pkbrow wrote:

lunaluvgood wrote:

+1
but while you are at it, add a square root block.

Probably a bit too complex.

pkbrow wrote:

lunaluvgood wrote:

+1
but while you are at it, add a square root block.

Probably a bit too complex.

([sqrt v] of []::operators)

abrakaidabra wrote:

pkbrow wrote:

lunaluvgood wrote:

+1
but while you are at it, add a square root block.

Probably a bit too complex.

([sqrt v] of []::operators)

This already exists.

ILuvDogs-5335 wrote:

Support, bump and we also need the root reporter block.

((2) root (4) ::reporter operators)

It calls “2”.

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?

Haycat2009 wrote:

DanielaScunk wrote:

Mimi-EEEEE wrote:

Thats it. I give up. Theres a 0.00000% chance of this being added. There's already square roots, trigonometry, and abs, but no exponent after what is probably 20 years. And don't tell me there's a workaround. There are, but they are too long and many only work with positive non-0 integers. Paddle2See has apparently been trying to get this block added for a while now, but to no success for no reason, other than the ST being either lazy or intentionally messing with us. this block has 0 flaws, but hasn't been added. Just give up by now. I support, but this will never be added.

(() ^ () :: operators)

That, and if it does get added, they'll probably somehow mess it up so bad that it is just a root block. Which would also be pretty useful, but not as critically missing and flawless as the exponent block.

The Scratch Team is busy with other things, such as fixing this website.
They are not lazy.
They are not messing with us.

If they mess it up, that's just a matter of human error.

You say they are fixing up the website, but they don’t seem to know what to fix.
You say they are not lazy. So what’s stopping them from adding the exponent block? It’s not like you have to hire someone who knows exponents.
You say they are not messing with us. So why are they adding trash AI when everyone is against it?

It could be human error if they mess up, and that’s okay. What’s not okay is that they don’t want to correct their mistakes.

Mimi-EEEEE wrote:

Hello, scratchers. We have reports of the new exponent block being proken. It says 2^2=1.41 and 3^9=2.08. We just want to let everyone know that the block is correct. 2^2 is the square root of 2, and anyone who dissagrees is factualy and fundamenntally blind. Because nobody is listening to us, we are gonna ban anyone who talks about the new bolck. Thank you for your undertsanding.
-Scratch Team

This was an exxaguration, but not by much.

dinoparty0 wrote:

abrakaidabra wrote:

pkbrow wrote:

lunaluvgood wrote:

+1
but while you are at it, add a square root block.

Probably a bit too complex.

([sqrt v] of []::operators)

This already exists.

Where

([abs v] of []::operators)

([sqrt v] of []::operators)

AverageTF2Medic wrote:

Would be great to add, the workarounds are too hard. In JavaScript we can use ** so why not add it to Scratch!

Mimi-EEEEE wrote:

(#1309)

Haycat2009 wrote:

DanielaScunk wrote:

Mimi-EEEEE wrote:

Thats it. I give up. Theres a 0.00000% chance of this being added. There's already square roots, trigonometry, and abs, but no exponent after what is probably 20 years. And don't tell me there's a workaround. There are, but they are too long and many only work with positive non-0 integers. Paddle2See has apparently been trying to get this block added for a while now, but to no success for no reason, other than the ST being either lazy or intentionally messing with us. this block has 0 flaws, but hasn't been added. Just give up by now. I support, but this will never be added.

(() ^ () :: operators)

That, and if it does get added, they'll probably somehow mess it up so bad that it is just a root block. Which would also be pretty useful, but not as critically missing and flawless as the exponent block.

The Scratch Team is busy with other things, such as fixing this website.
They are not lazy.
They are not messing with us.

If they mess it up, that's just a matter of human error.

You say they are fixing up the website, but they don’t seem to know what to fix.
You say they are not lazy. So what’s stopping them from adding the exponent block? It’s not like you have to hire someone who knows exponents.
You say they are not messing with us. So why are they adding trash AI when everyone is against it?

It could be human error if they mess up, and that’s okay. What’s not okay is that they don’t want to correct their mistakes.

I can already see the anouncement. And yes, any misspellings are intentional.

Hello, scratchers. We have reports of the new exponent block being proken. It says 2^2=1.41 and 3^9=2.08. We just want to let everyone know that the block is correct. 2^2 is the square root of 2, and anyone who dissagrees is factualy and fundamenntally blind. Because nobody is listening to us, we are gonna ban anyone who talks about the new bolck. Thank you for your undertsanding.
-Scratch Team

This was an exxaguration, but not by much.

ILuvDogs-5335 wrote:

Mimi-EEEEE wrote:

(#1309)

Haycat2009 wrote:

DanielaScunk wrote:

Mimi-EEEEE wrote:

Thats it. I give up. Theres a 0.00000% chance of this being added. There's already square roots, trigonometry, and abs, but no exponent after what is probably 20 years. And don't tell me there's a workaround. There are, but they are too long and many only work with positive non-0 integers. Paddle2See has apparently been trying to get this block added for a while now, but to no success for no reason, other than the ST being either lazy or intentionally messing with us. this block has 0 flaws, but hasn't been added. Just give up by now. I support, but this will never be added.

(() ^ () :: operators)

That, and if it does get added, they'll probably somehow mess it up so bad that it is just a root block. Which would also be pretty useful, but not as critically missing and flawless as the exponent block.

The Scratch Team is busy with other things, such as fixing this website.
They are not lazy.
They are not messing with us.

If they mess it up, that's just a matter of human error.

You say they are fixing up the website, but they don’t seem to know what to fix.
You say they are not lazy. So what’s stopping them from adding the exponent block? It’s not like you have to hire someone who knows exponents.
You say they are not messing with us. So why are they adding trash AI when everyone is against it?

It could be human error if they mess up, and that’s okay. What’s not okay is that they don’t want to correct their mistakes.

I can already see the anouncement. And yes, any misspellings are intentional.

Hello, scratchers. We have reports of the new exponent block being proken. It says 2^2=1.41 and 3^9=2.08. We just want to let everyone know that the block is correct. 2^2 is the square root of 2, and anyone who dissagrees is factualy and fundamenntally blind. Because nobody is listening to us, we are gonna ban anyone who talks about the new bolck. Thank you for your undertsanding.
-Scratch Team

This was an exxaguration, but not by much.

You Mimi must be nuts! What's wrong with you? Scratch is built with JScript!

Mimi-EEEEE wrote:

I might be nuts. But I think there's something wrong with the ST.

([10^ v] of ((power) * ([log v] of (base)::operators))::operators)

ILuvDogs-5335 wrote:

Mimi-EEEEE wrote:

I might be nuts. But I think there's something wrong with the ST.

Bringing this topic up.

The only workaround I found is.

([10^ v] of ((power) * ([log v] of (base)::operators))::operators)

(((([10^ v] of ((index) * ([log v] of (base)::operators))::operators)) * <[base] > [0]>) + ((((([10^ v] of (([abs v] of (index)::operators) * ([log v] of (base)::operators))::operators)) * <((letter (length of [index]) of [index]) mod (2)) = [0]>) + (((-1) * (([10^ v] of (([abs v] of (index)::operators) * ([log v] of (base)::operators))::operators))) * <not <((letter (length of [index]) of [index]) mod (2)) = [0]>>)) * <not <[base] > [0]>>))

Haycat2009 wrote:

(#1318)

ILuvDogs-5335 wrote:

Mimi-EEEEE wrote:

I might be nuts. But I think there's something wrong with the ST.

Bringing this topic up.

The only workaround I found is.

([10^ v] of ((power) * ([log v] of (base)::operators))::operators)

It works, but here’s something for negative bases and indices:

(((([10^ v] of ((index) * ([log v] of (base)::operators))::operators)) * <[base] > [0]>) + ((((([10^ v] of (([abs v] of (index)::operators) * ([log v] of (base)::operators))::operators)) * <((letter (length of [index]) of [index]) mod (2)) = [0]>) + (((-1) * (([10^ v] of (([abs v] of (index)::operators) * ([log v] of (base)::operators))::operators))) * <not <((letter (length of [index]) of [index]) mod (2)) = [0]>>)) * <not <[base] > [0]>>))

It’s clunky, but what did you expect for negative bases? They are weird.