4 ms·

This error would have been much easier to catch if they had used mag notation[0]. [0] https://saul.pw/mag https://saul.pw/mag

by saulpw 2y ago

FredPret 2y ago
Why not just type 3.1E7 instead of the weird up arrow? Every software calculator I could think of to try understands this notation, it's easy to say and copy-paste, and the unit is clear from the context the original number is in.
- saulpw 2y ago
  Because that's still 2 numbers, complicating comparisons and arithmetic, and the more important number is at the end. If you could use e7.5 then that would alleviate the problems, but no software/language/calculator accepts this notation, and using a caret like ^7.5 is more evocative than the already very-overloaded "e".
adrian_b 2y ago
While I agree that logarithms are better for expressing most physical quantities, when those values are used by humans, the "common logarithms" a.k.a. base-10 logarithms, which are used at your link, are completely obsolete. Binary logarithms are much more useful. Even when you are not using any automatic computer, but you are only doing computations in your head, binary logarithms are more convenient. Moreover, the inter-conversion between binary logarithms and decimal logarithms is very easy to do mentally, by the approximate rule that 10 units of binary logarithms match 3 units of decimal logarithms.
- saulpw 2y ago
  Cute idea! But I hardly think base-10 logarithms are "completely" obsolete. We write numbers in base-10 and so the length of the number is its magnitude. Your statement is like saying that strlen() is obsolete and we should be using strlen2() which reports the number of bits in the string instead.
yencabulator 2y ago
That page is self-contradicting in a stupid way. > You can put every quantity in the world on a scale from -10 to +10, where 0 is human-scale, and every number higher means 10x more > [...], and ↑9 is the Sun. It doesn’t get much bigger than that unless you’re doing astrophysics. So, which one is it?
- saulpw 2y ago
  This scale goes to 11. The age of the universe is ^17 and the size of the Universe is ^27. IMO this is still on the -10 to +10 scale, considering the sizes of the quantities involved. Thanks for the comment, I appreciate your willingness to share your disdain!

This error would have been much easier to catch if they had used mag notation[0]. [0] https://saul.pw/mag https://saul.pw/mag

by saulpw 2y ago

This error would have been much easier to catch if they had used mag notation[0]. [0] https://saul.pw/mag https://saul.pw/mag

FredPret 2y ago

Why not just type 3.1E7 instead of the weird up arrow? Every software calculator I could think of to try understands this notation, it's easy to say and copy-paste, and the unit is clear from the context the original number is in.

saulpw 2y ago
Because that's still 2 numbers, complicating comparisons and arithmetic, and the more important number is at the end. If you could use e7.5 then that would alleviate the problems, but no software/language/calculator accepts this notation, and using a caret like ^7.5 is more evocative than the already very-overloaded "e".

adrian_b 2y ago

While I agree that logarithms are better for expressing most physical quantities, when those values are used by humans, the "common logarithms" a.k.a. base-10 logarithms, which are used at your link, are completely obsolete. Binary logarithms are much more useful. Even when you are not using any automatic computer, but you are only doing computations in your head, binary logarithms are more convenient. Moreover, the inter-conversion between binary logarithms and decimal logarithms is very easy to do mentally, by the approximate rule that 10 units of binary logarithms match 3 units of decimal logarithms.

saulpw 2y ago
Cute idea! But I hardly think base-10 logarithms are "completely" obsolete. We write numbers in base-10 and so the length of the number is its magnitude. Your statement is like saying that strlen() is obsolete and we should be using strlen2() which reports the number of bits in the string instead.

yencabulator 2y ago

That page is self-contradicting in a stupid way. > You can put every quantity in the world on a scale from -10 to +10, where 0 is human-scale, and every number higher means 10x more > [...], and ↑9 is the Sun. It doesn’t get much bigger than that unless you’re doing astrophysics. So, which one is it?

saulpw 2y ago
This scale goes to 11. The age of the universe is ^17 and the size of the Universe is ^27. IMO this is still on the -10 to +10 scale, considering the sizes of the quantities involved. Thanks for the comment, I appreciate your willingness to share your disdain!