incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Juan C. Sanz" <juancsa...@hotmail.com>
Subject Re: [DOCUMENTATION]Wrong use of scientific notation
Date Sat, 03 Nov 2012 21:23:01 GMT
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.mldc@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 2012/11/3 jan iversen <jancasacondor@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 <pescetti@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.
>>>>


Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message