Talk:Calculator

message: 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)
thread_title: Article Comment

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I suppose it could, but what, more specifically, should be included that isn't here? Should (this is a real question) there also be articles for scientific and business calculators? Is it just the visual aid of graphing calculators that is interesting, or something else? Gah4 (talk) 01:04, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

text: Just wondering, any more thoughts on this?  Either way is fine to me, but it does seem that newer calculators have enough more features to have a new article. For one, traditional calculators evaluate operations as the go along, where the usual graphing calculator allows one to enter the whole expression before evaluating it.  That is mostly because memory is cheap now, and processors faster.  It would also be interesting to mention the symbolic arithmetic that some models now have.  (Actually, that goes back to the HP28C, but it caught on slow with others.) Gah4 (talk) 02:20, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

text: I just added a link from Business calculator to Mortgage calculator.  An article on scientific calculator, which now usually means graphing calculator, would still be interesting.  Gah4 (talk) 02:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graphing calculator 

message: 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)
replies: text: Information added MaltaGC 21:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: 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)
replies: text: At some point, the (usually) women were called computers (before the electrical or electromechanical devices), and used, usually, mechanical calculators in their work. I suppose earlier, they would have used pencil and paper. Gah4 (talk) 19:58, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human Calculators 

message: 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 (talk • contribs) 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  How calculators work 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Computers normally do arithmetic in pure binary.  (Fixed or floating point.)  It is usual, since just before the time of the integrated circuit based electronic calculator, up though the more recent one that I know about, for calculators to use BCD. That is, they store decimal digits as four bit binary numbers, and add, subtract, multiply, and divide those.  While a computer might do much arithmetic before needing to display the result, calculators normally display intermediate results. It is easier and faster to do all the calculation in BCD than to convert to/from pure binary at each step.  It is easy (in logic) and fast enough, to do a BCD digit serial processor along with some shift registers.  It would be nice to show this in more detail. Gah4 (talk) 20:58, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: How does a modern calculator actually work?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Why isn't this article titled electronic calculator? 

message: Calculator → Electronic calculator — Calculator page has been split into mechanical calculator and electronic calculator but the Electronic calculator  (redirect) is protected. Calculator should become a disambiguation page with links to the two halves of the split. I can do all the moves etc if someone would unprotect Electronic calculator.  Jojalozzo 12:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.
*Strongly oppose.  This is clearly the primary topic for calculator.  Powers T 16:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

text: Any additional comments:
*This is crazy.  If you go to Wal-Mart and ask "Where are the calculators?", they're going to show you the little push-button electronic doo-dads.  "Calculator" is clearly the common name for them, and they are clearly the primary topic for the term.  No one calls them "electronic calculators" in everyday speech; only if they (for some strange reason) need to distinguish them from mechanical ones do they even mention that they are electronic.  It's just assumed, because no one uses mechanical ones anymore.  Our article even specifically calls them "obsolete".  There's no way they could possibly compete for primary topic status.  Powers T 20:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

text: I am not wedded to my original proposal. Having Calculator redirect to Electronic calculator works for me. It blends common expectations and sufficient precision. As you say, few would be surprised to end up at Electronic calculator. If we ever want a Calculator (overview) article we can stick a hat tag for it here or revisit the issue. Jojalozzo 21:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: My point was that (vanishingly) few would be surprised to get an article about electronic calculators when they go to an article with the title "Calculator". IOW, the precision concerns are not an issue; it's ok to leave this article where it is. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The precision is not about who would be astonished.  It's about being more precise about what the article content is. Dicklyon (talk) 20:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Boston, Massachusetts is more precise about what the article content is, but the article is still at Boston.  Powers T 20:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is, and I don't think anyone would object to that.  But Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Article_titles.5BR.5D says "Titles should match the article contents, and should be neither too narrow nor too broad."  Here, "Calculator" is too broad; it was a fine title before all the stuff about mechanical calculators got removed; we could bring all that back, or adjust the title to match the split article contents.  The broader scope would of course not be analogous to trying to cover in one article the various cities called Boston, just because they share a name.  Calculators aren't just things sharing a name; they are a set of things broader than what the current article is about.  Dicklyon (talk) 05:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Human psychology is more precise about the scope of the article, but the article is still at Psychology.  Powers T 17:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

text: The reason I support Dicklyon's proposal for a redirect to here from "Calculator" is that it will minimize search time and be unlikely to confuse readers. Someone looking for Mechanical calculator is likely to try Calculator first and with the current title will think they are at the right spot when they land here. If the title is "Electronic calculator" they will immediately know they have the wrong article and can select the Mechanical calculator hat tag. Those looking for electronic calculator will know right away that they are at the right spot so there would be no confusion there. Jojalozzo 21:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

text: That's a funny example to cite, being mostly an example of how the imprecision we're talking about results in a ridiculous statement: "The first calculator debuted 67 years ago ... a huge upgrade from old mechanical calculators then in use."  It's electro-mechanical, and it's not even a calculator in the sense that this article means; probably they meant first "computer", though that's also very imprecise.  Dicklyon (talk) 02:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

text: If we are to take this video as evidence for usage, it argues for the Electronic calculator title. The first words out of the narrator's mouth and the first text in that video is "FIRST ELECTRONIC CALCULATOR" (my emphasis). Throughout, it refers to the device as an electronic calculator. Jojalozzo 03:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

text: Sure, can you find a place to announce it to a wider audience?  Dicklyon (talk) 21:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

text: Several of the opposes were on the basis of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which is easy to satisfy by making Calculator a redirect to here; so those can be discounted.  The remaining issue is about WP:TITLE's "precision" versus WP:COMMONNAME.  If you look in books (in Google book search, for example), you'll find "calculator" used for a huge variety of things, including software apps, books of tables, cardboard analog contrivances, etc.  And you'll find "electronic calculator" used in many more books than "mechanical calculator".  Taken together, and looking at the contents of this article, and the history of its split from mechanical calculator, these suggest that "electronic calculator" is a good common name for this article's topic, and "calculator" is way too imprecise (even though they do also get called that frequently).  Yes? Dicklyon (talk) 21:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps I am misreading but it looks to like those opposed mention only primary topic not precision. Only supporters mention precision and those in opposition do not rebut it but reassert primary topic. If the main reason for opposition is primary topic, we have either unacknowledged consensus or undisclosed unclear reasons for opposition. Jojalozzo 23:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I at least have attempted to rebut the precision argument. "Primary topic" is a reason to oppose "Calculator should become a disambiguation page"; I don't know what you are saying about "undisclosed reasons"? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The updated proposal is to have Calculator be a redirect to Electronic calculator. Can you support that? Should we start over to clear up that confusion? Jojalozzo 01:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move I

message: :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.
*Strongly oppose.  This is clearly the primary topic for calculator.  Powers T 16:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: :Any additional comments:
*This is crazy.  If you go to Wal-Mart and ask "Where are the calculators?", they're going to show you the little push-button electronic doo-dads.  "Calculator" is clearly the common name for them, and they are clearly the primary topic for the term.  No one calls them "electronic calculators" in everyday speech; only if they (for some strange reason) need to distinguish them from mechanical ones do they even mention that they are electronic.  It's just assumed, because no one uses mechanical ones anymore.  Our article even specifically calls them "obsolete".  There's no way they could possibly compete for primary topic status.  Powers T 20:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not wedded to my original proposal. Having Calculator redirect to Electronic calculator works for me. It blends common expectations and sufficient precision. As you say, few would be surprised to end up at Electronic calculator. If we ever want a Calculator (overview) article we can stick a hat tag for it here or revisit the issue. Jojalozzo 21:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: My point was that (vanishingly) few would be surprised to get an article about electronic calculators when they go to an article with the title "Calculator". IOW, the precision concerns are not an issue; it's ok to leave this article where it is. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The precision is not about who would be astonished.  It's about being more precise about what the article content is. Dicklyon (talk) 20:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Boston, Massachusetts is more precise about what the article content is, but the article is still at Boston.  Powers T 20:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is, and I don't think anyone would object to that.  But Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Article_titles.5BR.5D says "Titles should match the article contents, and should be neither too narrow nor too broad."  Here, "Calculator" is too broad; it was a fine title before all the stuff about mechanical calculators got removed; we could bring all that back, or adjust the title to match the split article contents.  The broader scope would of course not be analogous to trying to cover in one article the various cities called Boston, just because they share a name.  Calculators aren't just things sharing a name; they are a set of things broader than what the current article is about.  Dicklyon (talk) 05:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Human psychology is more precise about the scope of the article, but the article is still at Psychology.  Powers T 17:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

text: The reason I support Dicklyon's proposal for a redirect to here from "Calculator" is that it will minimize search time and be unlikely to confuse readers. Someone looking for Mechanical calculator is likely to try Calculator first and with the current title will think they are at the right spot when they land here. If the title is "Electronic calculator" they will immediately know they have the wrong article and can select the Mechanical calculator hat tag. Those looking for electronic calculator will know right away that they are at the right spot so there would be no confusion there. Jojalozzo 21:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

text: That's a funny example to cite, being mostly an example of how the imprecision we're talking about results in a ridiculous statement: "The first calculator debuted 67 years ago ... a huge upgrade from old mechanical calculators then in use."  It's electro-mechanical, and it's not even a calculator in the sense that this article means; probably they meant first "computer", though that's also very imprecise.  Dicklyon (talk) 02:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

text: If we are to take this video as evidence for usage, it argues for the Electronic calculator title. The first words out of the narrator's mouth and the first text in that video is "FIRST ELECTRONIC CALCULATOR" (my emphasis). Throughout, it refers to the device as an electronic calculator. Jojalozzo 03:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

text: Sure, can you find a place to announce it to a wider audience?  Dicklyon (talk) 21:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

text: Several of the opposes were on the basis of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which is easy to satisfy by making Calculator a redirect to here; so those can be discounted.  The remaining issue is about WP:TITLE's "precision" versus WP:COMMONNAME.  If you look in books (in Google book search, for example), you'll find "calculator" used for a huge variety of things, including software apps, books of tables, cardboard analog contrivances, etc.  And you'll find "electronic calculator" used in many more books than "mechanical calculator".  Taken together, and looking at the contents of this article, and the history of its split from mechanical calculator, these suggest that "electronic calculator" is a good common name for this article's topic, and "calculator" is way too imprecise (even though they do also get called that frequently).  Yes? Dicklyon (talk) 21:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps I am misreading but it looks to like those opposed mention only primary topic not precision. Only supporters mention precision and those in opposition do not rebut it but reassert primary topic. If the main reason for opposition is primary topic, we have either unacknowledged consensus or undisclosed unclear reasons for opposition. Jojalozzo 23:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I at least have attempted to rebut the precision argument. "Primary topic" is a reason to oppose "Calculator should become a disambiguation page"; I don't know what you are saying about "undisclosed reasons"? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The updated proposal is to have Calculator be a redirect to Electronic calculator. Can you support that? Should we start over to clear up that confusion? Jojalozzo 01:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: :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)
thread_title: Survey

message: I think there should be a separate page for the history of pocket calculators.Yottamaster (talk) 14:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Please maintain optimum article length

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: More recentism problems?  I bet the cheapest calculators still work about the same way.  Dicklyon (talk) 00:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Fine,but can anyone read the Chinese literature?  --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: It could be better, but doesn't seem so far off, for the simplest calculators. Registers are commonly called X and Y in the internal design, though you don't see that in the user documentation. More complicated calculators have more registers, but the basic ideas are still there. Gah4 (talk) 07:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Internal Working

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Manuals!? Who do you know that reads manuals? Cliff (talk) 21:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have to ask 

message: 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 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very minor edits 

message: An image used in this article, , 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 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Casio as-a ckt1 1c.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "Math class is tough!".  Powers T 16:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

text: Oh, the SAT specifically excludes anything that isn't a calculator, such as laptop, or smart phone. They try to keep people from sneaking questions out, so restrict anything that could make that easier. Gah4 (talk) 00:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Line in education section is poorly written.  

message: There is a redirect from Online calculator to this article but this article doesn't address the subject of online calculators. Either Online calculator needs its own article or else there needs to be a section on the subject here.
Pleasantville (talk) 13:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Online calculator redirect

message: Are there any current basic desktop calculators using RPN?
If not, is it possible to obtain an HP25 calculator?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.186.160.111 (talk) 04:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  RPN calculators 

message: The article mentions the: "Cal-Tech" project,  and has references that don't seem to reference the name.  Is there anything that shows that name?  I do remember some calculator chips, such as the CT5001, that were named Cal-Tex which I always thought was a combination of California and Texas, but might have been something else.  More specifically, I am wondering if the name is at all related to Caltech.  Gah4 (talk) 20:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The CT7001 is a clock chip from Cal-Tex, the same company that made the CT5001 and CT5005 calculator chips.  Note that it is Cal-Tex, and not Cal-Tech.  This may or may not be related to the Jack Kilby project. Gah4 (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I asked Carver Mead, who literally wrote the book on VLSI design, has been working at Caltech since about 1970, and he knows of no calculator called Cal-Tech.  He goes pretty far back in the development of integrated circuits, including being credited for naming Moore's law.  Gah4 (talk) 22:40, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The CT7001 series digital clock chips were manufactured by a company called Cal-Tex just as the linked spec sheet states. As stated they also made the CT5001 series calculator chips. One seems to be on sale on e-bay here. Or see here for front page of catalogue. 31.51.127.60 (talk) 17:46, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cal-Tech 

message: 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 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Which section was it in? I can think of arguments either way, depending a little one which section. It could go along with historical discussion, on some of the older models. I believe that there are some that internally execute the same microcode that old models used, but others just emulate the external appearance. How about an article on calculator history? Gah4 (talk) 01:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Current Knowledge of Calculators

message: Bit serial logic designs are more common in calculators whereas bit parallel designs dominate general-purpose computers, because a bit serial design minimizes chip complexity, but takes many more clock cycles.  As far as I know, it is usual, from pretty much the beginning of electronic hand calculators through today, to do BCD digit serial arithmetic.  Even more, the wikilink links to serial communication, and not bit serial ALU discussion. The logic for a BCD digit serial add/subtract is fairly simple, and it is fed by, and feeds into, shift registers. The shift registers then recirculate in time with the display multiplexer to keep the display going. This also led to the Intel 4004 as a four bit processor, convenient for doing BCD arithmetic. Gah4 (talk) 19:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the earliest electronic calculators, the Friden 130, used a particular bit-serial logic, not a BCD-serial arithmetic design. See: Fiden 130   BBCLCD (talk) 21:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting machine.  It uses decimal (0 to 9 pulses per digit) stored in a delay line, instead of BCD, and counters instead of adders. Gah4 (talk) 04:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  digit serial 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Calculator. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720142104/http://www.spingal.plus.com/micro/ to http://www.spingal.plus.com/micro
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is Disagreement over the use of calculators in school? A certain 8th grade student studying in Europe cannot do 25+10, in his head, but depends on his calculator to do it. Why is there disagreement? Calculators certainly suppress arithmetic skills in young students. Soon we shall see arithmetic blockheads around the world. And calculators are getting more smarter, but students are getting dumber. Today's students cannot use a 1 line scientific calculator from the 1990s. Polytope4D (talk) 01:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about 8th grade, but many high school classes now require calculators, with the TI-83 being a popular choice.  More specifically, a graphing calculator. That allows for visual (graphic) learning for algebra through calculus.  As I noted above, for some years now the SAT requires a graphing calculator for test takers.  (No non-graphing calculators are on the list.)  Yes students should learn basic arithmetic without calculators.  Gah4 (talk) 08:00, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Education 

message: The article says  BCD rather than a floating-point representation which doesn't make sense. Floating point or fixed point can be decimal, binary, or any other base.Gah4 (talk) 04:13, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  '' BCD rather than a floating-point representation'' 

message: The article says: Pocket-sized devices became available in the 1970s, especially after the Intel 4004, the first microprocessor, was developed by Intel....   Is this meant to suggest that the availability of the 4004 led to more pocket-sized devices? (As far as I remember, Busicom build desk calculators.) Gah4 (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Causality 

message: Please reduce wordiness by changing
 This technology was to provide a stepping stone to the development of electronic calculators.
to
 This technology presaged the development of electronic calculators.
Thank you. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 02:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done:"Presaged" usually has a negative connotation. Meters (talk) 06:11, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2023