Beyond the Vigintillion
jsa...@ecn.ab.ca
Philip J. Davis.
In it, he noted that Webster's Dictionary only listed number names up to
the vigintillion. The Latin word for twenty-one didn't lend itself easily
to creating a number name; that didn't stop a web site I saw which gave a
large Mersenne prime spelled out in words (using the British, rather than
the American, convention, since the -iard suffix appeared).
But one can have, after the vigintillion, a trigintillion, a
quadragintillion, a quinquagintillion, a sexagintillion, a
septuagintillion, an octogintillion, a nonagintillion, and a centillion.
Just as an American billion can be called a thousand million (instead of a
milliard), the lack of an unvigintillion or whatever could be dealt with
by following the vigintillion with a thousand vigintillion, a million
vigintillion, a billion vigintillion, up to a nonillion vigintillion.
Doing it that way would avoid having to coin some rather clumsy
Latin-based terms, and would still allow conventional English-language
names for much higher numbers.
Somehow, though, I doubt that I've thought of this *first*.
John Savard
Phil Carmody
The numerical 'clue' in "nonillion vigintillion" is 29. How does 29 map to
the exponent? If you use the US scheme, you're in a mire. If, however, you
use the English scheme, you'll be fine. Which of the two schemes did you
wish it to apply to? It looks like the US scheme. Yeugh.
> Somehow, though, I doubt that I've thought of this *first*.
Yeah, and some people thought it would be cool for X-illion to represent
10^(3X+3) rather than 10^6X. If the system's broke, it's their meddling
hands I blame. Therefore latinised(29)-illion being 10^(3*29+6) I sincerely
hope would never catch on, doubling as it does the US error. However, within
the European scheme it has no problems with it at all.
Phil
Joona I Palaste
This is exactly the reply I wished to make but you beat me to it.
Surely a simpler system would be better than a more complicated one, if
there are no other drawbacks to it? If the Americans want to be
needlessly complicated, why not use an even more complicated formula?
Something like 10^(X^2 - 3X + 3) for example. That would make a
"million" equal 10^1, a "billion" equal 10^1, a "trillion" equal
10^3, a "quadrillion" equal 10^7, a "quintillion" equal 10^13 and so
on.
What is the most infuriating thing here is that the USA is like
Microsoft - whatever they decide to use, no matter how brain-dead it
is, everyone else copies it from them, willingly or otherwise.
--
/-- Joona Palaste (pal...@cc.helsinki.fi) ---------------------------\
| Kingpriest of "The Flying Lemon Tree" G++ FR FW+ M- #108 D+ ADA N+++|
| http://www.helsinki.fi/~palaste W++ B OP+ |
\----------------------------------------- Finland rules! ------------/
"'It can be easily shown that' means 'I saw a proof of this once (which I didn't
understand) which I can no longer remember'."
- A maths teacher
Mensanator
>From: Joona I Palaste pal...@cc.helsinki.fi
>Date: 7/16/03 2:30 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <bf2uv4$d7l$1...@oravannahka.helsinki.fi>
If you're going to use the SI prefixes kilo-, mega-, giga- etc., doesn't it
make sense to name the numbers the same way?
>
>--
>/-- Joona Palaste (pal...@cc.helsinki.fi) ---------------------------\
>| Kingpriest of "The Flying Lemon Tree" G++ FR FW+ M- #108 D+ ADA N+++|
>| http://www.helsinki.fi/~palaste W++ B OP+ |
>\----------------------------------------- Finland rules! ------------/
>"'It can be easily shown that' means 'I saw a proof of this once (which I
>didn't
>understand) which I can no longer remember'."
> - A maths teacher
>
--
Mensanator
2 of Clubs http://members.aol.com/mensanator666/2ofclubs/2ofclubs.htm
jsa...@ecn.ab.ca
: The numerical 'clue' in "nonillion vigintillion" is 29. How does 29 map to
: the exponent? If you use the US scheme, you're in a mire. If, however, you
: use the English scheme, you'll be fine. Which of the two schemes did you
: wish it to apply to? It looks like the US scheme. Yeugh.
You do have a valid point. Actually, I thought that the Americans would
apply it to the American scheme, and the British would apply it to the
British scheme.
: Yeah, and some people thought it would be cool for X-illion to represent
: 10^(3X+3) rather than 10^6X. If the system's broke, it's their meddling
: hands I blame.
I think I can guess what the cause of this was. Billion was the "next
thing" after million, and really big numbers were, back in the days the
differentiated American scheme became established, very rarely used.
So, instead of being careful, and remembering that after the million,
there is the thousand million, and then the billion, billion was just
carelessly used for the thousand million.
Sadly, it's too late to change; and with the U.S. leadership in economics
and technology, the U.S. is the chief user of big numbers these days.
A milliard is also a thousand million. Perhaps we need to coin new
unambiguous words...
so a billiad would be an American billion, and a billiord would be a
British billion, for example.
Or we could start over, with jillion, zillion, bazillion and gazillion...
John Savard
jsa...@ecn.ab.ca
: If you're going to use the SI prefixes kilo-, mega-, giga- etc., doesn't it
: make sense to name the numbers the same way?
That's an idea; switch to Greek!
We don't need the "megillion", since we already have the unabiguous word
million, but a thousand million could be a gigillion, and a million
million a terillion!
John Savard
Bob Pease
<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message news:ROdRa.3111$Fy1.144073@localhost...
I actually do this or equivalent.
If I'm speaking to anyone who has a use fro numbers bigger that a (US)
trillion I usually refer to it by the Exponent in Sci Not.
Example
"E12 snorks" or a Terasnork"
for pure numbers I would just say something like "1 E 21"
If you like "Oldspeak, I guess you cloud say ten to the twenty-first power'
Rj Pease
jsa...@ecn.ab.ca
: Phil Carmody (thefatphi...@yahoo.co.uk) wrote:
It might also be noted that instead of the unambiguous thousand million,
or the term milliard, in the context of the British system, an American
billion could be called...
a sesquillion.
Unfortunately, we don't have good Latin prefixes for two and a half, three
and a half, four and a half, and so on...
John Savard
jsa...@ecn.ab.ca
: Somehow, though, I doubt that I've thought of this *first*.
Indeed, I hadn't. The idea was advanced by one Dimitri A. Borgmann, in his
book Language on Vacation (1965), Charles Scribner's Sons, p. 225.
Also, the term "sesquillion" has already been used as well; a Google
search turned up three hits, including one that almost qualifies as part
of the scientific literature.
John Savard
jsa...@ecn.ab.ca
: If the system's broke, it's their meddling
: hands I blame. Therefore latinised(29)-illion being 10^(3*29+6) I sincerely
: hope would never catch on, doubling as it does the US error.
Actually, the Americans were but following the French...
John Savard
A N Niel
> : Yeah, and some people thought it would be cool for X-illion to represent
> : 10^(3X+3) rather than 10^6X. If the system's broke, it's their meddling
> : hands I blame.
>
> I think I can guess what the cause of this was.
Actually, the US got it from the French. (Since then the French
changed their usage...)
Joona I Palaste
The French also changed from their own imperial units to the metric
system. But I guess that if the US would be following them *now* the
people would riot, accusing anything that comes from Europe of being
communistic.
--
/-- Joona Palaste (pal...@cc.helsinki.fi) ---------------------------\
| Kingpriest of "The Flying Lemon Tree" G++ FR FW+ M- #108 D+ ADA N+++|
| http://www.helsinki.fi/~palaste W++ B OP+ |
\----------------------------------------- Finland rules! ------------/
"How come even in my fantasies everyone is a jerk?"
- Daria Morgendorfer
A N Niel
And we don't need these either. We already have:
3 thousand = 3K
7 million = 7M
12 billion (American), 12 thousand million (French) = 12G
and so on.
mensanator
> A N Niel <54gs...@sneakemail.com> scribbled the following:
> > In article <TMdRa.3110$Fy1.143865@localhost>, <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >> : Yeah, and some people thought it would be cool for X-illion to represent
> >> : 10^(3X+3) rather than 10^6X. If the system's broke, it's their meddling
> >> : hands I blame.
> >>
> >> I think I can guess what the cause of this was.
>
> > Actually, the US got it from the French. (Since then the French
> > changed their usage...)
>
> The French also changed from their own imperial units to the metric
> system. But I guess that if the US would be following them *now* the
> people would riot, accusing anything that comes from Europe of being
> communistic.
Communism has nothing to do with it. When Europeans promote
Internationalism solely as a platform to bash the USA and then turn
around and promote Provincialism solely as a platform to bash the USA,
we see through that hypocrisy.
Leroy Quet
A LITTLE (snicker) off-topic:
What do I call the number "000000000000000000000" (whatever the number
of zeros)?
"nillion"
Seriously, I have been reading this thread, and I must say that I do
agree that the British/American differences in the names for large
numbers can be a possible (and possibly dangerous, in some situations)
problem.
But there HAS to be a (political/international) joke/riddle in there
somewhere...
Thanks,
Leroy Quet
Mensanator
>Date: 7/16/03 7:41 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <b4be2fdf.03071...@posting.google.com>
Something like:
Q: If the French call a thousand billion a billiard, what do the English call
it?
A: snooker
Joona I Palaste
You're right about that, but what I am proposing is neither
internationalism or provincialism, it's consistency and simplicity.
--
/-- Joona Palaste (pal...@cc.helsinki.fi) ---------------------------\
| Kingpriest of "The Flying Lemon Tree" G++ FR FW+ M- #108 D+ ADA N+++|
| http://www.helsinki.fi/~palaste W++ B OP+ |
\----------------------------------------- Finland rules! ------------/
"He said: 'I'm not Elvis'. Who else but Elvis could have said that?"
- ALF
Phil Carmody
> It might also be noted that instead of the unambiguous thousand million,
> or the term milliard, in the context of the British system, an American
> billion could be called...
>
> a sesquillion.
Gets my vote. Or my veto. I can't decide.
> Unfortunately, we don't have good Latin prefixes for two and a half, three
> and a half, four and a half, and so on...
I think 'H' was used to represent two and a half by the Romans, so
'hillion' might fit the bill(ion, not).
Phillion
mensanator
> mensanator <mensa...@aol.com> scribbled the following:
> > Joona I Palaste <pal...@cc.helsinki.fi> wrote in message news:<bf4327$4dv$1...@oravannahka.helsinki.fi>...
> >> A N Niel <54gs...@sneakemail.com> scribbled the following:
> >> > In article <TMdRa.3110$Fy1.143865@localhost>, <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >> >> : Yeah, and some people thought it would be cool for X-illion to represent
> >> >> : 10^(3X+3) rather than 10^6X. If the system's broke, it's their meddling
> >> >> : hands I blame.
> >> >>
> >> >> I think I can guess what the cause of this was.
>
> >> > Actually, the US got it from the French. (Since then the French
> >> > changed their usage...)
> >>
> >> The French also changed from their own imperial units to the metric
> >> system. But I guess that if the US would be following them *now* the
> >> people would riot, accusing anything that comes from Europe of being
> >> communistic.
>
> > Communism has nothing to do with it. When Europeans promote
> > Internationalism solely as a platform to bash the USA and then turn
> > around and promote Provincialism solely as a platform to bash the USA,
> > we see through that hypocrisy.
>
> You're right about that, but what I am proposing is neither
> internationalism or provincialism,
Ok, but you should leave the out the political agenda, it is off topic
in sci.math.
> it's consistency and simplicity.
My original comment was about consistency also. Since numbers are
usually grouped in threes by commas and since SI prefixes use groups
of three digits, the _consistent_ way to name numbers is the American
way, not the British way.
1,000 kilo- thousand
1,000,000 mega- million
1,000,000,000 giga- billion
Joona I Palaste
No, I think that's wrong. That's not quite as consistent as the
European system. Have you forgotten that "billion" comes from the
Latin word for "two", "trillion" for three, "quadrillion" for four,
etc.? This would make 1000 to the second power a "one-illion", 1000
to the third power a "two-illion", 1000 to the fourth power a
"three-illion" etc.
While the European system would simply have 1000000 to the first
power a "one-illion", 1000000 to the second power a "two-illion",
1000000 to the third power a "three-illion" and so on.
I don't know about you, but I think matching a number with itself
on both lists is more consistent than matching a number with the
same number plus one.
--
/-- Joona Palaste (pal...@cc.helsinki.fi) ---------------------------\
| Kingpriest of "The Flying Lemon Tree" G++ FR FW+ M- #108 D+ ADA N+++|
| http://www.helsinki.fi/~palaste W++ B OP+ |
\----------------------------------------- Finland rules! ------------/
"A friend of mine is into Voodoo Acupuncture. You don't have to go into her
office. You'll just be walking down the street and... ohh, that's much better!"
- Stephen Wright
A N Niel
<pal...@cc.helsinki.fi> wrote:
> No, I think that's wrong. That's not quite as consistent as the
> European system. Have you forgotten that "billion" comes from the
> Latin word for "two", "trillion" for three, "quadrillion" for four,
> etc.?
And "million" is from Italian, meaning a Big Thousand.
So maybe a billion is a big big thousand, and a trillion is a big big
big thousand. Now if "big" means 1000 times, we are there!
Mensanator
>Message-id: <bf6sps$jjd$1...@oravannahka.helsinki.fi>
No, I haven't forgotten. I also haven't forgotten that cardinals (as opposed to
ordinals) start with 0, not 1.
>While the European system would simply have 1000000 to the first
>power a "one-illion", 1000000 to the second power a "two-illion",
>1000000 to the third power a "three-illion" and so on.
>I don't know about you, but I think matching a number with itself
>on both lists is more consistent than matching a number with the
>same number plus one.
I have no trouble with the concept that 0 is the first number, 1 is the second
number, 2 is the third number, etc.
>
>--
>/-- Joona Palaste (pal...@cc.helsinki.fi) ---------------------------\
>| Kingpriest of "The Flying Lemon Tree" G++ FR FW+ M- #108 D+ ADA N+++|
>| http://www.helsinki.fi/~palaste W++ B OP+ |
>\----------------------------------------- Finland rules! ------------/
>"A friend of mine is into Voodoo Acupuncture. You don't have to go into her
>office. You'll just be walking down the street and... ohh, that's much
>better!"
> - Stephen Wright
Joona I Palaste
>>Subject: Re: Beyond the Vigintillion
>>From: Joona I Palaste pal...@cc.helsinki.fi
>>Date: 7/17/2003 2:18 PM Central Standard Time
>>Message-id: <bf6sps$jjd$1...@oravannahka.helsinki.fi>
>>mensanator <mensa...@aol.com> scribbled the following:
>>> usually grouped in threes by commas and since SI prefixes use groups
>>> of three digits, the _consistent_ way to name numbers is the American
>>> way, not the British way.
>>
>>> 1,000 kilo- thousand
>>> 1,000,000 mega- million
>>> 1,000,000,000 giga- billion
>>
>>No, I think that's wrong. That's not quite as consistent as the
>>European system. Have you forgotten that "billion" comes from the
>>Latin word for "two", "trillion" for three, "quadrillion" for four,
>>etc.? This would make 1000 to the second power a "one-illion", 1000
>>to the third power a "two-illion", 1000 to the fourth power a
>>"three-illion" etc.
> No, I haven't forgotten. I also haven't forgotten that cardinals (as opposed to
> ordinals) start with 0, not 1.
If 1000 to the 0th power is 1000 where you live, I'm glad I don't live
there.
It's not the ordinals in your 1000 series I'm talking about. It's the
exponentials.
Look:
Thousand = 1000^1 = 1000000^(1/2)
Million = 1000^2 = 1000000^1
Milliard = 1000^3 = 1000000^(3/2)
Billion = 1000^4 = 1000000^2
and so on.
>>While the European system would simply have 1000000 to the first
>>power a "one-illion", 1000000 to the second power a "two-illion",
>>1000000 to the third power a "three-illion" and so on.
>>I don't know about you, but I think matching a number with itself
>>on both lists is more consistent than matching a number with the
>>same number plus one.
> I have no trouble with the concept that 0 is the first number, 1 is the second
> number, 2 is the third number, etc.
But you seem to have trouble understanding the concept of natural
exponents.
--
/-- Joona Palaste (pal...@cc.helsinki.fi) ---------------------------\
| Kingpriest of "The Flying Lemon Tree" G++ FR FW+ M- #108 D+ ADA N+++|
| http://www.helsinki.fi/~palaste W++ B OP+ |
\----------------------------------------- Finland rules! ------------/
"Keep shooting, sooner or later you're bound to hit something."
- Misfire
mensanator
Fractional exponents? This is getting ridiculous.
>
> >>While the European system would simply have 1000000 to the first
> >>power a "one-illion", 1000000 to the second power a "two-illion",
> >>1000000 to the third power a "three-illion" and so on.
> >>I don't know about you, but I think matching a number with itself
> >>on both lists is more consistent than matching a number with the
> >>same number plus one.
>
> > I have no trouble with the concept that 0 is the first number, 1 is the second
> > number, 2 is the third number, etc.
>
> But you seem to have trouble understanding the concept of natural
> exponents.
So your natural exponents work. So what? The SI units use a base of
1000 not 1000000. The fact that you can contrive the exponent of your
base to match the name (bi = 2) is irrelevant. A base of 1000000 is of
no use to anyone, so why do you care if it is consistent?
Sure, it's unfortunate that in the American nomenclature
bi = 3
tri = 4
quad = 5
etc.
but you're not going to make the general issue of cardinals not
matching ordinals go away by solving a single problem. You would have
to scrap the entire language and start over.
Give my regards to Sancho Panza.