4 ms·
Well, that would make sense when describing the relationship between two functions, but not between two datapoints, right? Since exponentially pertains to growt
by DC-3 6y ago
Well, that would make sense when describing the relationship between two functions, but not between two datapoints, right? Since exponentially pertains to growth, not magnitude.
- ModernMech 6y ago“Exponentially higher” can refer to magnitudes, not growth. If I have $1000 (10^3) today and $100 (10^2) some time ago, I have exponentially more dollars now than then even if that value grew linearly over that time period and continues to grow linearly. I won’t have exponentially more over the next time period, because it’s not growing exponentially, but it’s still correct to say at that point my bank account is exponentially higher.
- DC-3 6y agoWell, that is referring to growth, just growth sampled in a discrete fashion.
- ModernMech 6y agoLines are infinite, so you can pick two points on any line with a nonzero slope where the second point is exponentially higher than the first. That doesn’t mean the line is an exponential. Both of these views only look at the magnitudes of the two points with respect to one another and not the trend of the growth of the curve from which they were sampled.
- sitkack 6y agoI think we should call two points that are separated by more distance than the first point squared. For something to be exponentially away from something else, it would have to be at least itself squared. So 26 is exponentially far from 5 (5^2).