Monday, 24 September 2012
Saturday, 22 September 2012
How to give away $500 million
Forbes has an article on David Green, a billionaire who has bankrolled the popular youversion app.
Much of his philanthropy is directed at distributing biblical literature,
Interesting read and Green gives some useful advice.
Much of his philanthropy is directed at distributing biblical literature,
Through foundations he supports, he has already distributed nearly 1.4 billion copies of Gospel literature in more than 100 countries, mostly in Africa and Asia. The OneHope Foundation targets children age 4 to 14 with Scripture tailored to them, while Every Home for Christ sends evangelists with Bible booklets door-to-door in some of the poorest countries on Earth.The temptations of wealth are significant, and one should not seek the world in exchange for his soul (Matthew 16:26). But what if you seek the kingdom and in the process God blesses you with wealth. There are several biblical examples such as Abraham, Job and Solomon. There are moderns such as George Muller. A well known New Zealand example was Robert Laidlaw.
Interesting read and Green gives some useful advice.
Monday, 17 September 2012
Monday quote
[Freedom] is the delicate fruit of a mature civilisation.
John Dalberg-Acton (Lord Acton), (1834–1902).
John Dalberg-Acton (Lord Acton), (1834–1902).
Tuesday, 11 September 2012
Fibonacci primes
Fibonacci series
1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233, 377, 610, 987, 1597, 2584, 4181, 6765, 10946, 17711, 28657, 46368, 75025, 121393, 196418, 317811,...
Primes
2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 53, 59, 61, 67, 71, 73, 79, 83, 89, 97, 101, 103, 107, 109, 113, 127, 131, 137, 139, 149, 151, 157, 163,...
Examples
- 2 is a prime, it is the 3rd term in the Fibonacci series and 3 is a prime
- 5 is a prime, 5th in the series and 5 is a prime (trivial)
- 13 is a prime, 7th in the series and 7 is a prime
- 89: 11th term
- 233; 13th term
- 1597; 17th term
Monday, 10 September 2012
Monday quote
Just so two people may be at the same spot in manners and behaviour, and yet one may be getting better and the other worse, which is just the greatest of all differences that could possibly exist between them.
The Princess and Curdie, George MacDonald (1824–1905).
The Princess and Curdie, George MacDonald (1824–1905).
Saturday, 8 September 2012
Samson coin
Interesting coin find in Israel near the Sorek River, west of Jerusalem.Israeli archaeologists recently discovered a coin, dating from the 11th century before Christ. It depicted "a man with long hair fighting a large animal with a feline tail."This is somewhat intriguing. I wouldn't have thought it likely that a coin was cast with the image of Samson. Though this need not be Samson, Sorek is the place where Samson met Delilah,
While Shlomo Bunimovitz and Zvi Lederman of Tel Aviv University don't claim that the figure depicted on the coin is proof that Samson actually existed, they do see the coin as proof that stories about a Samson-like man existed independently of the Bible.
After this he loved a woman in the Valley of Sorek, whose name was Delilah. (Judges 16:4)though his lion exploits antedate this. He attacked the lion at Timnah, not too far from Sorek,
Then Samson went down with his father and mother to Timnah, and they came to the vineyards of Timnah. And behold, a young lion came toward him roaring. Then the Spirit of the Lord rushed upon him, and although he had nothing in his hand, he tore the lion in pieces as one tears a young goat. (Judges 14:5-6)I am not fully convinced but would be interested in further detail.
Friday, 7 September 2012
In your faces evolutionists
We have been long told that most of the DNA we have is junk, useless leftovers with no function after millennia of mutation and selection. Apparently only gene coding DNA is functional. Thus it was in the 1980s, and 1990s, and even 2000s though some of the more astute were suspicious.
The creationists were more circumspect. Perhaps gene coding DNA was a small component of the genome but, they protested, all that DNA is there for a reason. We are designed and we are very complicated. Our lack of knowledge does not preclude that the rest of the DNA is functional, we just aren't finished looking. So the junk DNA scenario was disputed by creationists decades ago. Pseudogenes, they said, probably had a function and were not left over relics from our primate, mammalian or reptilian past. Other codes beyond the triplet codon to amino acid likely existed.
This week Nature published 6 papers of several they aim to publish on the ENCODE project, along with other related material at their site.
The publication has made this news though much of this kind of information has been known to several researchers. The importance of introns has been known for some time. That polymerases produce far more RNA than is translated into protein is documented, even if the reason the this has been elusive. Gene regulators and promoters have been known of for decades, though it turns out that enhancers do not exist solely adjacent to the gene, but at distances of hundreds of thousands of bases distant. Why? Well because the 3 dimensional configuration of DNA means that a distant "file" location may happen to be physically nearby.
Interestingly the design advocates were long claiming unknown function for junk DNA. After all, while a few mutations have accumulated since creation, 95% of our genome housing junk is not consistent with design, even broken design. Creationists were dismissed, but it turns out they were correct all along. And the evolutionists who insisted that our genome was predominantly junk are left looking the fool. So much for the off quoted adage,
The creationists were more circumspect. Perhaps gene coding DNA was a small component of the genome but, they protested, all that DNA is there for a reason. We are designed and we are very complicated. Our lack of knowledge does not preclude that the rest of the DNA is functional, we just aren't finished looking. So the junk DNA scenario was disputed by creationists decades ago. Pseudogenes, they said, probably had a function and were not left over relics from our primate, mammalian or reptilian past. Other codes beyond the triplet codon to amino acid likely existed.
This week Nature published 6 papers of several they aim to publish on the ENCODE project, along with other related material at their site.
The publication has made this news though much of this kind of information has been known to several researchers. The importance of introns has been known for some time. That polymerases produce far more RNA than is translated into protein is documented, even if the reason the this has been elusive. Gene regulators and promoters have been known of for decades, though it turns out that enhancers do not exist solely adjacent to the gene, but at distances of hundreds of thousands of bases distant. Why? Well because the 3 dimensional configuration of DNA means that a distant "file" location may happen to be physically nearby.
Interestingly the design advocates were long claiming unknown function for junk DNA. After all, while a few mutations have accumulated since creation, 95% of our genome housing junk is not consistent with design, even broken design. Creationists were dismissed, but it turns out they were correct all along. And the evolutionists who insisted that our genome was predominantly junk are left looking the fool. So much for the off quoted adage,
Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.Though I don't expect them to be questioning their dogma soon, rather adding some evolutionary spin,
Why evolution would maintain large amounts of 'useless' DNA had remained a mystery, and seemed wasteful. It turns out, however, that there are good reasons to keep this DNA.
Monday, 3 September 2012
Saturday, 1 September 2012
Inerrancy and biblical inspiration
There are a variety of ideas about how and to what extent that God inspired the text of the Bible. I hold to a moderately common belief, that of plenary inspiration.
Plenary (complete) inspiration carries the idea that God inspired all of the Bible. That God was involved in overseeing every item of Scripture, that is the Bible includes both the history God wanted included as well an the theology that it contains therein.
Some people add the adjective "verbal", that God oversaw even the words that were chosen. I don't subscribe to such a view, nor do I see how it differs much from the dictation view. Though advocates of verbal plenary inspiration do nuance that God inspires the content taking into account the attributes of the human author such as his writing style, level of education, culture.
Though the verbal plenary view is reasonable, my objection to it is that I do not think this is required by Scripture, nor do I think it happens to best explain what we find in the Bible text. Further, I think that God uses men for his purposes extensively. God voluntarily limits his actions at times based on the activities and prayers of his servants. This includes those whom God used to author Scripture.
I think that godly men frequently recorded events that they were aware of. Theoretically this could mean that an author included events that another author (had God used another) may have left out, or may have given in more detail. I do not intend to imply that Scripture is arbitrary. God's plan for redemption involved Israel, and much of the history of Israel would have been included in any resultant Bible. And I think much is included in Scripture to broaden understanding. But if we had more authors of psalms, or the psalmists had written poems about different events, or not written some at all, then there may have been differences in what we call Scripture.
Other examples may include which proverbs of Solomon were chosen, or proverbs of other wise men, which churches the apostles wrote to and what they addressed. Letters were occasional, that is written in response to issues that arose. While the issues are likely to have some similarities from church to church, the specifics may have meant that letters could have differed from what we have.
One could even consider how much of what a prophet said to his hearers was written down: however given the nature of divine pronouncements via prophets I think the prophetic books have less scope for variance, and I wonder if they are quite exhaustive in what they include.
The occasional nature of letters and prophecies means that the Bible contains much of what it does because of the actions and decisions of men. God works out his purposes, but God's response to David's sin is conditional on David sinning. If central characters of biblical history had made different decisions then the specifics of the Bible text would be different, though still theologically true.
However, even if personal actions were not markedly different I think the specifics could still vary based on who God used to author the Bible, and what such author chose to include.
Given my perspective above, in what way do I consider God the author? Firstly, I think God moved men to include specific events, that is, God ensured that the events he wanted recorded would be included by someone. Secondly, God gave them insight on the correct interpretation of events: why certain events occurred; their supernatural explanation. Thirdly, God prevented writers from authoring error. The first is inspiration, the second inspiration and inerrancy, the third inerrancy.
Taking blogging as an example. It is possible that I could I could write a post based on a topic that I think God wishes me to address, that in fact he does wish me to address. In that sense the particular post would be inspired. It may be that I have a take on the topic (even an uncommon interpretation) that happens to be correct. It is also possible that I could write a post that was without error. Thus the particular post would be inerrant. This does not necessarily make me inerrant, it may be that I was wanting to include a paragraph that is not quite true but then decide not to include it. Such restrictions would be consistent with plenary inspiration. Yet even considering all these restrictions it is clear that such a post could still be written in a multitude of ways, all of which cover the topic and do not include error. And this just by one author, another author could write quite differently.
The same could be said about a book, or a sermon. Not that such blog posts, books, or sermons should be added to the canon.
What this means is that there is some range of what could have been in our Bible. Our Bible is still reliable because it includes things God wants us to know, and it is without error so we can trust it whenever it touches on a specific topic.
Plenary (complete) inspiration carries the idea that God inspired all of the Bible. That God was involved in overseeing every item of Scripture, that is the Bible includes both the history God wanted included as well an the theology that it contains therein.
Some people add the adjective "verbal", that God oversaw even the words that were chosen. I don't subscribe to such a view, nor do I see how it differs much from the dictation view. Though advocates of verbal plenary inspiration do nuance that God inspires the content taking into account the attributes of the human author such as his writing style, level of education, culture.
Though the verbal plenary view is reasonable, my objection to it is that I do not think this is required by Scripture, nor do I think it happens to best explain what we find in the Bible text. Further, I think that God uses men for his purposes extensively. God voluntarily limits his actions at times based on the activities and prayers of his servants. This includes those whom God used to author Scripture.
I think that godly men frequently recorded events that they were aware of. Theoretically this could mean that an author included events that another author (had God used another) may have left out, or may have given in more detail. I do not intend to imply that Scripture is arbitrary. God's plan for redemption involved Israel, and much of the history of Israel would have been included in any resultant Bible. And I think much is included in Scripture to broaden understanding. But if we had more authors of psalms, or the psalmists had written poems about different events, or not written some at all, then there may have been differences in what we call Scripture.
Other examples may include which proverbs of Solomon were chosen, or proverbs of other wise men, which churches the apostles wrote to and what they addressed. Letters were occasional, that is written in response to issues that arose. While the issues are likely to have some similarities from church to church, the specifics may have meant that letters could have differed from what we have.
One could even consider how much of what a prophet said to his hearers was written down: however given the nature of divine pronouncements via prophets I think the prophetic books have less scope for variance, and I wonder if they are quite exhaustive in what they include.
The occasional nature of letters and prophecies means that the Bible contains much of what it does because of the actions and decisions of men. God works out his purposes, but God's response to David's sin is conditional on David sinning. If central characters of biblical history had made different decisions then the specifics of the Bible text would be different, though still theologically true.
However, even if personal actions were not markedly different I think the specifics could still vary based on who God used to author the Bible, and what such author chose to include.
Given my perspective above, in what way do I consider God the author? Firstly, I think God moved men to include specific events, that is, God ensured that the events he wanted recorded would be included by someone. Secondly, God gave them insight on the correct interpretation of events: why certain events occurred; their supernatural explanation. Thirdly, God prevented writers from authoring error. The first is inspiration, the second inspiration and inerrancy, the third inerrancy.
Taking blogging as an example. It is possible that I could I could write a post based on a topic that I think God wishes me to address, that in fact he does wish me to address. In that sense the particular post would be inspired. It may be that I have a take on the topic (even an uncommon interpretation) that happens to be correct. It is also possible that I could write a post that was without error. Thus the particular post would be inerrant. This does not necessarily make me inerrant, it may be that I was wanting to include a paragraph that is not quite true but then decide not to include it. Such restrictions would be consistent with plenary inspiration. Yet even considering all these restrictions it is clear that such a post could still be written in a multitude of ways, all of which cover the topic and do not include error. And this just by one author, another author could write quite differently.
The same could be said about a book, or a sermon. Not that such blog posts, books, or sermons should be added to the canon.
What this means is that there is some range of what could have been in our Bible. Our Bible is still reliable because it includes things God wants us to know, and it is without error so we can trust it whenever it touches on a specific topic.
Friday, 31 August 2012
The moral case for free enterprise
This video gives a moral argument for capitalism. Arthur Brookes claims that principles of capitalism, such as a free market, are not just effective, they are also righteous.
If you don't want to watch the video a similar article can be read here.
If you don't want to watch the video a similar article can be read here.
Monday, 27 August 2012
Sunday, 26 August 2012
Bible statistics
Updated.
Included is the number of books, chapters, verses and words in the Bible. These are based on the English Standard Version (ESV) 2007 version, main text. Footnotes, chapter numbers, verse numbers, and book names are excluded. Psalm introductions are included. Word count is via LibreOffice. A brief manual check suggests this is more accurate than the OpenOffice word count I used previously. Verse count is from Biblegateway.com looking at the final verse number for each chapter. It will be incorrect for chapters that miss verses*. Verse data is cross checked on this data and this data. I diverge from the former slightly which uses a Catholic translation, I am concordant with the latter excepting the Psalm title count.
I realise chapters and verses are artificial constructs. Chapters were inserted into the Bible circa 1228 by Stephen Langton. The Old Testament was possibly divided into verses by Isaac Nathan circa 1448 and the New Testament by Robert Stephanus in 1551.
This information may be more useful if derived from the Hebrew Old Testament and Greek New Testament texts, though there would still be disagreement over which texttype or critical text to use. The Greek New Testament has ~138000 words.
If I have my calculations correct the number of words in the ESV Bible is 757058 excluding book titles and 757143 including them.
* Such as Matthew 12:47; Matthew 17:21; Matthew 18:11; Matthew 23:14; Mark 7:16; Mark 9:44; Mark 9:46; Mark 11:26; Mark 15:28; Luke 17:36; Luke 23:17; Luke 24:40; John 5:4; Acts 8:37; Acts 15:34; Acts 24:7; Acts 28:29; Romans 16:24.
Included is the number of books, chapters, verses and words in the Bible. These are based on the English Standard Version (ESV) 2007 version, main text. Footnotes, chapter numbers, verse numbers, and book names are excluded. Psalm introductions are included. Word count is via LibreOffice. A brief manual check suggests this is more accurate than the OpenOffice word count I used previously. Verse count is from Biblegateway.com looking at the final verse number for each chapter. It will be incorrect for chapters that miss verses*. Verse data is cross checked on this data and this data. I diverge from the former slightly which uses a Catholic translation, I am concordant with the latter excepting the Psalm title count.
I realise chapters and verses are artificial constructs. Chapters were inserted into the Bible circa 1228 by Stephen Langton. The Old Testament was possibly divided into verses by Isaac Nathan circa 1448 and the New Testament by Robert Stephanus in 1551.
| Book | Chapters | Verses | Words |
|---|---|---|---|
| Old Testament | |||
| Genesis | 50 | 1533 | 36321 |
| Exodus | 40 | 1213 | 30881 |
| Leviticus | 27 | 859 | 23431 |
| Numbers | 36 | 1288 | 30950 |
| Deuteronomy | 34 | 959 | 27528 |
| Joshua | 24 | 658 | 17935 |
| Judges | 21 | 618 | 18281 |
| Ruth | 4 | 85 | 2425 |
| 1 Samuel | 31 | 810 | 24118 |
| 2 Samuel | 24 | 695 | 19734 |
| 1 Kings | 22 | 816 | 23415 |
| 2 Kings | 25 | 719 | 22760 |
| 1 Chronicles | 29 | 942 | 18522 |
| 2 Chronicles | 36 | 822 | 24779 |
| Ezra | 10 | 280 | 6889 |
| Nehemiah | 13 | 406 | 9842 |
| Esther | 10 | 167 | 5478 |
| Job | 42 | 1070 | 17603 |
| Psalms | 150 | 2577 | 42284 |
| Proverbs | 31 | 915 | 14530 |
| Ecclesiastes | 12 | 222 | 5333 |
| Song of Solomon | 8 | 117 | 2533 |
| Isaiah | 66 | 1292 | 35244 |
| Jeremiah | 52 | 1364 | 40432 |
| Lamentations | 5 | 154 | 3251 |
| Ezekiel | 48 | 1273 | 37184 |
| Daniel | 12 | 357 | 11224 |
| Hosea | 14 | 197 | 4964 |
| Joel | 3 | 73 | 1895 |
| Amos | 9 | 146 | 4047 |
| Obadiah | 1 | 21 | 604 |
| Jonah | 4 | 48 | 1298 |
| Micah | 7 | 105 | 3000 |
| Nahum | 3 | 47 | 1111 |
| Habakkuk | 3 | 56 | 1356 |
| Zephaniah | 3 | 53 | 1556 |
| Haggai | 2 | 38 | 1083 |
| Zechariah | 14 | 211 | 6050 |
| Malachi | 4 | 55 | 1738 |
| OT Total | 929 | 23261 | 581609 |
| New Testament | |||
| Matthew | 28 | 1071 | 22640 |
| Mark | 16 | 678 | 14344 |
| Luke | 24 | 1151 | 24605 |
| John | 21 | 879 | 18882 |
| Acts | 28 | 1007 | 23464 |
| Romans | 16 | 433 | 9467 |
| 1 Corinthians | 16 | 437 | 9268 |
| 2 Corinthians | 13 | 257 | 6050 |
| Galatians | 6 | 149 | 3102 |
| Ephesians | 6 | 155 | 3010 |
| Philippians | 4 | 104 | 2144 |
| Colossians | 4 | 95 | 1934 |
| 1 Thessalonians | 5 | 89 | 1841 |
| 2 Thessalonians | 3 | 47 | 1065 |
| 1 Timothy | 6 | 113 | 2315 |
| 2 Timothy | 4 | 83 | 1631 |
| Titus | 3 | 46 | 926 |
| Philemon | 1 | 25 | 457 |
| Hebrews | 13 | 303 | 6903 |
| James | 5 | 108 | 2317 |
| 1 Peter | 5 | 105 | 2389 |
| 2 Peter | 3 | 61 | 1550 |
| 1 John | 5 | 105 | 2490 |
| 2 John | 1 | 13 | 298 |
| 3 John | 1 | 15 | 303 |
| Jude | 1 | 25 | 604 |
| Revelation | 22 | 404 | 11450 |
| NT Total | 260 | 7958 | 175449 |
| Bible | |||
| Grand total | 1189 | 31219 | 757058 |
This information may be more useful if derived from the Hebrew Old Testament and Greek New Testament texts, though there would still be disagreement over which texttype or critical text to use. The Greek New Testament has ~138000 words.
If I have my calculations correct the number of words in the ESV Bible is 757058 excluding book titles and 757143 including them.
* Such as Matthew 12:47; Matthew 17:21; Matthew 18:11; Matthew 23:14; Mark 7:16; Mark 9:44; Mark 9:46; Mark 11:26; Mark 15:28; Luke 17:36; Luke 23:17; Luke 24:40; John 5:4; Acts 8:37; Acts 15:34; Acts 24:7; Acts 28:29; Romans 16:24.
Thursday, 23 August 2012
Wild claims and healthy skepticism
Roger Olson wrote an excellent article encouraging Christians to be more sceptical at times. It is a hard balance, some are sceptical about everything, others buy every new claim and conspiracy theory. I think it fine to be open to the possibility of conspiracy so long one is able to be disabused of the idea. I think healthy scepticism need not be derided either. Possibly a slowness to come to firm conclusions when the is lack of data may be the best option.
The first is mentioned above: conspiracies are a possibility, though we probably shouldn't see them under every bush.
The second is that an explanation of phenomena is required. We may not know the explanation which is fine if we lack information. It may be that people are lying, or that they are convinced of a falsehood by another. Nevertheless demonic deception remains a possibility; whether confusing the mind, or deceptive appearances.
I have long been of the opinion that Christians need to be led by their spiritual leaders into a default attitude of healthy skepticism regarding wild claims of supernatural occurrences. I think non-Christians also need to be educated to exercise a certain amount of common sense skepticism about things that seem blatantly doubtful such as alien abductions.He discusses healings, cults and Satanism, and predominantly recovered memories of childhood abuse.
She revealed to me that under counseling she had recovered memories of being ritually abused as a child—by members of her church. I tried to suspend disbelief which is clearly what she wanted. But then she continued to tell me how, until recently, she had no memories of any of these events. Only under intense counseling by this man (an unlicensed, independent “pastoral counselor”) had she “recovered” these memories.I agree generally with the article so am reluctant to offer correction. However I think a couple of issues are worth noting.
My skepticism began to kick in (which I did not show) as she continued her story. Gradually, over several months, she “remembered” more and more about the events. By the end, she had come to “remember” that the pastor and his wife, all the deacons and their wives, and even her parents were present at these Satanic ceremonies and participated in sexually, ritually abusing her and other children. Then she dropped the bomb. The whole town, including the mayor and every civic leader and business owner—hundreds of people—were involved in this intergenerational Satanic cult that encompassed the whole town and even the whole county.
The first is mentioned above: conspiracies are a possibility, though we probably shouldn't see them under every bush.
The second is that an explanation of phenomena is required. We may not know the explanation which is fine if we lack information. It may be that people are lying, or that they are convinced of a falsehood by another. Nevertheless demonic deception remains a possibility; whether confusing the mind, or deceptive appearances.
Monday, 20 August 2012
Monday quote
Had it not been for the rise of the literal interpretation of the Bible and the subsequent appropriation of biblical narratives by early modern scientists, modern science may not have arisen at all. In sum, the Bible and its literal interpretation have played a vital role in the development of Western science.
Peter Harrison (1955–).
Peter Harrison (1955–).
Saturday, 18 August 2012
Order of magnitude
An order of magnitude is a geometric scale increasing or decreasing by the ratio of 10. It is applied to various measurements such as distance, money, or even just numerical value.
The distance to the moon is 400,000 km, to the sun is 150,000,000 km. The ratio between these is 375, thus the sun is more than 2 orders of magnitude (more than 100×) further away from the earth than the moon is. The diameter of the earth is 12,740 km and its circumference is 40,000 km. The moon is an order of magnitude (~10×) further from the earth than the distance of circumnavigating the earth.
My issue with orders of magnitude is while useful, a ratio of 10 seems very large and completely arbitrary. It relates to our use of base-10 (decimal), which probably derives from our pentadactyly.
A more natural scale for orders of magnitude would be binary. This is the lowest practical ratio. An order of magnitude larger would be twice the size, 2 orders of magnitude 4 times the size.
Of course a constant multiplier, be it 2 or 10, represents a logarithmic function. Order of magnitude being logarithmic may be better modelled on the natural logarithm. Using base e (~2.71828), while difficult numerically, would mean that the scale of magnitude is ~2.7.
A thousand-fold difference is 3 orders of magnitude (decimal). It would be ~10 orders of magnitude using binary, or ~7 orders or magnitude with base-e.
The distance to the moon is 400,000 km, to the sun is 150,000,000 km. The ratio between these is 375, thus the sun is more than 2 orders of magnitude (more than 100×) further away from the earth than the moon is. The diameter of the earth is 12,740 km and its circumference is 40,000 km. The moon is an order of magnitude (~10×) further from the earth than the distance of circumnavigating the earth.My issue with orders of magnitude is while useful, a ratio of 10 seems very large and completely arbitrary. It relates to our use of base-10 (decimal), which probably derives from our pentadactyly.
A more natural scale for orders of magnitude would be binary. This is the lowest practical ratio. An order of magnitude larger would be twice the size, 2 orders of magnitude 4 times the size.
Of course a constant multiplier, be it 2 or 10, represents a logarithmic function. Order of magnitude being logarithmic may be better modelled on the natural logarithm. Using base e (~2.71828), while difficult numerically, would mean that the scale of magnitude is ~2.7.
A thousand-fold difference is 3 orders of magnitude (decimal). It would be ~10 orders of magnitude using binary, or ~7 orders or magnitude with base-e.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)