Talk:Engineering notation

message: Some people express the speed of light as 3e8 m/s, but I hesitate to add that to the already rather turgid discussion on the main article. --Eric Forste 07:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Speed of light example

message: I prefer to use engineering notation on my computer for the simple fact that SI prefixes match perfectly with it. For instance, a number like 9.65 × 104 C/mol (coulombs per mole) would be better written as 96.5 kC/mol. When I see the calculator display 96.5e3, I can better comprehend that number than 9.65e4. I'm not from Japan or China, after all, where they do traditionally go by sets of 4 digits. For instance, they would traditionally say that the speed of light is 3,0000,0000 meters per second. And as for that, that number is too large to comprehend whether it is displayed as .300 × 109 or as it is commonly, 3.00 × 108. The important element here is that the precision needs to be indicated, and it needs to be legible. Wherever engineering notation supports the precision part of it, it should be used, because it always is–to me–more legible. --D. F. Schmidt (talk) 09:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Engineering notation and precision

message: Comment from article that I moved to the talk page:
--(unsigned) 2006-07-12T22:59:49‎ User:Pjvpjv
:Ancient Indians Hindu system of Mathematics has surprisingly Raise of 10 to 53 places!!!
:Raising 10 to the Power of 53
:The highest prefix used for raising 10 to a power in today’s maths is ‘D’ for 10 to a power of 30 (from Greek Deca). While, as early as 100 BCE Indian Mathematicians had exact names for figures upto 10 to the power of 53.
:*ekam =1
:*dashakam =10
:*shatam =100 (10 to the power of 10)
:*sahasram =1000 (10 power of 3)
:*dashasahasram =10000 (10 power of 4)
:*lakshaha =100000 (10 power of 5)
:*dashalakshaha =1000000 (10 power of 6)
:*kotihi =10000000 (10 power of 7)
:*ayutam =1000000000 (10 power of 9)
:*niyutam = (10 power of 11)
:*kankaram = (10 power of 13)
:*vivaram = (10 power of 15)
:*paraardhaha = (10 power of 17)
:*nivahaaha = (10 power of 19)
:*utsangaha = (10 power of 21)
:*bahulam = (10 power of 23)
:*naagbaalaha = (10 power of 25)
:*titilambam = (10 power of 27)
:*vyavasthaana 
:*pragnaptihi = (10 power of 29)
:*hetuheelam = (10 power of 31)
:*karahuhu = (10 power of 33)
:*hetvindreeyam = (10 power of 35)
:*samaapta lambhaha = (10 power of 37)
:*gananaagatihi) = (10 power of 39)
:*niravadyam = (10 power of 41)
:*mudraabaalam = (10 power of 43)
:*sarvabaalam = (10 power of 45)
:*vishamagnagatihi = (10 power of 47)
:*sarvagnaha = (10 power of 49)
:*vibhutangamaa = (10 power of 51)
:*tallaakshanam = (10 power of 53)
:(In Anuyogdwaar Sutra written in 100 BCE one numeral is raised as high as 10 to the power of 140).
:--(unsigned) 2005-10-27T18:50:27‎ 69.57.238.121
::good table .. but should perhaps be in Decimal.  What has it to do with    Engineering Notation?
::(unsigned) 2005-10-27T20:36:44‎ User:Mfc
:::I agree, it might have a place in another article (on numbers), but it has nothing to do with engineering notation. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Indian Hindu system

message: I swear it seems like the author of this article has beef with engineers... shouldn't most of the article be about what engineering notation IS, who uses it, and why it's used, as opposed to taking up the entire article with one criticism of the notation repeated like three separate times? I mean nothing wrong with that, but condense it (seriously, multiple examples are not necessary) and add in some positives to it, really. 129.67.120.145 (talk) 21:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Layout