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 <[email protected]>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:[email protected]] > Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2012 07:21 > To: [email protected] > 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 > >
