|
-
Nov 29th, 2003, 06:04 PM
#1
Thread Starter
Dazed Member
Scientific Notation?
What would be the proper scientific notation for 0.000439?
439 * 10-6 or 4.39 * 10-4
-
Nov 29th, 2003, 07:59 PM
#2
transcendental analytic
the latter, although I always type E-4 for short
Use  
writing software in C++ is like driving rivets into steel beam with a toothpick.
writing haskell makes your life easier:
reverse (p (6*9)) where p x|x==0=""|True=chr (48+z): p y where (y,z)=divMod x 13
To throw away OOP for low level languages is myopia, to keep OOP is hyperopia. To throw away OOP for a high level language is insight.
-
Nov 30th, 2003, 06:22 AM
#3
Lively Member
439E-6 would be more appropriate in the context of engineering but 4.39E-4 is the proper scientific notation.
-
Nov 30th, 2003, 07:19 AM
#4
Hyperactive Member
4.39E-4
because the number is always represented like xEy
where 0<=|x|<10
-
Nov 30th, 2003, 07:20 AM
#5
Hyperactive Member
-
Dec 1st, 2003, 03:09 AM
#6
-
Dec 1st, 2003, 05:22 AM
#7
Hyperactive Member
I think no as for 0 we need to write 0 so
0 <=
-
Dec 1st, 2003, 08:58 AM
#8
transcendental analytic
Originally posted by sw_is_great
I think no as for 0 we need to write 0 so
0 <=
but we only use xEy when x is not 0
Use
writing software in C++ is like driving rivets into steel beam with a toothpick.
writing haskell makes your life easier:
reverse (p (6*9)) where p x|x==0=""|True=chr (48+z): p y where (y,z)=divMod x 13
To throw away OOP for low level languages is myopia, to keep OOP is hyperopia. To throw away OOP for a high level language is insight.
-
Dec 4th, 2003, 02:16 AM
#9
Thread Starter
Dazed Member
How about 0< x <10.  No way x could be equal to 0. x * 10-y would end up being 0.
-
Dec 4th, 2003, 02:33 AM
#10
transcendental analytic
[i]Originally posted by Dilenger4 How about 0< x <10.
0< x <10 would be self defeating, the reason we use an integer exponent is a compromise between simplicity and supplement to our existing sense for logaritmic measures, but with the above you can't choose an exponent systematically.
No way x could be equal to 0. x * 10 -y would end up being 0.
y=1 works
Use
writing software in C++ is like driving rivets into steel beam with a toothpick.
writing haskell makes your life easier:
reverse (p (6*9)) where p x|x==0=""|True=chr (48+z): p y where (y,z)=divMod x 13
To throw away OOP for low level languages is myopia, to keep OOP is hyperopia. To throw away OOP for a high level language is insight.
-
Dec 4th, 2003, 01:47 PM
#11
Thread Starter
Dazed Member
Posted by kedaman
0< x <10 would be self defeating, the reason we use an integer exponent is a compromise between simplicity and supplement to our existing sense for logaritmic measures, but with the above you can't choose an exponent systematically.
Im a bit confused.  Are you refering to exponent as being xEy or xEy.
When i was refering to 0< x <10 i was basically trying to say if x was 0< x <1. If x was equal to zero as someone else pointed out what would be the point.
-
Dec 4th, 2003, 04:42 PM
#12
transcendental analytic
exponent is the latter. x is refered to as factor.
When i was refering to 0< x <10 i was basically trying to say if x was 0< x <1.
Not sure what you're trying to say though, I'm saying that 0<x<1 would enable us to choose any y up from the logaritm of the number to be expressed which would not be systematic.
Use
writing software in C++ is like driving rivets into steel beam with a toothpick.
writing haskell makes your life easier:
reverse (p (6*9)) where p x|x==0=""|True=chr (48+z): p y where (y,z)=divMod x 13
To throw away OOP for low level languages is myopia, to keep OOP is hyperopia. To throw away OOP for a high level language is insight.
-
Dec 5th, 2003, 01:55 AM
#13
Thread Starter
Dazed Member
Posted by kedaman
exponent is the latter. x is refered to as factor.
Right. Of course. 
I was getting confused because you mentioned the reasons why an integer exponent is used but i was not refering to the exponent part. Im not sure what you mean by not being able to choose an exponent systematically when 0<x<1. Below all except the first use a fractional factor. So what would be nonsystematic about the exponent of the last three? 
1 * 10-6
0.1 * 10-5
0.01 * 10-4
0.001 * 10-3
-
Dec 5th, 2003, 02:11 AM
#14
transcendental analytic
by choosing systematically i mean that there is only one way of doing it.
Use
writing software in C++ is like driving rivets into steel beam with a toothpick.
writing haskell makes your life easier:
reverse (p (6*9)) where p x|x==0=""|True=chr (48+z): p y where (y,z)=divMod x 13
To throw away OOP for low level languages is myopia, to keep OOP is hyperopia. To throw away OOP for a high level language is insight.
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
Click Here to Expand Forum to Full Width
|
Reply With Quote
mmmmmmm
