What does the number 4.47e + 8 mean?
  • one
    Archimedes know? So this is his method of recording arbitrarily long numbers. If you write the number 4.47e + 8 in normal decimal form, it will be too long. - AseN
  • 2
    4.47e+8 - 447000000 . 4.47e+8 -> 4.47 * 10 ^ 8 - gil9red

3 answers 3

This number is 447 million . Or 4.47 × 10 ^ 8 . It is more convenient to write on a computer.

Here is the answer of WolframAlpha

    Normal demolition of discharges in number. When 4.47 · 10 ^ 8 is written, the floating point is demolished 8 digits forward - in this case it will be the number 447 with 6 zeros ahead, i.e. 447,000,000 . In programming, E-values ​​can be used, and e cannot be written by itself , but E is possible (but not everywhere and not always, this will be noted below), since the last but one may be mistaken for the Euler number . If you need to write a huge number in abbreviated form, the style of 4.47 · E8 can be used (the alternative for production and small print is 4.47 × E8), so that the number is read more unloaded and the digits are indicated more separately (you cannot put spaces between the arithmetic signs otherwise, it is a mathematical condition, not a number).

    3.52E3 is good for writing without indexes, but reading the bit offset will be more difficult. 3.52 · 10 ^ 8 is a condition, since requires an index and there is no mantissa (the latter exists only for the operator, and this is an expanded factor). '· 10' is the process of standard (main) operational multiplication, the number after ^ is the indicator of demolition of discharges, so it is not necessary to make it small if you need to write documents in this form (observing the superscript position), in some cases, it is desirable to use the scale in the region 100 - 120%, not the standard 58%. Using a small scale for the key elements of the condition, the visual quality of digital information decreases - you have to peer (it may not be necessary, but the fact remains - there is no need to hide the conditions in small print, it was possible to bury it in general — to reduce the scale of individual elements of the condition unacceptable, especially on the computer), to notice the "surprise", and it is very harmful even on paper resource.

    If the multiplication process performs special operations, then in such cases the use of spaces may be redundant, since in addition to multiplying numbers, the multiplier can be a link for huge and small numbers, chemical elements, etc. and the like, which cannot be written down by decimal, or cannot be written by the end result. This may not concern the entry with '· 10 ^ y', since any value in the expression plays the role of a multiplier, and '^ y' - the degree indicated by the superscript method, i.e. is a numeric condition. But, removing the spaces around the multiplier and writing differently - it will be a mistake, because no operator. The record fragment '· 10' itself is a multiplier-operator + number, not the first + second operator. This is the main reason why it’s wrong with 10th. If there are no special values ​​after the numerical operator, i.e. non-numeric, but systemic, then this variant of the record cannot be justified - if there is a system value, then such a value should be suitable for certain tasks with numerical or practical reduction of numbers (for certain actions, for example, 1.35f8, where f is any the equation created for practical special problems, which deduces real numbers as a result of concrete practical experiments, 8 is a value that is substituted as a variable to the operator f and coincides with the numbers when the conditions of the most consecutive change its convenient way, if this task is extremely important, then such data values ​​can be used with a sign without spaces). Briefly, for such arithmetic operations, but with other goals, it can also be done with pluses, minuses and dividers, if there is an urgent need to create new or simplify existing ways of recording data while maintaining accuracy in practice and can be an applicable numerical condition for certain arithmetic goals.

    Result: it is recommended to write the approved form of the exponential notation with a space and superscript font of 58% and a shift of 33% (if the change of scale and offset is allowed by other parties to 100-120%, then 100% can be set - this is the best way to record superscripts, the optimal offset is ≈ 50%). On a computer, you can use 3.74e + 2, 4.58E-1, 6.73 · E-5, E-11, if the latter two formats are supported, it is better to abandon e-abbreviations on forums for known reasons, and style 3, 65 · E-5 or 5,67E4 can be fully understood, exceptions can be only official segments of the public - there only with '· 10 ^ x ', and instead of ^ x - only superscript notation is used .

    In short, E is a supercontraction for the decimal antilog, which is often labeled antilog or antilg. For example, 7,947antilg-4 will be the same as 7,947E-4. In practice, it is much more practical and more convenient than “ten” with a superscript degree sign once more. This can be called the "exponential" logarithmic type of number as an alternative to the less convenient "exponential" classical one. Only instead of “antilg”, “E” is used, or the second number immediately goes with a pass (if the number is positive) or without it (on ten-segment scientific calculators, such as "Citizen CT-207T").

      When I saw this rule. Just when reading the letter e (which went from the word of the exhibitor) reads like "multiply by ten to the power" and everything will be clear.

      • 2
        Well, for those disfigured by mathematics, e is still read not as 10, but as Euler's number ... - karmadro4
      • And the Americans (IBM) can do nothing about Euler and did not know ... The truth is, when they composed this, there was the letter "E". "e" appeared decades later. (On the Soviet Control Units, that is, even before the ADC, there were 10 in the index register). - alexlz 2:21 pm
      • @alexlz, heh, did not know such details; I thought it came from eight-segment digital displays. - karmadro4