4 ms·
Strangely (I think) this doesn't mention the Sinclair calculators, one of which I purchased in the mid-Seventies and still have in a box somewhere. It was minim
by Cbasedlifeform 9y ago
Strangely (I think) this doesn't mention the Sinclair calculators, one of which I purchased in the mid-Seventies and still have in a box somewhere. It was minimalist but gorgeous. I'd like to dig it out now and carry it around... would be v hipster.
It's long ago but mine might have been the Sinclair Cambridge Scientific: http://www.vintagecalculators.com/html/cambridge_scienific.html http://www.vintagecalculators.com/html/cambridge_scienific.h...
What hath god wrought!
- Someone 9y agoThat’s an amazing hack. Cutting a lot of corners, the entire program of the calculator is 320 instructions, on a cpu that doesn’t even have a ‘multiply’ instruction. See http://files.righto.com/calculator/sinclair_scientific_simulator.html http://files.righto.com/calculator/sinclair_scientific_simul...
- tdeck 9y agoIf you like old calculator hacks, you might be interested to know that some early calculators (such as those from Wang[1]) could natively perform only addition, subtraction, e^x, and the natural log. So to multiply numbers, they took e^(ln(a) + ln(b)). See also: factor combining [2] [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wang_Laboratories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wang_Laboratories [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CORDIC#Factor_combining https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CORDIC#Factor_combining
- golem14 9y agoThat's numberwang!!
- sporkologist 9y agoI had the Radio Shack version, the EC-4001. http://www.vintagecalculators.com/assets/images/RadioShackEC4001.JPG http://www.vintagecalculators.com/assets/images/RadioShackEC...