Scratch

i'm creating a basic calculator using 3 digits or less. It's coming out pretty good. I'm not sure why i'm saying this... It's called "Nuclear Engine"... it won't be as good as Xenon though.

EDIT: Whoa, i made the third page!

Last edited by Joeman592 (2011-05-18 00:19:06)

amcerbu wrote:

If we were to do an equation solver, we would have to complete the current (postponed) project first.  We would need to simplify whatever the user inputs. 

I like the hand-drawn current idea, though.  And, again, I think that a 1s1s project would have a certain appeal (personally, I just like 1s1s).  I think it's also completely feasible.

Yes, Xenon Equations would certainly come after Xenon Calculator, and likely after Xenon Grapher.

scratcher7_13 wrote:

Is this the same calculator collaboration? I was in that collaboration. If so, can you add me to this?

EDIT: Oh, I didn't see the link to the old thread. Can you add me?

Ahem, and also after the 3D grapher and basic programming language using Xenon, as well as the OS!

scimonster wrote:

amcerbu wrote:

If we were to do an equation solver, we would have to complete the current (postponed) project first.  We would need to simplify whatever the user inputs. 

I like the hand-drawn current idea, though.  And, again, I think that a 1s1s project would have a certain appeal (personally, I just like 1s1s).  I think it's also completely feasible.

Yes, Xenon Equations would certainly come after Xenon Calculator, and likely after Xenon Grapher.

amcerbu wrote:

I really think an OS is pointless.  Just saying.  Now, an OS where you can write your own programs...

...like the one I'm developing?

You need an inline code parser and a launcher + ways to add variables etc...

applejack wrote:

Like basic for Scratch!

amcerbu wrote:

I really think an OS is pointless.  Just saying.  Now, an OS where you can write your own programs...

Or like QuickSilver.

Last edited by Hardmath123 (2011-05-18 23:46:21)

amcerbu wrote:

I say this because most Scratch "operating systems" contain "applications" that show a slideshow, allow the user to paint, occasionally allow the user to type, and in even less cases, use a calculator. Now, QuickSilver is a bit different, but it's a bit too complicated for most users.  If we can deal with expression evaluation, we could easily make a programming language similar to BASIC. 

Now, as to evaluation.  This idea was rejected initially, but I would like to re-propose the shunting yard algorithm. A while back, Paddle2See made a calculator that used this method of evaluation.  The Wikipedia article is here. 

How it works:  Most expressions we use are expressed in infix, that is a + b.  However, the shunting-yard algorithm converts the expression to postfix, which would be a b +.  For example, infix: 3 + 4 * 2 / ( 1 - 5 ) ^ 2 ^ 3
Postfix: 3 4 2 * 1 5 − 2 3 ^ ^ / +
This eliminates the need for parentheses.  Here is the process as outlined by Wikipedia:

Code:

While there are tokens to be read:
     Read a token.
     If the token is a number, then add it to the output queue. 
     If the token is a function token, then push it onto the stack.
     If the token is a function argument separator (e.g., a comma):
          Until the token at the top of the stack is a left parenthesis, pop operators off the stack onto the output queue. If no left parentheses are encountered, either the separator was misplaced or parentheses were mismatched.
     If the token is an operator, o1, then:
          while there is an operator token, o2, at the top of the stack, and
                    either o1 is left-associative and its precedence is less than or equal to that of o2,
                    or o1 is right-associative and its precedence is less than that of o2,
               pop o2 off the stack, onto the output queue;
          push o1 onto the stack.
     If the token is a left parenthesis, then push it onto the stack.
     If the token is a right parenthesis:
          Until the token at the top of the stack is a left parenthesis, pop operators off the stack onto the output queue.
          Pop the left parenthesis from the stack, but not onto the output queue.
          If the token at the top of the stack is a function token, pop it onto the output queue.
          If the stack runs out without finding a left parenthesis, then there are mismatched parentheses.
When there are no more tokens to read:
     While there are still operator tokens in the stack:
          If the operator token on the top of the stack is a parenthesis, then there are mismatched parentheses.
          Pop the operator onto the output queue.
Exit.

Though that may be a good theorem for professional calculators, if we want this to be as user-friendly as possible, I still want to stick with the traditional method. Anyway, we've already worked quite hard on it  .

Last edited by Hardmath123 (2011-05-19 00:38:48)

Hardmath123 wrote:

Though that may be a good theorem for professional calculators, if we want this to be as user-friendly as possible, I still want to stick with the traditional method. Anyway, we've already worked quite hard on it  .

Okay.  And I guess it's not quite as fun to code something when you copy it from somewhere else.  Just wanted to check in with you on that.

ssss wrote:

Hardmath123 wrote:

ssss, how are you doing?

Can't find where to add the [replace X with Y]...

For what?

Who thinks the first project should be called Xenon Calculator? If we have 5 yeses, let's change it in the topic post.

@SSSS: sqrt already becomes √.

Last edited by scimonster (2011-05-19 03:35:26)

You know what else we have to do? Remove brackets around negative numbers: "(-1)" would be:

(
-
1
)

Instead of "-1".

I sorta feelt bad about making you have a huge image that took up your whole signature so you couldn't add anything else, so I got this mode. Enjoy!

ssss wrote:

Hardmath123 wrote:

ssss wrote:

yes but i have to make 5√4 = 5*√4

Yeah, you don't need to look for 'sqrt', just for '√ '  .

... I can't find that.  II just need to rite sqrt because i couldn't to the symbol -_-

I don't get that at all  .

Just copy/paste this:

√

√

or use alt+v on a mac.