Have I ordered these numbers by size correctly?

Hi there

I wonder if anyone might please be able to tell me if I've ordered these numbers from lowest to highest correctly?

The numbers:

2.7E-3
-3.5E-11
2.6915 x 10²
9E1
- 6.98E-2
0

My size arrangement:
- 6.98E-2
0
3.5E-11
2.7E-3
9E1
2.6915E2

Thank you very much, any help is greatly appreciated.

Hi there

I wonder if anyone might please be able to tell me if I've ordered these numbers from lowest to highest correctly?

The numbers:

2.7E-3
-3.5E-11
2.6915 x 10²
9E1
- 6.98E-2
0

My size arrangement:
- 6.98E-2
0
3.5E-11
2.7E-3
9E1
2.6915E2

Thank you very much, any help is greatly appreciated.

Well, apart from ztibor's comment, if you are indeed trying to order by *size*, then both -ve numbers are in the wrong place - I suspect you are really trying to put them in "number line" order with the most -ve to the top and the most +ve to the bottom.

If you are confused about this, think about the number -1x10^6; this is a large and negative number and it wouldn't make sense to say that it is "smaller" than -100. For example, if those numbers represented debts, and Pete had a debt of -1x10^6 pounds and Jill had a debt of -100 pounds, then who has the larger debt, despite their position on the number line?

"Smaller" numbers are those that closer to 0, but it becomes hard to use the term "smaller" consistently when comparing +ve and -ve numbers.

Thank you both very much for your replies.

Would this be the correct order?


- 6.98E-2
3.5E-11
0
2.7E-3
9E1
2.6915E2