It appears that all three forms are correct as notations for the same numerical
value where "." is recognized as a decimal point.
I agree that there should be consistency.
I think context of the numeral is important. In particular, which is most
likely to be easily recognized and understood by the intended reader of the
particular information? Is there something about the form chosen that is
relevant to the context in which it occurs.
Off hand, 1.79769313486232E+308 (my preference) is related to the expression of
numerical constant values in input-output of data and in programming languages.
The common formula presentation, using mathematical notation, is more like
1.79769313486232 x 10^308, namely
1.79769313486232⨯10⁵⁸
(The above example depends on having a good Unicode font.)
(I couldn't find a good superscript 3 so I changed the exponent in the Unicoded
example).
It should not be difficult to use correct symbols and superscripts in the
documentation.
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: RGB ES [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2012 07:21
To: [email protected]
Subject: [DOCUMENTATION]Wrong use of scientific notation
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?
Regards
Ricardo
