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.
> >
>
