you are multiplying a number by itself. in exponential form, you would see it, 8 with a superscript of a 2. that is said, "8 to the 2nd power" or, "8 squared".
I don't see an equation. An equation must have an equal sign. For a question in answers.com, you'll have to write the word "equals", since symbols get lost.
They are incredibly different acceleration patterns. Exponential growth is unbounded, whereas exponential decay is bounded so as to form a "dynamic equilibrium." This is why exponential decay is so typical of natural processes. To see work I have done in explaining exponential decay, go to the page included in the related links.
Sure thing, honey. The exponential form of 3.3.3.3.3 is 3^5. You just gotta count how many times that 3 is being multiplied, and boom, there's your answer. Math doesn't have to be complicated, just keep it simple and sassy.
2 is the only exponential number in the prime factorization of 240 (2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 3 x 5 or 24 x 3 x 5).
A number written in scientific form is written in the form #.##... x 10a (note exactly one number before the decimal place), where a is an integer, while a number in exponential form is written in the form bc where b is prime and c is an integer. See the following examples: * 1024 is written in scientific notation as 1.024 x 103, but in exponential form as 210. * 0.0016 is written in scientific notation as 1.6 x 10-3, but in exponential form as 5-4. * 3 is written in scientific notation as 3 x 100 and in exponential form as 31. Please, note, however, that some sources say exponential form is just another way of saying scientific notation.
you are multiplying a number by itself. in exponential form, you would see it, 8 with a superscript of a 2. that is said, "8 to the 2nd power" or, "8 squared".
The prime factors of 34 are 2 and 17. In exponential form, the exponents will be 1 since there are not multiple factors of 2 or 17. So, 34 = 21 x 171. To see a better illustration of prime factorization in exponential form, consider 72. The prime factors of 72 are 2, 2, 2, 3, and 3. So, 72 = 23 x 32.
I don't see an equation. An equation must have an equal sign. For a question in answers.com, you'll have to write the word "equals", since symbols get lost.
Well, isn't that just a happy little question! To write 460 in exponential form, we can express it as 4.6 x 10^2. See how we move the decimal point two places to the left to make it a number between 1 and 10? That's all there is to it, just a little adjustment to let that number shine!
They are incredibly different acceleration patterns. Exponential growth is unbounded, whereas exponential decay is bounded so as to form a "dynamic equilibrium." This is why exponential decay is so typical of natural processes. To see work I have done in explaining exponential decay, go to the page included in the related links.
The larger exponential is represented by "googolplexplex" (etc.) or "googolplexian".There are vastly larger numbers, such as "Skewes' number", "Moser's number" and "Graham's number" which can only be represented by large power towers of exponential exponents.(see related question)
Well, isn't that just a happy little question! The exponential form of 110 is 1.1 x 10^2. See, we just move the decimal point two places to the left to make it a number between 1 and 10, and then raise 10 to the power of 2 because we moved the decimal two places. Just a beautiful way to represent our number in a different form!
Sure thing, honey. The exponential form of 3.3.3.3.3 is 3^5. You just gotta count how many times that 3 is being multiplied, and boom, there's your answer. Math doesn't have to be complicated, just keep it simple and sassy.
2 is the only exponential number in the prime factorization of 240 (2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 3 x 5 or 24 x 3 x 5).
To present information is a visual form to give a summary.In statistics, in particular, the nature of relationships between variables (linear, polynomial, exponential etc) is easier to see in a chart than in a table of numbers.To present information is a visual form to give a summary.In statistics, in particular, the nature of relationships between variables (linear, polynomial, exponential etc) is easier to see in a chart than in a table of numbers.To present information is a visual form to give a summary.In statistics, in particular, the nature of relationships between variables (linear, polynomial, exponential etc) is easier to see in a chart than in a table of numbers.To present information is a visual form to give a summary.In statistics, in particular, the nature of relationships between variables (linear, polynomial, exponential etc) is easier to see in a chart than in a table of numbers.
It need not be. If the value of my assets showed exponential growth, I would certainly not see that as a problem!