Convert a scientific notation to decimal number, and still keeping the data format as float64
On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 6:06 PM <doganadres at gmail.com> wrote:
> my statement may seem unlogical while evaluating and comparing the languages as a whole..
> I thought when I give a small number into the programme , the more decimals I can see after the dot as an output, the more human readable it is.
> when I see a bunch of numbers with 'e' s I know the numbers are small but it is hard for me to compare it to other numbers with 'e'. , specially with the human eye.
> I dont know much about scala actually. I have just have tried to give 0.0001 and it returned a presentation with an 'e' .whereas python takes 0.0001 and gives 0.0001 . it made me think python is better in that specific subject.
> However, python though starts to give 'e' number when 5 decimals are given as input. Although there can be systems around which are better in this subject other things I can achieve in python overrides some disadvantages.
The question here has nothing to do with a programming language. As a
bystander, this thread is interesting in a strange way. We have a
poster who has no programming experience, no background to understand
floating point numbers, no concept of the difference between an
internal computer usable representation of a number, and a human
I am sure I am much older than many people here. When I first learned
about computers, and programming, and number formats, I also learned
about binary numbers, how computers perform arithmetic calculations at
a bit level, and lots of things no one really cares about today. Fast
forward and we have a person who (I'm guessing) is trying to write a
program to complete some schoolwork in a subject far afield for
learning about computer programming. Although the problem to be
solved seems to be statistical or somehow numeric, the poster doesn't
seem to understand so much about the math either, having gone haywire
over exponential notation. It is great that computers are so
commonplace that problems can be studied and solved with them when the
problem solver has so little basic understanding of the tool he is
using. But the thread shows the downside to lacking the basics about
I don't mean any negative connotation toward to original poster. The
problem he poses is legitimate, and confounding for him and for those
who have tried to answer him here since there are these hard
disconnects about concepts that are required to understand the
question. Its a problem that everyone confronts daily -- No one
really knows how anything works under the hood. Think: car, toaster,
microwave oven, Facebook algorithms, light bulbs, and on and on....