Talk:Power of 10

Article

Someone must check the numerical values of the examples at least for 10^(-3) and 10^(-6). The first one is off by a 0,00X and the second by 0.0X i think

If it was off, it is now fixed 10^-3=.001, 10^-6=.000 001 108.172.49.119 (talk) 05:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Long scale names

If you start adding the long scale names, you should go on with it till the end.
Billion (Milliard) Trillion (Billion) Quadrillion (Billiard) Quintillion (Trillion) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.91.26.1 (talk) 19:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Larger SI prefixes

Could someone cite a source for the SI prefixes Xona- and beyond? 2001:470:1F05:D2:CAF7:33FF:FEED:685E (talk) 19:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

proposal merge tables

I think that the positive and negative powers of ten belong in the same table. Opinions? 108.172.49.119 (talk) 05:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe Clarify "Latin name-prefix"

I assuming that when it said "Latin name-prefix converted" to use in the formula

It means Bi, Tri, Deca, etc is equal to 2, 3, 10. I didnt realize this until now. Everything is always so terse on Wikipedia and intended for the Maths audience but I think the general audience and ESL speakers should have that clarified.

71.179.50.33 (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Table length

Perhaps we should stop at those which have an actual Wikipedia article (up to trillion, plus googol) or actual SI prefix? (By "actual", I mean accepted, leaving out X/H, W, and V.) If I don't see any opposition in the next week, I'll take care of it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:57, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Advertised at WT:MATH and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:28, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Why? Obviously the table should not be "too long"; the current one isn't that long, in my view. (I can agree with a philosophical argument that, mathematically, 10 isn't special; not even a prime number!) -- Taku (talk) 23:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Each entry without a Wikipedia article nor an SI prefix could be filled in by a simple bot. Unlike powers of 2, the name and representation of 10³³ have no useful information. The digits of 2³³ may have useful information, although we may not immediately know what it might be. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:48, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

If 108.172.49.119 (talk · contribs · 108.172.49.119 WHOIS)'s proposal above were implemented, the resulting table would be too long.

Options for implementing it would include:

1. Having a single table with powers -24, -21, -18, -15, -12, -9, -6, -5, -4, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, (8), 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, 100.
2. Having a table with rows n = 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, (8), 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, 100, and two sets of 3 columns for the name, digital representation, and SI prefix for 10ⁿ and 10⁻ⁿ.

and perhaps others I haven't considered. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:10, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Some numbers are more "mathematically special" than others? And apparently prime numbers of which there are five counting to ten? I'm no math major but I'm fairly certain roughly half of all numbers are prime numbers and if 10 isn't mathematically important that pretty well makes the metric system, decimals and of course any table to display "powers of 10" mathematically unimportant. Although I thought the power of 10 table pointless anyway. I've never needed to get to hundreds and thousands and on down the line via powers of 10 but probably because I'm not a math major and assumed that hundred and thousand etc exist to replace and/or prevent such simple math using such a mathematically unimportant number. I don't think even making 10 a prime number or needing to use negative but only odd powers of ten to find out how many "negative" hundreds, thousands etc taking 10 to the "-nth power" would result in. And why anybody would need "SI" or an "SI prefix" in/on a table of even "powers of ten" is something I not only can't figure out but am glad I can't figure out because if I could come up with a reason to need SI prefixes on/in a table that I can't even "picture" or maybe just can't "picture" with "vertical" and "horizontal axes and "powers of ten and "negative powers of ten" on the same "table" and am therefore not only not in need of a table to tell me what ten to any power I could or would possibly ever need to multiply ten by ten until I reached it without "cheating" and using hundreds and thousands and millions instead long before reaching using a power of ten table. Sometimes its better to be dumb and look smart for not using "SI" and/or a power of ten table if only to me while maybe looking stupid to others I honestly would be complimenting calling "stupid" if asked to comment on my impressions and opinions of their "intelligence" in the "real world" of practical math vs. "mathematics" and where even a "math major" shouldn't need a "powers of ten table" in order to "do the math" required to figure out that to get that since a negative multiplied by a negative is a positive and therefore a "negative power of ten table" would "crash" as soon as -10 x -10 = 100 AND THAT WE HAVE THOSE THINGS CALLED DECIMAL POINTS WITH "POWERS OF TENTHS" TO THE RIGHT OF IT FOR A REASON BUT ITS NOT TO MAKE "SI" WORK IN "NEGATIVE POWERS OF TEN". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.234.100.169 (talk) 10:40, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Are you arguing for removal of the table(s)? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:31, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Mistake in negative powers of 10

In the negative powers of 10, it says a googolplexianth is 10 to the power of (10 to the power of negative (10 to the power of 100)). However, this is 10 to the power of a googlplexth, which is wrong. 10 to the power of negative (10 to the power of (10 to the power of 100)) is 10 to the power of a negative googolplex, which is correct: a googolplexianth. Orrinpants^{(talk|contributions|log)} 16:03, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

@Orrinpants: Yes, it's 10^–10googol, not 10^10–googol. Fixed; thank you. Certes (talk) 17:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 16 February 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. – robertsky (talk) 05:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

---

Power of 10 → Power of ten – according to power of two, power of three. --Χιονάκι (talk) 23:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. asilvering (talk) 05:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Ten is basically the last number for which this seems to be the most natural construction. BD2412 T 15:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support - per WP:CONSISTENT as the nominator demonstrates, WP:NCNUM, and MOS:NUMERAL. I would also like to note that "power of ten" appears more frequently in the article's text than "Power of 10" does. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 23:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

...comment —  MOS:NUMERAL actually doesn't support the "Support" claim (and would actually give credence to the Oppose angle). It mentions that numbers zero through nine should usually be spelled out, with larger numbers written in digits. Paintspot Infez (talk) 07:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, per the formation of the page. The article uses numbers in sequence (10 times 10 times 10 etc.), and it seems much easier to understand if the "10" is used as the title. The disamb page Ten lists many articles which use the number 10 (including the 1979 film, which also is an understandable title). Randy Kryn (talk) 00:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - MOS:NUMERAL actually does not support this move, as it only directs numbers from one through nine to be spelled out. 10 is supposed to be in figures. Bensci54 (talk) 21:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, per MOS:NUMERAL, et cetera. Paintspot Infez (talk) 06:49, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Negative integer exponents

Is there anything in sources about negative exponents, it numbers 1/10, 1/100, 1/10000...? I.e., shal the lede speak about any integer exponents? Is there a ref for the def? (I mean, to establish that usually nonnegative exp is meant (that is my impression, but {{citation needed}} for either way :-). - Altenmann >talk 20:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)