs and the first application specific chipsets there were quite a few machines that used many discreet i.c.'s that implemented a serial calculator design. The Frieden 130 and the Victor 500 series (that used crt displays) were actually of this type. The memory element was either a magnostrictive delay line of a shift register (either dynamic or static). The calculation circuits were actually single bit arraignments. Numbers were coded into a parallel to serial shift register (keyboard input) and then dumped into the serial memory. As the bits came out of the serial memory they went into another register just prior to going into the adder/subtracter. the data stream then went into one of three or four display registers (to be sent to the 'stroke generator' that drove the crt display). One of these registers (one could call it the 'accumulator) would be sent back to the serial memory. Most of my experiance was with the Victor line of calculators, but I also worked on Sharp, Casion, and a host of other serial based machines. There was usually a binary counter and decoder to develope timing signals to get the data into and out of the serial memory in a timely fashion (this was usually reffered to as a 'stste machine'). I have some info on the discreet chios that were used in these early designs and would love to collaborate with someone on expounding on this design. Technogeezer (talk) 02:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Please, by all means add in a section for these. I can help you structure it if you need help.
Technogeezer, please start this section. I can help too, as I a highly interested. Please write at least four lines. Then we can extend. I do not know much about calculator design in depth, but many things about digital electronic fundamentals. -Polytope4d (talk) 17:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)