2012/11/3 jan iversen <jancasacon...@gmail.com> > 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 <pesce...@apache.org> 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. > > >
