Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: scientific notation question
6 views
Skip to first unread message
Message has been deleted
Christopher J. Henrich
Apr 13, 2013, 5:38:47 PM4/13/13
to
In article <5169bfe4$0$25602$607e...@cv.net>, aa wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
>
>
> I tried this on two different calculators and got the same confusing
> answers.
>
> 2 ^ 215 = 5.2656145834278593348959013841835e+64
>
> 2 ^ 200 = 1.6069380442589902755419620923412e+60
>
> For the larger number the decimal point is moved 4 places less.
>
>
These two answers seem consistent to me.
The first number is larger by a factor of 3.2768e+04. That's why the
decimal point is moved 4 places *more*.
--
Chris Henrich
http://www.mathinteract.com
God just doesn't fit inside a single religion.
> x-no-archive: yes
>
>
> I tried this on two different calculators and got the same confusing
> answers.
>
> 2 ^ 215 = 5.2656145834278593348959013841835e+64
>
> 2 ^ 200 = 1.6069380442589902755419620923412e+60
>
> For the larger number the decimal point is moved 4 places less.
>
>
These two answers seem consistent to me.
The first number is larger by a factor of 3.2768e+04. That's why the
decimal point is moved 4 places *more*.
--
Chris Henrich
http://www.mathinteract.com
God just doesn't fit inside a single religion.
Message has been deleted
Ken Pledger
Apr 14, 2013, 5:09:38 PM4/14/13
to
In article <5169e9d7$0$25646$607e...@cv.net>, "aa" <ss> wrote:
> ....
> But isn't 215 < 220 ?
> ....
But you originally wrote 200, not 220.
Ken Pledger.
> ....
> But isn't 215 < 220 ?
> ....
But you originally wrote 200, not 220.
Ken Pledger.
Message has been deleted
Christopher J. Henrich
Apr 15, 2013, 4:42:51 PM4/15/13
to
> ok .....
>
> 215 < 200
Is joke, da?
>
> 215 < 200
Is joke, da?
0 new messages