My apologies, I appear to have got it wrong. Your system is less simple and more confusing than I thought, and is clearly a lot harder to master than scientific notation despite giving no advantages over it.
The
Hindu-Arabic numeral system is apriori simpler and more effective than the
Roman numerals. Nevertheless, to the persons having grown up with Roman numerals, the new decimal system seemed more confusing than the accustomed one.
Thus, as long as you have to translate e.g.
8p2998 m/s into 299,800 km/s, or
0n25 meter into 2.5 Angstrom = 2.5 x 10^-10 meter, the new systems only represents an additional complication. Yet if you have assimilated the concept
eight.po as "hundred mega" (
2p1 ∙ 6p1), or as "zero point one billion" (
…999n1 ∙ …009p1), or as "ten raised to the power of eight", then
8p2998 is easily recognizable as around "
eight.po three = 8p3". And in a mental calculation it is easier to use the concept "
eight.po two nine nine eight meter" than "two hundred ninety nine thousand eight hundred kilo-meter".
Moving the order of magnitude in front of the significant digits is odd and counter intuitive.
From a logical point of view, it seems more reasonable to move from the general to the specific, e.g. starting with country, continuing with town, street, apartment, and ending with name of addressee. (It is true that postal address is written the other way round, but it is normally read from bottom to top by the postal service.) Thus in principle, we should even start with the unit. Order of magnitude is meaningless without unit. And significant digits are meaningless without order of magnitude and unit. (One must not confuse the absence of a unit with the default unit
piece.)
From the psychological point of view, it is less demanding to understand "
meter eight.po three eight four" than "three-point-eight-four times ten-raised-to-the-power-of-eight meter". After "
meter" we know that we deal with distance in space, after "
meter eight.po three" we may recognize a distance close to a light-second. The rest simply adds less and less important accuracy.
No, I think I see how it works, and why it doesn't. He notates negative exponents from 1 to 9 by subtracting the exponent from 10, from 10 to 99 by subtracting it from 100, from 100 to 990 by subtracting it from 1000, ...
The
principle is more straightforward: In order to get a negative exponent, we simply apply the standard subtraction rule, i.e. we regularly subtract from zero:
…01000 minus …00001 equals …00999
…00100 minus …00001 equals …00099
…00010 minus …00001 equals …00009
…00001 minus …00001 equals …00000
…00000 minus …00001 equals …99999
pi = …000p314159… ≈ 0p31416 = p31416 ≈ p314
1/pi = …999n318309… ≈ 9n31831 = n31831 ≈ n318
Let us also reexamine "
83n375 ∙ 90n2 = 73n75" (3.75 x 10^-17 ∙ 2 x 10^-10 = 7.5 x 10^-27) of my
previous post.
83n means an exponent of …99983 (i.e. 17 below zero).
90n means an exponent of …99990 (i.e. 10 below …00000). In this system multiplication of numbers always results in direct addition of exponents. So we get "…99983 + …99990 = …99973" resp. "
83n ∙ 90n = 73n".
I always get confused when I have to multiply or divide numbers in scientific notation with negative exponents. In the system proposed here, multiplication always results in addition, and division in subtraction of an exponent. And computer science demonstrates every day that implementing negative numbers by regular subtraction from zero works fine.
If you have learned the elementary charge as 1.602 x 10^-19 Coulomb, then creating the exponent by regular subtraction from zero as in
81n1602 Coulomb obviously seems more complicated. Yet after having grasped the principle of regular subtraction from zero, you can logically derive the meaning of
81n16 C. In case of 160 Zepto-Coulomb or 0.16 Atto-Coulomb however, the meaning is much less straightforward.
What is the electric charge of the electrons of one mole of hydrogen (with total weight of 1 gram
= 7n1 kg). One mole of hydrogen contains
23p6022 ≈ twenty.three.po six electrons with each an elementary charge of
81n1602 C ≈ eighty.one.ne one six Coulomb. As
23p6 = 23p1 ∙ 0p6 and
81n16 = 81n1 ∙ 0p16 we get
23p1 ∙ 81n1 ∙ 0p6 ∙ 0p16 = 4p1 ∙ 0p96 = 4p96 ≈ 5p1 Coulomb = 100 kiloC.
How much energy corresponds to 1 kg according to
E = mc2?
E ≈ 1 kg ∙ 8p3 m/s ∙ 8p3 m/s = 16p9 kg m2/s2 = sixteen.po nine Joule.
When you do similar calculations with Apollo units such as
slugs for mass (see
#196) and
miles for distance, then such simple mathematical relations become quite opaque.
3p126 I read as 126x103=126000 [slip corrected]
Such reading would destroy the main advantage of the number system, which is easy recognizability of orders of magnitude. The most important information is next to the
po-ne-indicator:
3p126. In case of
23p6022.1408, the last digit "8" is the least important part. For comparison:
6.022,140,8 x 10^
23.
So, for example, 6.626e-34 is not significantly harder to type than 66n6626 - two extra characters not requiring shift or control keys - and its actual magnitude is much clearer.
The decisive point:
66n = six.six.ne or
sixty.six.ne is a schematically created concept in the same way as 'ten'
= one.po, 'hundred'
= two.po, and 'nano'
= one.ne. And "
six.six.ne six six two six" is also shorter and simpler than "six point six two six exponent minus thirty four".
All my examples and calculations of this thread are correct; at least nobody has brought forward evidence that they are wrong. The only relevant error I am aware of is
post #1, corrected already in my next post. The most important post is probably
#196, after which the thread degenerated more and more.
Cheers, Wolfgang