Talk:Long and short scales/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Billiard

2:55, 2 January 2006 Shd (→Comparison - there is no such number as billiard)

http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutwords/billion:

In the 'British' system, it would also possible to use 'billiard' for 'thousand billion', 
'trilliard' for 'thousand trillion', etc., but this has not so far caught on.

So I put it back in. -- 62.214.239.104 19:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Puerto Rican Usage

The current article puts Puerto Rico in the list of short scale countries, but then in the text says that the term billón means $10^{1}2$ there. That would seem to be long scale usage, as in the rest of Latin America. I am familiar with long scale usage in Spanish, but I could imagine that short scale usage could be common in coloquial usage due to the influence of American English there. But I would like confirmation of this fact before making any change to the article. I can imagine that the long scale might be official in Puerto Rico but the short scale might be quite commmon in coloquial usage. Anyone able to confirm this? --imacdonald 23:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Jan 18

User:Paul Martin has made several bold changes to the article, with some good ideas. However, some of the grammar needs correcting; some of the facts may be challenged, e.g. status of Puerto Rico vs U.S.; some of the comments are NPOV, e.g. erudite communities, and it would have been useful to discuss these proposed changes first. I've reverted these edits pending further discussion here. Thanks, Ian Cairns 12:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Math rules for the two scales

Plain text (no info loss on copying)

• Long scale: 10↑(n×6) = n + -illion
• Short scale: 10↑((n+1)×3) = n + -illion

Mathematical notation

• Long scale: $10^{6n}\,$ = n + -illion
• Short scale: $10^{3(n+1)}\,$ = n + -illion

--88.152.105.240 18:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Superbase of large numbers

Common numbers use base 10, but larger numbers could use a larger base for improved readability. That base is suitable a power of 10, becoming a superbase of 10. Long scale use superbase million, Short scale use superbase thousand. The suffix -illion is clearly connected to a million = $10^{6}$, so one can say that long scale "owns" this suffix (since 1475). Short scale with base $10^{3}$ have to use their own suffix, like -sand derived from thousand. One could artificially construct new names of numbers for short scale using this suffix.

Value	Base Thousand Notation	Base Thousand	B. T. logic	Gillion System (base thousand)	Short Scale (base thousand with offset)	S. S. logic	Long Scale (base million)	L. S. logic	Nicolas Chuquet Long Scale Notation (base million notation)
100 =	1	one	$(10^{3})^{0}$	one	one	$(10^{3})^{1-1}$	one	$(10^{6})^{0}$	1
103 =	1 000	thousand	$(10^{3})^{1}$	thousand	thousand	$(10^{3})^{1+0}$	thousand	$10^{3}*(10^{6})^{0}$	1000
106 =	1 000 000	bisand	$(10^{3})^{2}$	million	million	$(10^{3})^{1+1}$	million	$(10^{6})^{1}$	1' 000000
109 =	1 000 000 000	trisand	$(10^{3})^{3}$	gillion	billion	$(10^{3})^{1+2}$	thousand million	$10^{3}*(10^{6})^{1}$	1000' 000000
1012 =	1 000 000 000 000	quadsand	$(10^{3})^{4}$	tetrillion	trillion	$(10^{3})^{1+3}$	billion	$(10^{6})^{2}$	1' 000000' 000000
1015 =	1 000 000 000 000 000	quintsand	$(10^{3})^{5}$	pentillion	quadrillion	$(10^{3})^{1+4}$	thousand billion	$10^{3}*(10^{6})^{2}$	1000' 000000' 000000
1018 =	1 000 000 000 000 000 000	sextsand	$(10^{3})^{6}$	hexillion	quintillion	$(10^{3})^{1+5}$	trillion	$(10^{6})^{3}$	1' 000000' 000000' 000000

Long scale makes good sense when used with long scale notation. At trillion three groups of zeroes are visible.
Base thousand makes good sense when used with base thousand notation. At "sextsand" six groups of zeroes are visible.
Gillion System makes good sense when used with base thousand notation. At hexillion six groups of zeroes are visible.

The choice between short scale or long scale is the choice of wanting to group digits in groups of three or in groups of six.

One drawback of long scale is that people mix up million with milliard. Maybe better to use the term thousand millions instead of milliard. The purpose of long scale was not to make groups of three digits so terms milliard, billiard,... creates confusion.  User:Najro 19:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Note:  Nicolas Chuquet himself actually used an antiquated zillion prime-separator [1]. I allowed me to modify your table in this sens. -- Paul Martin 19:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi user Najro,

• Your invented "Sand-System" is instructive. It's surely not a way to go in practice, nevertheless it's a good explanation. Bravo Najro.
• The Gillion system ("gillion" means "giga-million") is I.M.H.O. no solution, since this "-illion" refers to base thousand (?!) :
  Pentillion = 1000⁵.  That's not-consistent. Like you said: "The suffix -illion is clearly connected to a million."
• Because currently Germans, Frenchs and some others more still maintain their decimal comma,
  the BIPM recommands non-breaking spaces for all-thousand-separators.
• However the modern English decimal point will surely gain; worldwide.
• The modern long scale notation could be :  comma-separators for the zillions and non-breaking spaces for the intermediary thousands.
• The use of zilliards doen't "create confusion", since one trilliard is million power three-a-half.  However, " thousand trillion " is good as well.

	"Najro scale":  Base thousand			Short scale:  Base thousand with offset			Long scale:  Base million
Value	Logical   "Najro scale" notation	Najro Name	B. T. logic	Logical   short scale notation	S. S. Name	S. S. logic	Logical   long scale notation	L.S. Name	L. S. logic
10 0 =	1	one	$(10^{3})^{0}$	1	one	$(10^{3})^{1-1}$	1	one	(106) 0.0
10 3 =	1, 000	thousand	$(10^{3})^{1}$	1 000	thousand	$(10^{3})^{1+0}$	1 000	thousand	(106) 0.5
10 6 =	1, 000, 000	" bisand "	$(10^{3})^{2}$	1, 000 000	million	$(10^{3})^{1+1}$	1, 000 000	million	(106) 1.0
10 9 =	1, 000, 000, 000	" trisand "	$(10^{3})^{3}$	1, 000, 000 000	billion	$(10^{3})^{1+2}$	1 000, 000 000	milliard	(106) 1.5
10 12 =	1, 000, 000, 000, 000	" quadsand "	$(10^{3})^{4}$	1, 000, 000, 000 000	trillion	$(10^{3})^{1+3}$	1, 000 000, 000 000	billion	(106) 2.0
10 15 =	1, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000	" quintsand "	$(10^{3})^{5}$	1, 000, 000, 000, 000 000	quadrillion	$(10^{3})^{1+4}$	1 000, 000 000, 000 000	billiard	(106) 2.5
10 18 =	1, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000	" sextsand "	$(10^{3})^{6}$	1, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000 000	quintillion	$(10^{3})^{1+5}$	1, 000 000, 000 000, 000 000	trillion	(106) 3.0

-- Paul Martin 13:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi,
I wonder if there is an article about all-thousand-separators somewhere? non-breaking space#Uses? SI#SI_writing_style? Decimal separator#Examples of use? ISO_31-0#Numbers? Decimal#Grouping of digits?

I have collected all the superbases I have found into the article Decimal superbase. --Najro 08:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

More of grouping of digits: Names of numbers in English#Cardinal numbers? Positional notation? Myllion System? Knuth -yllion? --Najro 14:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion: Split long scale section in two

I have a problem with/suggestion about the list of Long scale countries near the bottom of the public page for Long_and_short_scales. That is supposed to be a list of countries, but instead it contains a list of languages. I suggest the following:

• Change this:

Long scale countries (heading)

Most other countries. Examples: French, Danish and Norwegian milliard... (paragraph text)

• Into this:

Long scale countries (heading)

Most other countries.(paragraph text)

Examples in different languages (heading)

French, Danish and Norwegian milliard... (paragraph text)

This would enable one to add individual country names to the "long scale" list without having to refer to the usage of a certain language, and it would enable one to add language usage examples even if those languages are commonly used in countries that use the short scale.

Your comments?

I apologise for not formatting my text correctly... I'm rather new to the wikipedia (feel free to format my post for me).

-- leuce 13:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Guitel

The following has just been deleted from Long and short scales/Reference: Guitel (extracts) because it did not qualify as an article in its own right. It was contributed: 2006-01-19 09:16:51 Lucky Luke. -- RHaworth 19:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

After having mentioned the terms échelle longue – échelle courte at the outset (p. 51/52) of her 861 pages comprehending dissertation Histoire comparée des numerations ecrites (English: Comparing history of the written numeration), Paris, Flammarion, 1975, the French mathematician Genevieve Guitel added – in the complements of her work – an entire chapter: Les grands nombres en numération parlée (État actuel de la question); in English: The large numbers in oral numeration (Present state of the question), pages 566-574.

Who translated who?

This article says : Short scale is the English translation of the French term échelle courte. So it gives the expression that the term was common in french, and was transposed in english. Okay. Problem : the french article says exactly the opposite ! User:86.71.93.12 10:22, 20 August 2006

This English article was created by User:Dpbsmith on 2004 September 1.

The English version of 2005 February 7:

Long scale is the English translation of the French term échelle longue, which designates a system of numeric names in which the word billion means a million millions.

Short scale is the English translation of the French term échelle courte, which designates a system of numeric names in which the word billion means only a thousand millions.

Both systems have been used in France at various times in history.

was translated verbatim by the French User:Jim2k on 2005 February 9 at 01:23.

Échelle longue est traduit dans les pays anglo-saxons par long scale. Termes français à l'origine qui désigne un système de noms numériques dans lequel le mot billion veut dire un million de millions.

Échelle courte est traduit dans les pays anglo-saxons par short scale. Termes français à l'origine qui désigne un système de noms numériques dans lequel le mot billion veut dire seulement un millier de millions.

Les deux systèmes ont été utilisés en France à des époques diverses de l'histoire.

Nine hours later, fr:Utilisateur:Archeos obviously, ignoring this term made this revision which stayed till now.

L'expression Échelle longue est la traduction de l'expression utilisée dans les pays anglo-saxons long scale, expression française à l'origine qui désigne un système de noms numériques dans lequel le mot billion veut dire un million de millions.

L'expression Échelle courte est la traduction de l'expression utilisée dans les pays anglo-saxons short scale, expression française à l'origine qui désigne un système de noms numériques dans lequel le mot billion veut dire seulement un millier de millions.

Les deux systèmes ont été utilisés en France à des époques diverses de l'histoire.

The Guitel reference in the English version was added only on 2006 January 19, by User:Lucky Luke.
This same reference was added in the French article on 2006 July 26 by myself.

While Jim's version said, that the term "échelle longue" is translated in English by "long scale"...
Archeos changed to: "The term échelle longue is the translation of a term used in the Anglo-saxon countries..."
however, also his version mentions "the term is originated French", but without references he can't say more.

1. I don't think that "the term was common in french". Before the Wikipedia article, perhaps only several hundred or thousand specialists knew and used it.
2. I don't think that "the french article says exactly the opposite".
3. Since we have the scientific references, I think, we can continue to use the term with good conscience.

But you are right, the French article must be improved on this topic. Also its title: from "Long scale" only one, to the correct "Long and short scales"!

Paul Martin 17:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the name of french article is not right, and a name change is in the pipeline (i asked it a few days ago). So we agree that the expression originated in french and was translated in english, I have corrected the french article accordingly. Raminagrobis.

History and Re-history

Paul, I've reverted your reversion. I don't think there is any need to repeat historical information more than once in an article. The history table is there for that. The lists underneath were intended to give (and did give) the _current_ position of the various usages. I've attempted in my edits / reverts to give a clear view of the current position of the short scale countries. Adding in subclause after subclause, in particular repeating the various historical positions, is obscuring the information. Please don't get me wrong. I'm not anti your edits - I'm always open-minded towards any edits that add to the value of an article. But clarity also adds to the value of an article. Ian Cairns 22:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ian, the history table gives a short synopsis. For all intents and purposes, it is usual to restate the facts of a synoptic table in the paragraphes. That's good, clear style. However, according to your request, not in "Current usage". (Even if, not seldom, other Australians assert, that the short scale is not their current usage. But the world-wide media-lobby for a common English short scale use – though, against the world entire – presently don't accept these opinions. Thirty years of promoting the short scale would be lost! Impossible!!)

So I put it in "Notes". I hope, now, for you it's more acceptable. In the article, the aspect of the unclear official status was hitherto missing entirely.
Paul Martin 14:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)  PS. Oh, you are right, Ian, also the point of the official status is already inside. I didn't see. I thought, it was only treated in talks. Excuse.

Arrogant edit

Paul I removed the following section from the article becuaee it is a POV rant. Please justify why you think this is encyclop(a)edic in value. Are there no english links that you could have used instead? Thanks, Ian Cairns 08:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

"Lingua franca In our contemporary world, another important question surrenders by the effective role of the English language as langue véhiculaire, third language. Since the beginning of 20th c. and especially since the 1950s, the English language acquired a de facto status of an international language. In all worldwide exchanges and particularly in sciences, the English language becomes the new lingua franca, playing its adjuvant and very helpful role in worldwide communication.

A serious question arises by the fact that seemingly – currently – the English-speaking countries – or at least its influential parts – got into their's head to use a nomenklatura, which is quasi-unanimously rejected in the world entire. By proceeding in this arrogant manner – more than once in history – an existent domination was lost. Even when this was not expected! "

Distinguish between the two long scales

There are really two long scales, with either 'million million' or 'billiard'. The two are not distinguished in the article, which is a bit confusing. I have added a bit about this in the intro, pointing out that the actual long scale (million million) is rarely used anymore. And for that reason I've also changed the order in the table. But in the rest of the article it is not always clear which of the two long scales are meant. Is there no terminology to distinguish between the two? I used "long long scale", in which case the other would become "short long scale" but that's not great terminology. :) DirkvdM 07:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

There was / is only one Long Scale, with two usages / words for each of the values. Firstly, the dominant one used in English was: Million, Thousand Million, Billion, Thousand Billion, Trillion, etc. and secondly the one that never really caught on was: Million, Milliard, Billion, Billiard, Trillion, etc. What usage there was of the second kind was interchangeable with the first usage. Saying that there were two scales, but that the only difference between them was the words used is going to confuse. I'll revert your prominance of Milliard, etc. since they were not used / were hardly ever used in English, in favour of the dominant form: Thousand Million, etc. which certainly was used. I'll let other decide whether there were two scales or two forms of the same scale. Ian Cairns 07:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Looking back at it, I was unable to make sense of what it was saying. So, I've removed it here in case further discussion is needed. Ian Cairns 07:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Original text: The long scale is originally based on the French succession of thousandfolds 'mille - million - billion', which then continues alternating with the suffix '-ard'; 'milliard - billiard - trillion - trilliard'. It is, however, named after the usage of terms like 'thousand million' for 'billion'. Thus, there are two versions of the long scale, of which one is not long at all. The actual long long scale is not used anymore in languages other than English.

Maybe that wasn't written too well. But there really are two long scales and the term logically applies to the use of 'thousand million' (what else could it mean?). So there should at least be a mention of that and in the rest of the article it should be mentioned which of the two are meant. The last isn't true. In Spanish the 'long long scale' is also used. But the Spanish Wikipedia uses Billón for 10¹². To confuse matters, my Dutch-Spanish dictionary gives 'billón' for 'biljoen' (long scale), but for 'miljard' it gives 'billón, millar de cuentos, mil millones'. So billón can have two meanings in Spanish? (¿¡And 'millar' doesn't mean 'millard' but 'thousand'!?) Better not make any more such (too strong) claims about other languages without a good source. Btw, this confusion between the scales must have led to some serious misunderstandings, or else it eventually will in this globalising world.

Anyway, other than that, I don't see what is unclear about the text. DirkvdM 07:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Please can you be specific. Is this Long Long Scale (LLS) used other than in Spanish? If only Spanish, then that needs to be said. We also need citations for its existence, and where it is used. Where does this LLS come from? What values does it have - I'm still not sure? If it is used in English, which I can't confirm at all, is it simply the Long Scale with Milliard in place of Thousand Millions, etc? I would call that the same Long Scale with alternative wording for the values. That wouldn't seem to be a different scale at all. Perhaps there are differences somewhere? Thanks, Ian Cairns 07:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)