[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
Re: [DOCUMENTATION]Wrong use of scientific notation
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.
RE: [DOCUMENTATION]Wrong use of scientific notation
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:rgb.m...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2012 07:21 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org 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
Re: [DOCUMENTATION]Wrong use of scientific notation
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 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.
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 dennis.hamil...@acm.orgwrote: 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:rgb.m...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2012 07:21 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org 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
Re: [DOCUMENTATION]Wrong use of scientific notation
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.
RE: [DOCUMENTATION]Wrong use of scientific notation
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:jancasacon...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2012 10:36 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; dennis.hamil...@acm.org 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 dennis.hamil...@acm.orgwrote: 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:rgb.m...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2012 07:21 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org 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
Re: [DOCUMENTATION]Wrong use of scientific notation
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 rgb.m...@gmail.com wrote: 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.
Re: [DOCUMENTATION]Wrong use of scientific notation
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 rgb.m...@gmail.com wrote: 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.
