Good Article.

The delicious irony of this is that the maximum parsimony method Rum describes was pioneered by biblical scholars and other scholars of ancient texts to discern the lineages of the multiple copies of ancient texts and to attempt reconstruct the ancestral source text.

Interesting and thorough but I'm having difficulty reading a number. The number is written as:

8,3803*10394

It is written three times this way and once in word form:

Eight times ten to the three hundred and ninety fourth power. This number is incomprehensible.

Whilst I agree it's incomprehensible, it may be because I just cannot read it as posted.

Apart from this (and an odd typo) I enjoyed the read. Thanks.

ETA - Maybe the comma represents a decimal point? If so then all is clear.

ETA2: Also no images related to the article (apart from "Rum's avatar") show up in Safari running on this iMac.

newolder wrote:

8,3803*10394

This is the same as


83803 * 10390

or

83803 followed by 390 zeroes.

Added: Rum is from Europe, so he uses comma instead of decimal point.

Thanks for the confirmation NineBerry.

Some typos and errors spotted, along with some missing imagery. Will update tomorrow.

NineBerry wrote:

newolder wrote:

8,3803*10394

This is the same as


83803 * 10390

or

83803 followed by 390 zeroes.

Added: Rum is from Europe, so he uses comma instead of decimal point.

I don't think that's European.
Over here were taught to use points for 8.124 and comma for decimals.
Ie: 8.235,14
Although we usually tend to write: 8235,14

^ Then it's way more confusing than I imagine.

How do I read the number 8.235,14 correctly? My first attempt is, "eight point two three five comma one four." which translates to 8 and 2 tenths and 3 hundredths and 5 thousandths and I'm no clearer as to what the comma is doing.

How do I read 8235,14 so it's the same as 8.235,14. I'm very confused.

ETA Ah! maybe 8235,14 is 8 thousand two hundred and thirty five (decimal) one four and the "." in the second version is a separator for "thousands" ?

In scientific notation, a comma is used for a decimal, because often a point is used as a multiplier.
This sometimes conflicts with what is taught in school mathematics, and initially causes confusion.

Well, it certainly had me confused for a while but thanks for clearing it up, zulumoose.

newolder wrote:
ETA Ah! maybe 8235,14 is 8 thousand two hundred and thirty five (decimal) one four and the "." in the second version is a separator for "thousands" ?

In math we don't use signifiers for 1000s, neither 1.000 nor 1,000.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

newolder wrote:
ETA Ah! maybe 8235,14 is 8 thousand two hundred and thirty five (decimal) one four and the "." in the second version is a separator for "thousands" ?

In math we don't use signifiers for 1000s, neither 1.000 nor 1,000.

Yay me!

In scientific notation that number is written unambiguously as 8.23514x103

Yay science!

In scientific notation that number is written unambiguously as 8.23514x103

Nope.

That is school maths.
In scientific notation . is a multiplier, so 8.23514 is 8 times 23514

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

NineBerry wrote:

newolder wrote:

8,3803*10394

This is the same as


83803 * 10390

or

83803 followed by 390 zeroes.

Added: Rum is from Europe, so he uses comma instead of decimal point.

I don't think that's European.
Over here were taught to use points for 8.124 and comma for decimals.
Ie: 8.235,14
Although we usually tend to write: 8235,14

is correct and how I normally write.

Some times in Denmark you will see people write large numbers like this
9 023 002 744,4
or like this
9.023.002.744,4
Which is nine billion, 23 million, two thousand, seven hundred and forty four, point four.

IIRC in the US that number can be written as this
9,023,002,744.4

In scientific notation, you could write that (in Denmark) as
~9,023*109
In the US that would be
~9.023*109

Why that shit isn't globally standardized is anyone's guess. That's humanity for you.

zulumoose wrote:

In scientific notation that number is written unambiguously as 8.23514x103

Nope.

That is school maths.
In scientific notation . is a multiplier, so 8.23514 is 8 times 23514

I think that . has to be elevated, to distinguish it from an actual period. When I was taught math in elementary school, we wrote like this:

The multiplication symbol has to sort of hover in the air.
Otherwise it might look like this

Which can be mistaken for saying twenty two point three, equals sixty six.

zulumoose wrote:

In scientific notation that number is written unambiguously as 8.23514x103

Nope.

That is school maths.
In scientific notation . is a multiplier, so 8.23514 is 8 times 23514

Nope. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_notation

And then there's this option

Which, if you don't make sure the multiplication symbol x is hovering in the air, can be mistaken for this

Which basically says twenty two, times X, times three, is equal to sixty six.

newolder wrote:

zulumoose wrote:

In scientific notation that number is written unambiguously as 8.23514x103

Nope.

That is school maths.
In scientific notation . is a multiplier, so 8.23514 is 8 times 23514

Nope. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_notation

According to this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiplication_sign he is correct, some countries really do use a fucking period as a multiplication symbol.

"In some languages (especially Bulgarian[citation needed]) and French[citation needed] the use of full stop as a multiplication symbol, such as a.b, is common."

Rumraket wrote:

newolder wrote:

zulumoose wrote:

In scientific notation that number is written unambiguously as 8.23514x103

Nope.

That is school maths.
In scientific notation . is a multiplier, so 8.23514 is 8 times 23514

Nope. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_notation

According to this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiplication_sign he is correct, some countries really do use a fucking period as a multiplication symbol.

"In some languages (especially Bulgarian[citation needed]) and French[citation needed] the use of full stop as a multiplication symbol, such as a.b, is common."

I know some fuckers use a period as a multiplication sign. When using scientific notation, however, the period is the decimal and the x is the multiplier so we get 1.2x10123 with no ambiguity.

Not what I was taught in University Physics in the late 80's.
x was always a variable
. was always a multiplier
, was always a decimal

Finally I understood why in S.A. school maths the comma was the decimal, which went against what I was taught in U.K. schools.