starlightsparker wrote:

Wowie wow this was created a few days before I was born…
What does this do exactly? I’m.. bad at math

JacksterBobster wrote:

This is a good idea. It'd make things like Pythagorean Theorem so much easier to do. Also, I'd like to point out that writing things like “+1” or “support” doesn't affect anything about the chances of the suggestion being implemented, the best way to do it is describe why you want the change or a potential benefit that the addition could bring.

(x) ^ (2) ::operators
((x) * (x))

undeterminstic wrote:

its the difference between

(x) ^ (2) ::operators
((x) * (x))

((x1) - (x2)) * ((x1) - (x2))

Malicondi wrote:

starlightsparker wrote:

Wowie wow this was created a few days before I was born…
What does this do exactly? I’m.. bad at math

x^2 would be x*x or x times itself twice.
there are workarounds for this block, but most of them are hard to do and or use alot of blocks
also (from that i know of) no workarounds work with using decimal exponents which is why this would be a very useful block
(and it's not really that hard to understand)

illusionist wrote:

Could we please have an exponents block?

Right there in operators with the other math blocks:

( ) + ( )
( ) - ( )
( ) / ( )
( ) * ( )
( ) ^ ( ) <———

It can't take more than a few seconds to add, can't it?

([square v] of (9)::operators)

cookieclickerer33 wrote:

(#730)
There’s a full workaround as far as I can conceptuluze using logarithms, absolute value, and an IF for detecting and returning negative powers

But I don’t know what it would even look like so yeah this needs to be added

My personal suggestion is to add a

([square v] of (9)::operators)

Block because the most common use for it would be squaring a number this means raising them by a power of 2
We already have a 10^ block for some reason so if they wanted to not make a new block this is the perfect alternative

mumu245 wrote:

cookieclickerer33 wrote:

(#730)
There’s a full workaround as far as I can conceptuluze using logarithms, absolute value, and an IF for detecting and returning negative powers

But I don’t know what it would even look like so yeah this needs to be added

My personal suggestion is to add a

([square v] of (9)::operators)

Block because the most common use for it would be squaring a number this means raising them by a power of 2
We already have a 10^ block for some reason so if they wanted to not make a new block this is the perfect alternative

That's just x*x.

undeterminstic wrote:

why i see squared being a block but never in my 4 years of scratch have i ever needed ()^() i understand the workaround is hard but why use exponents?

yadayadayadagoodbye wrote:

undeterminstic wrote:

why i see squared being a block but never in my 4 years of scratch have i ever needed ()^() i understand the workaround is hard but why use exponents?

math

any sort of project which requires the calculation of distance would severely benefit from this block, and also any project which requires exponential growth of some value.

yadayadayadagoodbye wrote:

undeterminstic wrote:

why i see squared being a block but never in my 4 years of scratch have i ever needed ()^() i understand the workaround is hard but why use exponents?

math

any sort of project which requires the calculation of distance would severely benefit from this block, and also any project which requires exponential growth of some value.

starlightsparker wrote:

Wowie wow this was created a few days before I was born…

undeterminstic wrote:

yadayadayadagoodbye wrote:

undeterminstic wrote:

why i see squared being a block but never in my 4 years of scratch have i ever needed ()^() i understand the workaround is hard but why use exponents?

math

any sort of project which requires the calculation of distance would severely benefit from this block, and also any project which requires exponential growth of some value.

i mean a use case broader then its intended case. it's like i requested a inverse hyperbolic cotangent block and people wondered what it was for and i said you can use it for inverse hyperbolic cotangent. i know it can be used for distance but can cube a number be used for anything. also often exponetiation is slow so we do other algorithms then the block. for example instead of doing exponetiation for Fast Modular Exponetiation we use a different algorithm that is faster.

yadayadayadagoodbye wrote:

(#738)

undeterminstic wrote:

yadayadayadagoodbye wrote:

undeterminstic wrote:

why i see squared being a block but never in my 4 years of scratch have i ever needed ()^() i understand the workaround is hard but why use exponents?

math

any sort of project which requires the calculation of distance would severely benefit from this block, and also any project which requires exponential growth of some value.

i mean a use case broader then its intended case. it's like i requested a inverse hyperbolic cotangent block and people wondered what it was for and i said you can use it for inverse hyperbolic cotangent. i know it can be used for distance but can cube a number be used for anything. also often exponetiation is slow so we do other algorithms then the block. for example instead of doing exponetiation for Fast Modular Exponetiation we use a different algorithm that is faster.

who says the block has to be implemented in a slow way?

Say I want the cost of a item in my clicker game to grow at a rate of x^x, how should else should I implement this?

What if I wanted to cheat in math class and make a cubic calculator?

Oh hey I want to measure and calculate stuff in the pH or any other logrithmic scales

ItchyCatIII wrote:

great24 wrote:

Exponent blocks

(() ^ ())

I'm going to support this.

There is an easy workaround, which would be:

set [answer] to [0]set
repeat (power)

change [answer] by ((base) * (base))

And then the variable “answer” would be your answer. However, subtraction can also be worked around. As can division. But that would get quite complicated. Exponents are a real mathematical function, and therefore, I see no reason why we have to workaround them, but we don't have to add a negative instead of subtract, or multiply be a reciprocal instead of divide (although technically, you'd have to convert the reciprocal into a decimal, otherwise it will be a division problem in another form… and to do that, you need to divide, so that workaround would definitely complicate Scratch, and possibly add limitations ).