Is Scientific Notation Only for Approximating Large Numbers?

AI Thread Summary
Scientific notation is not solely for approximating large numbers, as it can also express smaller values like 570,098 as 5.70098 x 10^5. However, this representation may include more digits than necessary, raising questions about its efficiency. Historically, scientific notation was essential for calculations using slide rules, which could only handle a limited number of significant digits. Modern calculators have diminished the need for such notation, allowing users to input full numbers directly, often leading to excessive significant figures that do not reflect measurement precision. Overall, while scientific notation serves to clarify significant digits, its practical application has evolved with technological advancements.
Holocene
Messages
237
Reaction score
0
Obviously, if you wanted to express 500,000 in Scientific Notation, you would get:

5 x 10^5

My question is, what if you were asked to express 570,098?

Move the decimal 5 places to the left, and you'd get 5.70098. Apply Scientific Notation, and you get

5.70098 x 10^5

However, this expression actually contains MORE numbers than the original number, which is not the goal of Scientific Notation.

So is SN just for expressing approximations of large numbers? Should I have rounded 570,098 to 570,000?

Thanks a lot.
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Scientific notation was most useful in the days of slide rules. At absolute max a slide rule can only carry 4 digits. To do a calculation with a slide rule you reduced all numbers to scientific notation with 3 or 4 digits then used the slide rule to perform the basic operations and in a separate calculation determined the order of magnitude by combining the powers of 10.

The curse and blessing of modern calculators is that this type of thinking is no longer necessary. You can just poke in the numbers hit the button and copy down every thing in the display. Of course the fact that most of the digits in the display of a calculator is useless noise does not bother most students for even a second.

A useful function of Scientific notation would be to make it clear how many significant digits you have.
 
Last edited:
Integral said:
Of course the fact that most of the digits in the display of a calculator is useless noise does not bother most students for even a second.
It always makes you wonder about a student's comprehension of 'experimental error' when they give answers to 8 or 9 significant places (or 12 for big calculators) which they derived from experimental values they measured to only 2 or 3 places at best. :cry:
 
Integral said:
Scientific notation was most useful in the days of slide rules. At absolute max a slide rule can only carry 4 digits. To do a calculation with a slide rule you reduced all numbers to scientific notation with 3 or 4 digits then used the slide rule to perform the basic operations and in a separate calculation determined the order of magnitude by combining the powers of 10.

The curse and blessing of modern calculators is that this type of thinking is no longer necessary. You can just poke in the numbers hit the button and copy down every thing in the display. Of course the fact that most of the digits in the display of a calculator is useless noise does not bother most students for even a second.

A useful function of Scientific notation would be to make it clear how many significant digits you have.

I never heard of slide rule's until the other day when my aunty got me one from 1962. I had no idea what it was...then I worked it out.
Are they worth anything?
 
Just curiosities now. A calculator can do anything a slide rule can, faster and more accurately. (I used to be able to find square roots on an abacus!)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...

Similar threads

Back
Top