What Percentage Of TBMs Have Actually Read The Entire Book of Mormon?

[huckelberry]

I find my self surprised by my mathematical ignorance. A fractional exponent? I had never heard of such a thing and had to google to find if it really is a thing. Does it have a use beyond confusing the unwary?

[Physics Guy]

Fractional exponents are roots. 100^(1/2) = 10, the square root of 100. So if you ever have a number that is expressed with an exponent for some reason, like 10^39, and you want its square root, then you might express that as 10^(39/2). You probably won't run into things like 10^(0.18) that way very often, though.

Otherwise, if you have a nice round number like 1024 or a million, you might choose to express it as a whole-number exponential because it looks nice, but no, I don't think you'd ever want to express any modest-sized number as an exponent of a modest-sized base to any smallish fraction.

What can and does happen quite often, however, is that you're not starting with some particular modest-sized number, but rather with some rule involving exponents, which are themselves given by some other rule in their turn. In some particular case the rules may turn out to give you something like 10^(0.18), and then you have to figure out what that is as an ordinary decimal number.

[huckelberry]

Fractional exponents are roots. 100^(1/2) = 10, the square root of 100. So if you ever have a number that is expressed with an exponent for some reason, like 10^39, and you want its square root, then you might express that as 10^(39/2). You probably won't run into things like 10^(0.18) that way very often, though.

Otherwise, if you have a nice round number like 1024 or a million, you might choose to express it as a whole-number exponential because it looks nice, but no, I don't think you'd ever want to express any modest-sized number as an exponent of a modest-sized base to any smallish fraction.

What can and does happen quite often, however, is that you're not starting with some particular modest-sized number, but rather with some rule involving exponents, which are themselves given by some other rule in their turn. In some particular case the rules may turn out to give you something like 10^(0.18), and then you have to figure out what that is as an ordinary decimal number.

Physics Guy, thanks for taking a moment for that little question. I see that it is not a difficult concept. I cannot remember encountering it before. Exponents I had met were nice whole numbers.

[Res Ipsa]

Fractional exponents are roots. 100^(1/2) = 10, the square root of 100. So if you ever have a number that is expressed with an exponent for some reason, like 10^39, and you want its square root, then you might express that as 10^(39/2). You probably won't run into things like 10^(0.18) that way very often, though.

Otherwise, if you have a nice round number like 1024 or a million, you might choose to express it as a whole-number exponential because it looks nice, but no, I don't think you'd ever want to express any modest-sized number as an exponent of a modest-sized base to any smallish fraction.

What can and does happen quite often, however, is that you're not starting with some particular modest-sized number, but rather with some rule involving exponents, which are themselves given by some other rule in their turn. In some particular case the rules may turn out to give you something like 10^(0.18), and then you have to figure out what that is as an ordinary decimal number.

Physics Guy, thanks for taking a moment for that little question. I see that it is not a difficult concept. I cannot remember encountering it before. Exponents I had met were nice whole numbers.

You just haven't been hanging out at the right bars.

[malkie]

Physics Guy, thanks for taking a moment for that little question. I see that it is not a difficult concept. I cannot remember encountering it before. Exponents I had met were nice whole numbers.

You just haven't been hanging out at the right bars.

Or he's been patronizing the wrong deli:

[Res Ipsa]

[Physics Guy]

And subsequent offences of discussing math in line can apparently really cost you. I didn't know. Yikes.

[Rivendale]

And subsequent offences of discussing math in line can apparently really cost you. I didn't know. Yikes.

Especially if you have an infinite line of Grim Reapers in front of you.

[malkie]

And subsequent offences of discussing math in line can apparently really cost you. I didn't know. Yikes.

Especially if you have an infinite line of Grim Reapers in front of you.

Unless, perhaps, there is an infinitely long counter with an infinite number of servers - let's say one more than the number of Reapers.