iiucandyfloss wrote:

Hi! This has been suggested before, and someone has found a workaround, though it has some disadvantages, as listed in this post.

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 ).

Credit to @ItchyCatIII for their post

NOTE: I am not following this post, so you will likely not see me on this post after this.

Thank you. Have a good day.

mumu245 wrote:

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

It's a basic math function. In Romania 11-year old kids learn it in school.

(([10^ v] of (([log v] of ([abs v] of (num1))) * (num2))) * (([abs v] of (num1)) / (num2)))

([10^ v] of (((numerator) / (denominator)) * ([log v] of (base))))

([e^ v] of (((numerator) / (denominator)) * ([ln v] of (base))))

HelloJelloPeople wrote:

Guys, I have discovered a workaround.

([10^ v] of (((numerator) / (denominator)) * ([log v] of (base))))

or

([e^ v] of (((numerator) / (denominator)) * ([ln v] of (base))))

(I do still support an exponent block)

HelloJelloPeople wrote:

Guys, I have discovered a workaround.

([10^ v] of (((numerator) / (denominator)) * ([log v] of (base))))

or

([e^ v] of (((numerator) / (denominator)) * ([ln v] of (base))))

(I do still support an exponent block)

IndexErrorException wrote:

There are countless workarounds but not only are they extremely bulk and way over the heads of 95% of Scratchers, it's also slow. All those operations happening in Scratch and not in JS or C makes it slow. Faster exponents would be helpful for a lot of projects.

((3) [^ v] (3)::operators)

jmdzti_0-0 wrote:

+1, but maybe just add this?

((3) [^ v] (3)::operators)

with all the operator menus?

[10 ^ v] of ([log v] of ((2) * (10)) 

qloakonscratch wrote:

Everybody is saying the same reason. I would like to put a new one to the table; it helps with transition to other coding languages, such as Python. Not the symbol perse, but the operations. If people get into the habit of using operations when learning using Scratch, it will stick with them during the rest of their coding experience.

([10 ^ v] of ((exponent) * ([log v] of (base)))

([10 ^ v] of ((4) * ([log v] of (2))

((-1) / (0)) // Negative Infinity
((1) / (0)) // Positive Infinity
((-1) * ([10 ^ v] of (309))) // Negative Infinity
([10 ^ v] of (309)) // Positive Infinity

-Clickertale_2- wrote:

(#753)
The fact that ST won't add this block because of “Fear of extremely large number crashing projects” is stupid since we could also do:

((-1) / (0)) // Negative Infinity
((1) / (0)) // Positive Infinity
((-1) * ([10 ^ v] of (309))) // Negative Infinity
([10 ^ v] of (309)) // Positive Infinity

and even more ways to make big numbers in regular Scratch without this block!