fairly widely used conventions. If in class you have been taught something
different from what follows use that instead (teachers can become touchy
about students adopting a different convention even if it is only a convention)
Is -2.3x10^3 in scientific notation? My answer is yes it is, and it is negative.a) there is NO number in scientific notation that is negative, am i right?
(Though in a number of documents I have seen on scientific notation there
is no place reserved for a sign, a number in scientific notation is defined to be
of the form AxB, where A is a number in the range 1 to 10 (1 included 10 excluded)
and B a power of 10, but this is absurd. That A have single digit before the decimal
point is the requirement that the number be in normalised scientific notation, in
some context un-normalised numbers are still considered to be in scientific notation)
Both are correct scientific notation. However there is a convention aboutb) 3x10^2 and 3.0x10^2. Which one is in scientific notation? Both correct? Can I ignore the decimal point?
the number of significant figures in the mantissa indicating accuracy, under
this convention the first would indicate 300 but only to one significant digit
while the second represents 300 known to two significant digits.
Technically only the second (though in a context other than an exercisec) 1.2 and 1.2x10^0. Which one is in scientific notation? Both?
about scientific notation either would be acceptable)
Technically only the second (though in a context other than an exercised) 4.3x10 and 4.3x10^1. Which one is in scientific notation? Can I ignore the power of 10 if the power is 1?
about scientific notation either would be acceptable).