Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9189 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Michaeladams
Post Volume: Total: 918,946 Year: 6,203/9,624 Month: 51/240 Week: 66/34 Day: 3/6 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Test Thread
Percy
Member
Posts: 22841
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 7.4


Message 124 of 125 (918349)
04-27-2024 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Percy
11-21-2023 8:55 AM


Re: Test Message Saving Performance
Quick test

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Percy, posted 11-21-2023 8:55 AM Percy has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22841
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 7.4


Message 125 of 125 (919199)
07-03-2024 11:49 AM


Fractions
This is for reference to record alternatives for representing fractions:
This is the way I would write 16 raised to the ½ power, and that result cubed. I used the "½" HTML entity, which renders as ½:
(16½)3
But in a recent Washington Post article I saw ½ portion displayed as
1

2
and wondered how they did that. Obviously I figured it out, but when I express their exponent fraction in HTML it comes out looking like this:
(16
1

2
)3
And this doesn't look like the Washington Post version. Part of the problem is that I don't have access to the font they're using (Franklin), so I used Helvetica, which is pretty close. Here's an image of the Washington Post version that I've tried to scale to the same size:
They're using smaller fonts for the exponents, and I can do the same, so here's my version again with smaller exponent fonts:
(16
1

2
)3
The right parentheses crowds the exponent to its left, and I think I can fix that with a little spacing:
(16
1

2
 )3
The problem with the Washington Post version is that some people read it as 16½ because the ½ exponent was not elevated by very much.
HTML has a number of fraction entities: ½ ⅓ ⅔ ¼ ¾ all the way up to ⅞. After that you have to express it in normal characters, e.g., 113/337. This doesn't look half bad as an exponent:
2.178113/337
And perhaps parentheses would improve clarity:
2.178(113/337)
The vertical approach would look like this:
2.718
113

337
We also have access to Latex, which is a better solution for representing math:
--Percy

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024