# Talk:2319: Large Number Formats

Wouldn't Lincoln be:
Two score and nine score and six score and fourteen score and seven score and one score and eighteen score and two score and three score score and four? 162.158.155.194 11:25, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

- Or rather: Two score score score score score score score score score score and nine score score score score score score score score score and six score score score score score score score score and fourteen score score score score score score score and seven score score score score score score and one score score score score score and eighteen score score score score and two score score score and three score score and four. Tracy Hall (talk) 06:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

- What format did you use? Mine was ((((((((2*20+9)*20+6)*20+14)*20+7)*20+1)*20+18)*20+2)*20+3)*20*20+4 162.158.158.249 12:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

- Two score and nine score make eleven score, as opposed to (two score and nine) score. I could tell that expression was what you meant, but what you actually wrote translates back to 2*20 + 9*20 + 6*20 + 14*20 + 7*20 + 1*20 + 18*20 + 2*20 + 3*20*20 + 4, because there is nothing in the English to tell you where parentheses should be placed. If you multiply out your expression to get rid of all the parentheses, it becomes what I wrote. Tracy Hall (talk) 07:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

- Oh. I see. Thanks for explanation. 141.101.98.130 12:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I've added the way I'm familiar with (Polish) to the "normal person in Europe outside of UK" caveat, but I think this still might be over-generalization to say that all Europe outside UK uses "." separator; I've actually never seen it used, but I've seen "'" used, even though I have no connection whatsoever with Switzerland. 162.158.154.175 11:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

- Yes. We also use the single apostrophe as a thousands separator in Sweden. And in Excel we use the semicolon in formulas, since the comma is used for decimals.

Embridioum (talk) 22:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

- No!? Swedes commonly use blank as thousands separate, eg. 6 500 000. --162.158.183.119 19:06, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Would love an explanation of the scientist avoiding rounding one. Would make sense to me with 2.525997..., but as 2.5997... I'm at a loss! 198.41.238.106 (talk) 22:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC) *(please sign your comments with ~~~~)*

- Truncating the number just before a digit less than 5 so that the final digit is not rounded up. (I do this all the time, and, I am a scientist.) 108.162.216.172 (talk) 00:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
*(please sign your comments with ~~~~)*

(The above was posted (anonymously?) seconds before I could get mine in, so here it is in the original format.)

This is probably completely irrelevant but it seems Randall made a small typo when trying to show a "Scientest trying to avoid rounding up." I assume it should be 2.525997*10^13. It seems he left out a 5 and a 2 and I say such because whether he forgot the 52 or 25 is up for debate.

Relevant screenshot: [[1]]

Also, if I'm just being completely daft and am missing something completely, please feel free to criticize me harshly and I'll go back to my little hideyhole. 108.162.237.24 22:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

- In reality, a scientist would probably say 6.416*10^13 cm. (Although possible counterpoint, this comic is really about the
*number*25,259,974,097,204, not the distance 25,259,974,097,204 inches.) 172.69.33.207 22:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)- Centimetres are not an SI unit. it would be 6.416*10^11 m 172.68.255.14 01:51, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I believe the "2.5997" was intentional, or at least I thought it was when reading it. At first I thought it was a typo, but Randall calls that number "Scientist *trying* to avoid rounding up" which makes me think Randall intentionally made that "mistake" as if the scientist had accidentally forgotten the first two digits (25) and used the remainder of the number (259974...), rounding it to "2.5997x10^13" Kirypto (talk) 23:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

- Randall fixed it! Gvanrossum (talk) 05:43, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

As a (not so?) old British person, I approve. Let the Trillions come around later, when it's *worth* increasing the prefix to "level 3". Don't waste them on the more petty numbers. 162.158.155.122 23:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

- I'm also a not-so-old British person, and therefore use the short-scale as a matter of course. But, although I'm too young to ever have used the long scale, I regret its passing, for all that. On a visual level, if a million gives us a chunk of six zeroes, there's a simple elegance to the "bi-", "tri-", "quad-" (etc.) prefixes numerating two chunks, three chunks, four chunks, etc. From a less visual, more linguistically neat perspective, if you've got a million^2, a million^3, a million^4 and so on, then using "bi" to mean two, "tri" to mean three, "quad" to mean four makes sense...because that's what those things mean.Yorkshire Pudding (talk) 10:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

- "Engineering" notation omitted?

I find it somewhat strange that Randall doesn't offer **25e12** or any of those variants (**25.259...*10^12**). I feel like a lot of "non-normal" people would map billion to E12 instead of requiring a single digit to the left of the decimal point. shrug JohnHawkinson (talk) 23:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

- Honestly I thought "engineering" notation was a myth invented by HP's calculator division. But I'm personally offended that the programmers' notation 25_259_... was omitted. Maybe Randall still uses Python 2. :-) Gvanrossum (talk) 05:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- Well, just because HP's calculator division invented something doesn't mean it's a myth. They do have the power to invent things and had the market penetration for their names to have power and influence the world; but for sure, having used HP calculators in high school affected how I thought about numbers in college. But I think anyone who works with SI prefixes on a regular basis and reports results using them will appreciate "engineering" notation given the direct correspondence. And, of course, it also corresponds to how "normal" people use write numbers in the millions/billions/trillions, as this comic shows…which was the point… JohnHawkinson (talk) 12:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- Engineering notation is what engineers use all the time to make the maths simpler (one quip is an engineer is a physicist with poor maths). Except for the 'everyday' centimetre and decimetre, SI unit names are all in 10^3 steps. RIIW - Ponder it (talk) 18:56, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

- Well, just because HP's calculator division invented something doesn't mean it's a myth. They do have the power to invent things and had the market penetration for their names to have power and influence the world; but for sure, having used HP calculators in high school affected how I thought about numbers in college. But I think anyone who works with SI prefixes on a regular basis and reports results using them will appreciate "engineering" notation given the direct correspondence. And, of course, it also corresponds to how "normal" people use write numbers in the millions/billions/trillions, as this comic shows…which was the point… JohnHawkinson (talk) 12:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, he missed engineers and technicians, who would say 25.3x10^12 or 25.3 Tera(units). We never use scientific notation.

"What's an inch?" 162.158.62.119 23:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

- The imaginary nano-scale multiple of the speed of light times Planck's constant. Which, dimensionally, would seem to be kg.m³/s²? 162.158.154.73 00:15, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

As an article pointed out to me the other day that seemed obvious after it was said it's a non-tariff trade barrier used as American protectionism that doesn't get tariffed back. 172.69.63.81 (talk) 00:10, 13 June 2020 (UTC) *(please sign your comments with ~~~~)*

Can someone explain the set theory notation? 172.68.255.14 (talk) 01:56, 13 June 2020 (UTC) *(please sign your comments with ~~~~)*

- You can use only sets to construct the natural numbers, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_number#Constructions_based_on_set_theory - 172.68.215.76 (talk) 02:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
*(please sign your comments with ~~~~)*

It seems nobody has pointed out that the power of 10 in the title text is really just the log(x) of the number, which is in fact very common in scientific contexts -> log(25,259,974,097,204) = 13.4024 Ianrbibtitlht (talk) 02:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

The alternative would be for him to write 10^13.402432900872993447734410070128 (Rounded up). Notation that produces a longer string of digits than the original number seems useless on all fronts but somehow even more fun. I like the current explanation, though. It was insightful, IMO. -B- 162.158.106.126 17:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

We have kept the olden ways here in the north. Miljon (10^6), miljard (10^9), biljon (10^12), biljard (10^15). Also, "biljard" is the same word as the game of pool in Swedish. Embridioum (talk) 07:17, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

- Another thing an Older British Person might argue about is Billiards, the cue-and-ball game. Often, among all the vaiations, it was the three-ball version (white and white-spot cueballs, for each player, and red ball as the common target) on either pocketted or non-pocketted tables (the former mostly as a sop to using an unmodified snooker table) or, explicitly, Bar Billiards with target holes and obstacle pegs (quite common as early coin-operated pay-to-play tables). Only by succumbing to the americanism was Pool (usually 15-ball, spots+stripes+8ball) ever called billiards. Well,
*I*thought that was interesting... 162.158.159.136 12:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)- "Why sure I'm a billiard player, certainly mighty proud to say, I'm always mighty proud to say it. I consider that the hours I spend with a cue in my hand are golden." -Harold Hill 108.162.216.60 14:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Also Italian uses the long scale for large numbers, and also in Italian the word for the game of pool coincides with 10^15. Albeit I have to say that I've never heard anyone use bilione and biliardo referring to numbers. We usually stop at miliardo, saying things like "un milione di miliardi" when we need to say those large numbers, or use the scientific notation. --172.68.198.106 09:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

While we're on different languages, how about this one: 1262998704860-vingt-quatre - French person. --IByte (talk) 11:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

- Russian uses the short scale, like million, billion, trillion, quadrillion, etc. But it calls a billion a milliard, and a thousand milliards is a trillion. Why? 172.69.68.195 18:09, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- Sounds to me like Russia 'inherited' Milliards from its usage by trade partners at one point in time when that was a number people were starting to want to use seriously, but adopted the short-Trillion from a later time when (different) people were needing to discuss higher values and adopt terms for these into their own tongue. If you check the chequered history of what-means-what (before Short and Long scales were mad3 at least self-consistent among their adherents) you could reasonably blame/credit many different sources for each development. 162.158.158.249 01:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

- A French person would write it the same way as an old British person, but add a silent "s" at the end of "billion" to pluralize it ("25 billions"). Actually, that's how a pedantic French person would do it, because the average Jacques would probably just write it "25 mille milliards" — and an illiterate cheese-eating surrender monkey would most likely spell it "25 milles millards" (source: I'm French).--108.162.229.234 12:44, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
- My habit (as British) is to treat a million (and the rest) like a sheep (the plural of "sheep" being "sheep") when dealing with it as a(n apparently) definite number, but not when being used as a (possibly hyperbolic) grouping term. "There are at least a million sheep in this field, there are over two million sheep in that field. That's more than three million in total. How can millions of sheep fit into two small fields?" When hearing "How many sand grains in that pile of sand? There are at least six thousands.", it comes across as not being either truly English as I know it, and/or not as accurate as it may be intended to be. Similarly ten fish in a tank is 10 fish, but tens
*of*fish in a tank could easily be "10 tens" of fish, or more, which is at least a hundred, if not hundreds! And probably still none of them know how to drive it. 141.101.98.130 14:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

- My habit (as British) is to treat a million (and the rest) like a sheep (the plural of "sheep" being "sheep") when dealing with it as a(n apparently) definite number, but not when being used as a (possibly hyperbolic) grouping term. "There are at least a million sheep in this field, there are over two million sheep in that field. That's more than three million in total. How can millions of sheep fit into two small fields?" When hearing "How many sand grains in that pile of sand? There are at least six thousands.", it comes across as not being either truly English as I know it, and/or not as accurate as it may be intended to be. Similarly ten fish in a tank is 10 fish, but tens

Why *that* number? OK, so it's a big number (well, maybe not compared to all the other numbers). One oddity is that the prime factors are:

2 2 7 11 82012902913

7 11? Subliminal advertising? If you turn the big prime upside-down calculator style, you get: eigzogzlos8

I'm surprised that 5 and 23 are missing. In fact, that's almost suspicious.

- I think you're overthinking this, or maybe you got nerdsniped. Randall probably just chose a large number with different digits and being a fan of space, this one worked for him. Bischoff (talk) 08:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I thought in all or most of Europe the thousands separator was a space not a dot. --162.158.238.4 03:09, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

- That's actually something interesting I learned from this explanation. I always assumed everyone either used commas (US and UK) or dots (pretty much the rest of at least Europe, never thought much about other continents in this regard) and grouped them in threes. Apparently I was very wrong. The Indian system of grouping digits looks a bit confusing to me, but apparently it corresponds well to their language. Bischoff (talk) 08:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Please refrain from using new sections in the comment section! --Kynde (talk) 06:43, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

- What's so bad about them? At least in a comic like this one, where people are actually discussing/commenting on different aspects of the comic, I find sections very helpful to keep track of different conversations. Bischoff (talk) 08:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Re: Software developer, the "power" operand varies wildly across programming languages, some do indeed use ^, some go for ** and some have to resort to something like a pow(x,y) function, but in the languages/dialects I use most the ** operator binds closer than (has order of precedence over) the * operator, so x*10**y would not be (10x)^{y} as currently suggested in the Explanation. But ^ is the bitwise operator (lower precedence than *), so would do something even more 'interesting' to the result. Now, obviously, different codes for different coves and all - but I'm dredging my memory for all kinds of obscure scripting languages I've not used for years (what does COBOL do..? Forth is Reverse Polish. Lisp(is(more(Forward(Polish))))) not sure which one Randall is basing it on (if it's not just geek-sniping at its finest). 141.101.107.234 10:47, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

- The link I provided for "every common programming language" which someone edited to say "most common programming languages" is a site that shows what some code snippets look like in some huge number of languages that includes all the common ones. That's why I said "every" for supporting the scientific notation with e for the exponent, it really is all of them. There is much more variation in the syntax for exponentiation, more using ** than ^ and quite a few only having a function to call instead of an operator symbol. However, every one that does use ^ for exponentiation would parse x*10^13 be x times the 13th power of 10. Bugstomper (talk) 06:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Speaking as a set theorist, I'd also describe that number as "Pretty small, just slightly bigger than 1." 162.158.154.73 11:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

No comment in the explanation about the fact that inches are a pretty inadequate unit to express astronomical distances in the first place?162.158.155.224 08:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

- I actually thought it funny that using
*inches*in the first place is telling in itself a lot about who one is (most likely American, or at least from the Anglo-sphere).

The set theory bit is a bit too specific, and also not specific enough. This construction (the *Von Neumann* natural numbers) doesn't rely on details of the underlying set theory, so it will work just fine with theories other than the Zermelo-Fraenkel one. On the other hand, there exist other (less popular) constructions of the natural numbers using set theory, including one by Zermelo. Dfeuer (talk) 21:33, 15 June 2020 (UTC)