Talk:1,000,000/Archive 1

Archive 1

Comments

I added

1+1+1+1...+1+1=1,000,000 to the page and it crashed when I tried to save the revised version. Lir 09:06 Nov 10, 2002 (UTC)

American vs. Short Scale

What's wrong with calling the short-scale "American"?? Every source off Wikipedia that I've seen that talks about the fact that it is different from the British scale refers to it as "American". 66.245.82.140 23:28, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Since when have the British used a different million from the Americans? The French call a million a million. There's little difference in the usage of million anywhere in the world. So why call it an American million? (billion, trillion may have different meanings - but not million) Ian Cairns 23:46, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The million is the same, but the larger number names are different. Every source I saw that talks about the 2 systems refers to them as "American" and "British", except Wikipedia, which uses "short scale" and "long scale". 66.32.242.106 23:56, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There is a distinction between Modern British (which is short scale - the same as your American, Brazilian, Russian, Turkish, etc.) and Traditional British (which is long scale and the same as France, Germany, Italy, Spain, etc. i.e. Continental European countries). As of today, as far as the UK Government and the BBC websites are concerned, American and British usage are the same. Clearly, there is still some continuing Traditional British usage which differs from American usage. As a result, American vs British is not a well-defined criterion. American vs European doesn't work either - since the UK is part of Europe. The simplest way to express this is short scale vs long scale if you wish to contrast the systems. Saying that million is common to both American and Rowlett is to ignore the rest of the world, to which the term 'million' is also common. The Rowlett article uses the term 'American' throughout - which I suspect needs further discussion over there. Most other Wiki articles (e.g. billion, trillion,) are using / beginning to use short scale and long scale Ian Cairns 00:09, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I suspect the comment on 100,000 being refered to as a million in England and Spain is vandalism, certainly I've never heard of it as such in England. 82.45.53.159 19:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Prefix for a million

The Greek numerical prefixes go up to 10,000 and the Latin numerical prefixes go up to 1000. How popular is it as of 2004 to ask what numerical prefix exists for a million?? According to Wikipedia, the proper Greek prefix would be hectamyria and Latin would be decicentimilli, both of which are very long. Is simply "million-" (as a prefix) okay?? 66.32.242.169 23:20, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

SI uses mega as a prefix for a million. Is there anything in your context that would prevent you using this? Ian Cairns 23:55, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Only as an SI prefix. I'm talking about as a general numerical prefix. "mega-" is Greek for big or great. 66.245.90.209 23:58, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My understanding is that neither the Greeks nor the Romans left us with a prefix for a million, which is probably why SI were left to look at the candidates and came up with Mega as an internationally-agreed numerical prefix for a million. (The prefixes are numerical, even though the SI quantities that are prefixed are physical). I can find no reference to hectamyria in Wikipedia - so Wikipedia doesn't even acknowledge the existence of this word, let alone suggest that this is the proper prefix. I think million is an abstract noun, and not a prefix. So, you have no internationally-recognised numerical prefix for a million (apart from SI's Mega-). What is your context? A 1 million-sided polygon or similar? I read in polygon that mathematicians would use 1,000,000-gon Ian Cairns 00:37, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ancient Greek (from Archimedes' usage) would suggest hecatontakismyria- (although you may wish to make the transliteration of kappa consistent, rather than using both c and k in the same word). Double sharp (talk) 01:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

What number...

There is a magic number. Smaller numbers can be read in 3 different ways, Greek, Latin, and English. Larger numbers can be read in 3 different ways, short scale, long scale, and Rowlett. But this magic number can be read in only one way, unlike either kind, excluding relations to other numbers, such as a hundred is ten squared. Can anyone name this magic number?? (Any other way it is sometimes read, excluding relations to smaller numbers??) 66.245.82.61 01:13, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Million years

A decade is 10 years. A century is 100 years. A millennium is 1000 years. Something that can be abbreviated Ga is 1,000,000,000 years. Anyone know the name of a period of 1,000,000 years?? Georgia guy 20:00, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1,000,000 years would be represented by Ma. [[1]] Xander848 03:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Millionth anniversary

We know that no millionth anniversary of any exact event is known (the time was prehistoric, the days of the mammoths and mastodons.) But what if someone wants to know how to name a millionth anniversary. What term would it be?? Georgia guy 13:31, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A megennial? :) 74.38.35.171 00:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Page move

I I undid the cut&paste move of this page to 1000000. Per conventions, articles like 100000, etc, are about years, not numbers. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)shut UP!

I think million is a much better title for this article than 1000000 (number). —Keenan Pepper 00:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The issue was already put to a vote a long time ago, and the majority decided on [[N (number)|N]]. PrimeFan 19:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

In this case, the number has an established, easily recognized name. It looks sort of ridiculous to call a million 1000000 (number), calling things by their refined name is civilized. Besides, most of the interwiki's (German, Dutch, etc.) use the name million. If the 'vote' is the only factor preventing the logical move, then let's revote. - GilliamJF 04:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't looked up the old vote or the arguments, but we have articles 1 (number), 666 (number), etc., so why not 1000000 (number)? I admit Googol is better than e.g. 10 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 (number); the question is where to draw the line. We have up to 1000000000 (number) (i.e. 10⁹); the next one (10¹⁰, 10000000000 (number)) redirects to Orders of magnitude (numbers). I think 1000000 is fine where it is; 1000000000 may be overdoing it a bit.--Niels Ø 10:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Abbreviation

How is one million abbreviated? mill. or something? --Shandris 16:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I actually just came to this article trying to answer this question. I'm given to believe it's "MM" in some contexts, e.g. (I think) money: $10,000,000 as $10MM, but not sure what else. I'm curious whether that's a universal abbreviation, or domain-specific. AndyBoyko 04:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting... thanks for the reply =). Well, it's because here in Sweden we abbreviate it as milj., I was wondering if there is an English equivalent --Shandris 08:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that "MM" is common. In newspaper headlines, I believe I've seen "m". In some contexts, the metric prefix "M" can be used.

MM seems to be common in investment banking, e.g. "a $10MM transaction". Outside of banking I've not seen it though. I agree that "a $10m deal" might be more common for a newspaper headline. -- Muntfish 15:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Can we please at least mention this convention? "mm" soft-redirects to this page but there is no mention of this. Thanks. 205.228.73.11 (talk) 11:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. -- Kjkolb 09:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

1000000 (number) to million. Better title. Googol is at googol, not 10^100 (number), so this can be at million rather than 1000000 (number). Helicoptor 22:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and sign your vote with ~~~~

• Support per reasons I stated above. Helicoptor 00:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Also includes numbers from 10^6 to 10^7-1, which would not be appropriate under "million". — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

They'd be just as inappropriate under "1000000 (number)" as they would be under "million". "1000000 (number)" and "million" are the same thing, and the numbers from 10^6 to 10^7-1 are millions. If this page having an appropriate title is your concern, then it should be millions or seven-digit numbers, not "million" or "1000000 (number)". Helicoptor 02:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support Too many zeros are hard to read --Mark Yen 07:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Most articles linking to 1000000 (number) do so through the redirect from million. I would suggest that the section "Selected 7-digit numbers (1000000 - 9999999)" be removed altogether as it is trivia, and mostly irrelevant. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support It's not immediately obvious what number "1000000" is; even when typing it, the zeroes have to be carefully counted. Battlekow 15:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Selected Numbers

Do we really need the selected 7-digit numbers? They seem irrelevant. 67.188.172.165 04:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. This article is specifically about the number 1,000,000. I have tried to remove the list but was near-immediately reverted so I will wait for comments here before trying again. Remy B 15:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

But, where can we put a page for the selected numbers in the millions?? Georgia guy 13:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally I don't think the list belongs on Wikipedia at all (unless it is very heavily culled down to genuinely notable numbers and then fully referenced accordingly), but that is another issue altogether. Either way the content doesn't belong on this article. Remy B 13:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This article covers all 7-digit numbers which might have their own article. See 100000 (number), 10000000 (number), etc. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The scope of an article is defined by its name, and the name of this article is the common name of the integer 1,000,000. It is not called Million and numbers above it but below ten million. I haven't seen any justification for the list other than "this is how it is done in other articles", which just begs the question "what is the justification for the list in any of the large number articles?". It seems absurd to myself that a fix to a problem is reverted because it breaks consistency with other articles that have the same problem. Every article should be judged by its own merit otherwise pervasive issues will never be resolved. If there is no intrinsic justification for the list then it will be removed just like any other article-unrelated content. Remy B 03:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It's done that way in almost all number articles. 200-299 used to all be in 200 (number) for 200-209, 210 (number) for 210-219, etc. 300-399 are still all in 300 (number), and so on. Miscellaneous 4-digit numbers from 1000-1999 are in 1000 (number), 5-digit numbers in 10000 (number), through at least 10-digit numbers. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

See, for example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers#Growers and Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers#Creation of articles (not updated since 2004, but the idea was there). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 04:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• "A foolish consistancy" etc etc. Clearly, there are several orders of magnitude between all possible integers in the 210-219 "list" and the putative list here. Based upon A) consensus in this talk and B) common sense about what numbers are "close enough" I am removing the list. - 152.91.9.144 07:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Reverting per (weak) consensus that the list should be here. Make an arguement here or in Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Numbers. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Please stop that. There is only one voice in this discussion that says the list should stay, although Georgia guy could be seen as supporting its inclusion. Projects don't own pages, several voices have made it clear that the consensus here was for removal. As to "make an argument," several have already been made:

1. The list is too long
2. There are many more numbers between "Million and numbers above it but below ten million" then there are between, say, 200-299

That may be true, but ask yourself, how many numbers between 10^6 and 10^7 are actually interesting? I'd say less than a hundred. How many are worth their own articles? Two or three, maybe none. PrimeFan 22:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

While I understand that you're a contributor to many of these number related articles, please do respect the dissenting opinions. I'm re-removing the list.

124.190.20.47 07:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

As it's difficult to determine whether anons are distinct, there may only be one voice saying the list should go. But there's only one argument saying the list should go, and I've presented two why it should stay: the WikiProject's choice (since at least 2003), and the decision made that these numbers might have articles, but they were to be merged into this one. I'm open to seeing a new argument, though. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 12:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Binary one million

Isn't the binary for one million 11110100110111111000? not 11110100001001000000--Nollieheelflip 03:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

No, 11110100110111111000 would be 1,003,000. --Reenpier 12:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The binary notation of one million is indeed 1111 0100 0010 0100 0000 which can be expressed as 524288 + 262144 + 131072 + 65536 + 16384 + 512 + 64. --kyleleitch 10:22, 09 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Why don't pages like this get a disambiguation link? I've seen this loads of times. How the heck is anyone supposed to locate media that has the word 'million' in its title? 86.129.33.220 (talk) 13:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Origin of Million

Is the "italian" etymology of million as "millione" accurate? A few European languages use that-- like the french "mille" for a thousand, and "million" for million. --Alegoo92 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.106.31 (talk) 17:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment

Did i see the roman Sign correctly? "M"? M was the sign for "mille" meaning one thousand. A half of it was "D" meaning 500. And so on.. So either i cannot read the sign properly, or it is wrong here... i have searched for the english abreviation of "million", but could not find here. MAN 23:46 May 04, 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.54.25.140 (talk)

Chinese million

While I was living in Hong Kong, the Chinese would call 10,000 as a million. If they dealt with westerners then they would ask if you meant an English (as in language used by Americans, not Britain) million or a Chinese million. The Chinese million is because they have words for 10, 100, 1000, 10,000 and 100,000,000 but not 1,000,000. Since 10,000 is the next one after 1000, they take "million" to mean the next number with a name after 1000 and "billion" to mean 100,000,000. Stepho-wrs (talk) 08:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source, go ahead and include it. I hadn't realized anyone was actually using Knuth's -yllion scale (with the addition of a name for "ten hundreds"). He might be interested in knowing that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I've lived in Hong Kong for 20 years, and I've never heard 10,000 called a "Chinese million". But it IS common for Chinese speaking English as a second language to say "million" when meaning 100,000. But it's just a mistake, and not accepted usage in any context. In Cantonese, 1,000,000 is "pak maan" = 100x10,000. See [http://books.google.com/books?

id=a8gpFlUyIoQC&lpg=PA145&ots=v5dpjgzZpV&pg=PA145#v=onepage&q&f=false] Barsoomian (talk) 16:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Visualisation

• There is a text entry saying "A USD bill of any denomination weighs 1 gram. There are 454 grams in a pound. One million $1 bills would weigh in at 2,202.64 pounds, or just over 1 ton". Well, shouldn't it be exactly a ton?! I think someone translated grams to lbs and then back to kilograms and lost some precision (twice)... I propose removing the text "just over".

• • Huh? 1 gram x 1,000,000 = 1 megagram (Mg) ~ 2202.64 lb > 1 ton. Did you confuse ton with "tonne", i.e. 1000 kg (should really be called megagram and you can use "megs" for short)? mike4ty4 (talk) 04:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• • • Well, that phrase relates to US currency, and so should use US predominant units; i.e., ton, rather than tonne or ton. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

History

There should be some historical information about the concept of one million. I have what I consider to be an unreliable source (We Are Not the First, by Andrew Tomas) which claims that the ancient Hindus, Babylonians, and Egyptians had hieroglyphs for one million (and that the Egyptian hieroglyph was of a man holding up his hands in awe). If this can be verified with more reliability, it should be in included in the article—along with Europe conceiving of one million starting with Descartes and Leibniz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.187.97.6 (talk) 17:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Repdigits

Why were the repdigits removed in this article? 069952497a (talk) 19:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, they don't meet WP:NUMBER. See WP:NUM, and their respective talk pages, for more discussion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I included them because they were in all other similar articles (10000000 (number), etc.). Should they be removed as well? Also, doesn't WP:NUMBER apply to articles, instead of sections in articles? A number like 1,111,111 does not meet the standards of WP:NUMBER, but it can still be included in a list of numbers within a range. 069952497a (talk) 23:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Never mind. If it's really in all similar articles, go ahead and put it back. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 19:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)