Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ncar!csn!spot.Colorado.EDU!frechett From: frechett@spot.Colorado.EDU (-=Runaway Daemon=-) Newsgroups: comp.sys.handhelds Subject: Re: RPN intuitive? Message-ID: <1991Mar12.014121.925@csn.org> Date: 12 Mar 91 01:41:21 GMT References: <7645@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> Sender: news@csn.org (news) Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder Lines: 26 Nntp-Posting-Host: spot.colorado.edu In article bob@dolores.Stanford.EDU (Bob Lodenkamper) writes: >In article <7645@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> ahernsd@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Dynastar) writes: > only one in the world who feels that RPN is the intuitively > obvous way of doing things? > >It not intuitively obvious at all, but once RPN is burned into the You don't think that RPN is intuitively obvious.. Think about the way that you do operations on a piece of paper. Do you arrange the numbers in some logical format and then apply the operation to it? Or do you look at the first number only and then the operation and somehow apply that operation to the next number which you don't know yet? The latter is what normal algebraic calcs are really trying to do. Looking back on it, I find that it really isn't very easy to think like that.. I found that when I used algebraic entry that I many times have to write it all down on paper so that I don't get order of operations all messed up. Also consider that when you do work on a CASIO or some such that you have either have to write down your scratch work alot, or make extensive use of the ONE memory location so that you can use your results later. On an RPN machine however, you can just leave your scratch work on the stack and pick it out and use it whenever you want.. I think that it is much more intuitive. It is how my brain works. What would you think if you were brought up on RPN and then switched over to an algebraic calc? ian -=Runaway Daemon=-