undefined | Better HN

0 pointsgabcoh6y ago0 comments

I have not read the article but in general:

The problem I have with exponential is that you can’t have an exponential difference between two data points. Exponential is a measure of growth which can’t be seen with just two data points. However orders of magnitude can accurately describe the difference between two data points. Even though it is somewhat ambiguous as well (powers of 2,10,16?) orders of magnitude makes more sense than exponential.

0 comments

5 comments · 2 top-level

axiosgunnar6y ago· 2 in thread

I agree that it might make sense in theory, but in reality people use it extremely inflationary to make their comments sound more „science-y“.

Instead of saying „X is orders of magnitude bigger than Y“, why not simply say „X is much bigger than Y“?

insickness6y ago

If you're discussing a type of object that has such a wide range of magnitudes, describing it as orders of magnitude difference is a good descriptor. For example, the size of stars. One star may be ten times the size of another. Another may be 100 times the size. The next may be 1000 or 10,000 times the size. You wouldn't simply say that stars have a wide range of sizes, you would say that they have orders of magnitude difference. Likewise, you could say that one star may be several orders of magnitude larger than another.

TheSpiceIsLife6y ago

9 is much bigger than 1.

900 is much bigger than 1 and (two) orders of magnitude greater.

_Microft6y ago· 1 in thread

Are non-base 10 orders of magnitude actually used anywhere? I haven't encountered neither in either physics, CS or any other field (and I'm reading whatever I can get my hands on).

wolfgke6y ago

> Are non-base 10 orders of magnitude actually used anywhere? I haven't encountered neither in either physics, CS or any other field (and I'm reading whatever I can get my hands on).

In computer science, using a base of 2 (or a power thereof) for magnitudes is not uncommon.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse