[DOCUMENTATION]Wrong use of scientific notation

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
10 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[DOCUMENTATION]Wrong use of scientific notation

Ricardo Berlasso
On the help files, you find numbers written like

1.79769313486232 x 10E308

This is wrong: it should be either

1.79769313486232 x 10^308

or

1.79769313486232E308

what do you think?

Regards
Ricardo
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DOCUMENTATION]Wrong use of scientific notation

Andrea Pescetti-2
RGB ES wrote:
> On the help files, you find numbers written like
> 1.79769313486232 x 10E308
>
> This is wrong: it should be either
> 1.79769313486232 x 10^308
> or
> 1.79769313486232E308
> what do you think?

Yes, it's wrong and your first proposal is correct and more readable
than the second one. Then I wonder how many times we have these kind of
numbers in our documentation... and probably when they do appear we are
more interested in their order of magnitude than in their actual value.

Regards,
   Andrea.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: [DOCUMENTATION]Wrong use of scientific notation

Dennis E. Hamilton
In reply to this post by Ricardo Berlasso
It appears that all three forms are correct as notations for the same numerical value where "." is recognized as a decimal point.

I agree that there should be consistency.  

I think context of the numeral is important.  In particular, which is most likely to be easily recognized and understood by the intended reader of the particular information?  Is there something about the form chosen that is relevant to the context in which it occurs.

Off hand, 1.79769313486232E+308 (my preference) is related to the expression of numerical constant values in input-output of data and in programming languages.

The common formula presentation, using mathematical notation, is more like 1.79769313486232 x 10^308, namely

        1.79769313486232⨯10⁵⁸

(The above example depends on having a good Unicode font.)
(I couldn't find a good superscript 3 so I changed the exponent in the Unicoded example).
It should not be difficult to use correct symbols and superscripts in the documentation.

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: RGB ES [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2012 07:21
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [DOCUMENTATION]Wrong use of scientific notation

On the help files, you find numbers written like

1.79769313486232 x 10E308

This is wrong: it should be either

1.79769313486232 x 10^308

or

1.79769313486232E308

what do you think?

Regards
Ricardo

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DOCUMENTATION]Wrong use of scientific notation

jan iversen
In reply to this post by Andrea Pescetti-2
May I politely as a mathematician point out that there is a major
difference in the 2 proposals.

Number 1 is a mathematical expression whereas number 2 is a number.

Now I do not know where it is used, but if I copy both suggestions into
Calc, it believes it is text.

Should we not have a format that our own calc accept as a number ??

I agree with andrea that number 2 is more readable (and then forget it is
not a number).

rgds
Jan I.


On 3 November 2012 17:47, Andrea Pescetti <[hidden email]> wrote:

> RGB ES wrote:
>
>> On the help files, you find numbers written like
>> 1.79769313486232 x 10E308
>>
>> This is wrong: it should be either
>> 1.79769313486232 x 10^308
>> or
>> 1.79769313486232E308
>> what do you think?
>>
>
> Yes, it's wrong and your first proposal is correct and more readable than
> the second one. Then I wonder how many times we have these kind of numbers
> in our documentation... and probably when they do appear we are more
> interested in their order of magnitude than in their actual value.
>
> Regards,
>   Andrea.
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DOCUMENTATION]Wrong use of scientific notation

jan iversen
In reply to this post by Dennis E. Hamilton
ups, our calc does not like "." if it is setup for e.g. en-GB, so actually
calc accepted the second notation if I changed it to ","

Would it be possible to have a macro or something for "." so it appears in
"," for me "." signals 1000 (1.000)

Jan.


On 3 November 2012 18:29, Dennis E. Hamilton <[hidden email]>wrote:

> It appears that all three forms are correct as notations for the same
> numerical value where "." is recognized as a decimal point.
>
> I agree that there should be consistency.
>
> I think context of the numeral is important.  In particular, which is most
> likely to be easily recognized and understood by the intended reader of the
> particular information?  Is there something about the form chosen that is
> relevant to the context in which it occurs.
>
> Off hand, 1.79769313486232E+308 (my preference) is related to the
> expression of numerical constant values in input-output of data and in
> programming languages.
>
> The common formula presentation, using mathematical notation, is more like
> 1.79769313486232 x 10^308, namely
>
>         1.79769313486232⨯10⁵⁸
>
> (The above example depends on having a good Unicode font.)
> (I couldn't find a good superscript 3 so I changed the exponent in the
> Unicoded example).
> It should not be difficult to use correct symbols and superscripts in the
> documentation.
>
>  - Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: RGB ES [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2012 07:21
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: [DOCUMENTATION]Wrong use of scientific notation
>
> On the help files, you find numbers written like
>
> 1.79769313486232 x 10E308
>
> This is wrong: it should be either
>
> 1.79769313486232 x 10^308
>
> or
>
> 1.79769313486232E308
>
> what do you think?
>
> Regards
> Ricardo
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DOCUMENTATION]Wrong use of scientific notation

Ricardo Berlasso
In reply to this post by jan iversen
2012/11/3 jan iversen <[hidden email]>

> May I politely as a mathematician point out that there is a major
> difference in the 2 proposals.
>
> Number 1 is a mathematical expression whereas number 2 is a number.
>

I'm physicist :)

The first number is the traditional scientific notation (specially if
proper super indexes are used) while the second one is the "E notation"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_notation#E_notation



>
> Now I do not know where it is used,


One example

https://translate.apache.org/es/OOo_34_help/translate.html?unit=6097629

Regards
Ricardo



> but if I copy both suggestions into
> Calc, it believes it is text.
>
> Should we not have a format that our own calc accept as a number ??
>
> I agree with andrea that number 2 is more readable (and then forget it is
> not a number).
>
> rgds
> Jan I.
>
>
> On 3 November 2012 17:47, Andrea Pescetti <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > RGB ES wrote:
> >
> >> On the help files, you find numbers written like
> >> 1.79769313486232 x 10E308
> >>
> >> This is wrong: it should be either
> >> 1.79769313486232 x 10^308
> >> or
> >> 1.79769313486232E308
> >> what do you think?
> >>
> >
> > Yes, it's wrong and your first proposal is correct and more readable than
> > the second one. Then I wonder how many times we have these kind of
> numbers
> > in our documentation... and probably when they do appear we are more
> > interested in their order of magnitude than in their actual value.
> >
> > Regards,
> >   Andrea.
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: [DOCUMENTATION]Wrong use of scientific notation

Dennis E. Hamilton
In reply to this post by jan iversen
I believe the original comment is about documentation of the Basic language used with OpenOffice.

See <https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=121307>.

In those cases, the correct notation (with multiplication sign and exponents) is shown in some languages for the page and different notations is used on corresponding pages in other languages.

Because it is about the scripting language, the use of the scientific notation for numerals is appropriate in that context.  This avoids any presumption of mathematical truth with regard to what is in the interval [;<).

Somewhere, the correspondence between the notation and the representable numbers needs to be established, but that might be in the description of the syntax.

For Calc formulas and the values in cells of type Number, the situation is very different.  

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: jan iversen [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2012 10:36
To: [hidden email]; [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [DOCUMENTATION]Wrong use of scientific notation

ups, our calc does not like "." if it is setup for e.g. en-GB, so actually
calc accepted the second notation if I changed it to ","

Would it be possible to have a macro or something for "." so it appears in
"," for me "." signals 1000 (1.000)

Jan.


On 3 November 2012 18:29, Dennis E. Hamilton <[hidden email]>wrote:

> It appears that all three forms are correct as notations for the same
> numerical value where "." is recognized as a decimal point.
>
> I agree that there should be consistency.
>
> I think context of the numeral is important.  In particular, which is most
> likely to be easily recognized and understood by the intended reader of the
> particular information?  Is there something about the form chosen that is
> relevant to the context in which it occurs.
>
> Off hand, 1.79769313486232E+308 (my preference) is related to the
> expression of numerical constant values in input-output of data and in
> programming languages.
>
> The common formula presentation, using mathematical notation, is more like
> 1.79769313486232 x 10^308, namely
>
>         1.79769313486232⨯10⁵⁸
>
> (The above example depends on having a good Unicode font.)
> (I couldn't find a good superscript 3 so I changed the exponent in the
> Unicoded example).
> It should not be difficult to use correct symbols and superscripts in the
> documentation.
>
>  - Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: RGB ES [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2012 07:21
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: [DOCUMENTATION]Wrong use of scientific notation
>
> On the help files, you find numbers written like
>
> 1.79769313486232 x 10E308
>
> This is wrong: it should be either
>
> 1.79769313486232 x 10^308
>
> or
>
> 1.79769313486232E308
>
> what do you think?
>
> Regards
> Ricardo
>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DOCUMENTATION]Wrong use of scientific notation

jan iversen
In reply to this post by Ricardo Berlasso
When it is in the part that is being translated localizers will take care
of "," versus ".".

I know the "x10" is a scientific notation and I use it and like it, but
since our calc does not accept it, I would prefer the E notation, so people
does not get confused.

Jan.

On 3 November 2012 19:14, RGB ES <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 2012/11/3 jan iversen <[hidden email]>
>
> > May I politely as a mathematician point out that there is a major
> > difference in the 2 proposals.
> >
> > Number 1 is a mathematical expression whereas number 2 is a number.
> >
>
> I'm physicist :)
>
> The first number is the traditional scientific notation (specially if
> proper super indexes are used) while the second one is the "E notation"
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_notation#E_notation
>
>
>
> >
> > Now I do not know where it is used,
>
>
> One example
>
> https://translate.apache.org/es/OOo_34_help/translate.html?unit=6097629
>
> Regards
> Ricardo
>
>
>
> > but if I copy both suggestions into
> > Calc, it believes it is text.
> >
> > Should we not have a format that our own calc accept as a number ??
> >
> > I agree with andrea that number 2 is more readable (and then forget it is
> > not a number).
> >
> > rgds
> > Jan I.
> >
> >
> > On 3 November 2012 17:47, Andrea Pescetti <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > RGB ES wrote:
> > >
> > >> On the help files, you find numbers written like
> > >> 1.79769313486232 x 10E308
> > >>
> > >> This is wrong: it should be either
> > >> 1.79769313486232 x 10^308
> > >> or
> > >> 1.79769313486232E308
> > >> what do you think?
> > >>
> > >
> > > Yes, it's wrong and your first proposal is correct and more readable
> than
> > > the second one. Then I wonder how many times we have these kind of
> > numbers
> > > in our documentation... and probably when they do appear we are more
> > > interested in their order of magnitude than in their actual value.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >   Andrea.
> > >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DOCUMENTATION]Wrong use of scientific notation

Juan C. Sanz
El 03/11/2012 19:25, jan iversen escribió:
> When it is in the part that is being translated localizers will take care
> of "," versus ".".
>
> I know the "x10" is a scientific notation and I use it and like it, but
> since our calc does not accept it, I would prefer the E notation, so people
> does not get confused.
But it is not to use it in calc but an explanation in the help so, i
think, 1.79769313486232 x 10^308 is more readable for the normal people.

>
> Jan.
>
> On 3 November 2012 19:14, RGB ES <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> 2012/11/3 jan iversen <[hidden email]>
>>
>>> May I politely as a mathematician point out that there is a major
>>> difference in the 2 proposals.
>>>
>>> Number 1 is a mathematical expression whereas number 2 is a number.
>>>
>> I'm physicist :)
>>
>> The first number is the traditional scientific notation (specially if
>> proper super indexes are used) while the second one is the "E notation"
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_notation#E_notation
>>
>>
>>
>>> Now I do not know where it is used,
>>
>> One example
>>
>> https://translate.apache.org/es/OOo_34_help/translate.html?unit=6097629
>>
>> Regards
>> Ricardo
>>
>>
>>
>>> but if I copy both suggestions into
>>> Calc, it believes it is text.
>>>
>>> Should we not have a format that our own calc accept as a number ??
>>>
>>> I agree with andrea that number 2 is more readable (and then forget it is
>>> not a number).
>>>
>>> rgds
>>> Jan I.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3 November 2012 17:47, Andrea Pescetti <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> RGB ES wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On the help files, you find numbers written like
>>>>> 1.79769313486232 x 10E308
>>>>>
>>>>> This is wrong: it should be either
>>>>> 1.79769313486232 x 10^308
>>>>> or
>>>>> 1.79769313486232E308
>>>>> what do you think?
>>>>>
>>>> Yes, it's wrong and your first proposal is correct and more readable
>> than
>>>> the second one. Then I wonder how many times we have these kind of
>>> numbers
>>>> in our documentation... and probably when they do appear we are more
>>>> interested in their order of magnitude than in their actual value.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>    Andrea.
>>>>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DOCUMENTATION]Wrong use of scientific notation

Andrew Pitonyak
In reply to this post by Ricardo Berlasso

On 11/03/2012 10:21 AM, RGB ES wrote:

> On the help files, you find numbers written like
>
> 1.79769313486232 x 10E308
>
> This is wrong: it should be either
>
> 1.79769313486232 x 10^308
>
> or
>
> 1.79769313486232E308
>
> what do you think?
>
> Regards
> Ricardo
>

Will the reader understand what it means?

If I copy and paste into my text editor, will it copy correctly?

If I copy and paste into Calc, is it interperted correct?


--
Andrew Pitonyak
My Macro Document: http://www.pitonyak.org/AndrewMacro.odt
Info:  http://www.pitonyak.org/oo.php