Talk:Long and short scales/Archive 1

message: From the Fowler quote in History table: "[billion] for Americans it means a thousand multiplied by itself twice".  This should be thrice, not twice, no? (I don't have the source, and this article seems well discussed, so I'm deferring to you to change it if appropriate.)
:It might be better to put it differently, but it's not wrong. If you multiply x by itself (once), you have x*x. If you multiply again (so now it's twice), you get x*x*x. And an American billion is in fact 1000*1000*1000.--Niels Ø 21:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So is there any mathematical notion that counts the number of multiplications * instead of the number of factors x so that 2 can be associated to x*x*x? The notion I know is x^3 which associates 3 to x*x*x. --Najro 07:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor error? 

message: * Many users already expressed their relative satisfaction with this title: "Unambiguous, short, neutral, easy to understand etc...." I don't think that it "teaches an incorrect meaning of the word scale", since this is one of the meanings of the word scale. In other contexts there can be other applicable definitions. That's usual, frequent and not damaging. 
* The title is now adopted by Wikipedia in several languages:
** German:  Lange und kurze Leiter
** French:  Échelle longue
** Dutch:  Korte en lange schaalverdeling
** Russian:  Системы наименования чисел
** Chinese:  数量命名中的级差
I don't think they do so without a real need for a good term and without their own reflections, themselves. So I think the article's name is consistent. Paul Martin 16:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's no neologism, anymore ! 

message: I never heard in my language the double use of term "billion" as in american or short scale meaning 109 and Long scale usage of 1012 also. Please re-check your fonts [sources] of information.
It is currently used only in the Long Scale value and it stands for 1012.
Altough the spelling is clear: "Bilione", when it is pronunced in italian it could be mistakenly interpreted as the same as "bilione" or "biglione", an ancient word used to indicate big marble in child toys, so there is a minor acceptance in the spoken language of this ambiguous term.
Instead of "bilione" the common language (and jargons) both prefer more the use of the term "mille miliardi" ("one thousand milliards"), or also "diecimila milioni" ("ten thousand millions").
Also the term "biliardo" is used rarely, because it collides with the more common term for the ball game "biliardo" or "billiard". This double meaning of the word "biliardo" in italian language strongly disavantages the use of this word for numeric usage. Regarding the word "billiard", english language shares the same double meaning (and word joke) with italian language.
(Anon).
:I've reverted the reference from the article to these pages. Either the discussion stands and should be promoted to the article or it is discussion. Ian Cairns 19:59, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not just the Italians who do this.  The Germans also use the long scale, and actively use the terms "Milliard" and "Billiard" to refer to 109 and 1015 respectively; the short scale is not used at all.  That ball game is also called "Billiard" in German!  (Another anon), 13:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italian usage of "billion" 

message: Would it be better to move this article to Long scale vs. short scale or something similar, since the article covers both?  --taestell 19:04, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
:Perhaps Numerical scale? - Lucky13pjn July 3, 2005 11:49 (UTC)
I suggest Long scale and short scale. "vs" makes it sound too much like a competition, while "Numerical scale" is yet another neologism, and not even one that was translated from French. – Smyth\talk 3 July 2005 12:16 (UTC)
:Good idea Ian Cairns 3 July 2005 12:48 (UTC)
My entry is 'Long and short scale numbers'. If mine's selected, do I get a prize? Felix the Cassowary 3 July 2005 15:36 (UTC)
:The numbers themselves aren't long or short scale; that title would imply that it was on a par with prime number or normal number. – Smyth\talk 3 July 2005 16:15 (UTC)
Long and short scales maybe? --taestell July 3, 2005 17:58 (UTC)
:Concise yet complete. I think we have a winner. :) – Smyth\talk 3 July 2005 21:30 (UTC)
:: I'm okay with it too. For my suggestion I obviously came across it and rejected it because I didn't think it specified what they were the long and short scales of, but if I'm odd with that complaint I'm happy to go for the ... err ... short scale title. Felix the Cassowary 4 July 2005 00:45 (UTC)
---
Re: SI prefixes. There is a mention that the prefixes are sometimes used as binary (K=1024) instead of decimal (K=1000). It is true, even sometimes it is a hybrid (¡¡¡M=1024000!!!) but there is currently an attempt at disambiguation, creating the Binary prefixes Ki, Mi, Gi, Ti.... I will try to edit that last paragraph, introducing no false information but at the same time trying to educate our readers... Mencial 03:52, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Long scale vs. short scale?

message: Does Knuth's -yllion have any real use?? I think it is just something he proposed as an alternate way to name large numbers, but where is there evidence that it will be adopted by general language?? Georgia guy 14:36, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not in general use. But I find your revert unnecessary. It is an "unambiguous way of identifying large numbers", and I think that readers of this page would find the Knuth -yllion interesting to read about. It would've been better instead to add a sentence saying it is not in wide use, or move it to a "See also"-link. Eighty 21:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Knuth's -yllion 

message: I've been looking through all of Harold Wilson's speeches in 1974.  Whilst a number of them were about economics (he was an economist), I could not find any suggesting that he wanted Great Britain to change its numbering system.  It seemed that he was under constant pressure with relation to his economic policies, and was accused of corruption and embezzlement.  I found all of that stuff.  Surely if he had declared that Britain was to change its numbering system, it would be sufficiently notable for me to be able to easily find it.  All that I was able to find were the 2 references that I linked - one US university student who stated it, and The Scotsman stating it.  Indeed, I could not find anywhere that suggested that this was currently official UK policy.  It may well be, but I think that there's enough doubt to put it in to question.  If it wasn't listed in Harold Wilson's 30 most famous 1974 speeches, then I wonder why not.  Its also not talked about in his article.  
I think perhaps that its just been a gradual thing, that wasn't related to any one incident, and just happened because of a gradual Americanisation, especially with regards to economics, and was a reaction to the US dollar being the standard currency to which all other currencies were compared, and thus other countries which floated their dollar (which Australia did in 1990, and Britain did sometime earlier) adopted the policy because of that - as opposed to a specific incident in 1974.  1974 is certainly a hugely long time ago and I am sure that people would have noticed if it was true.
And I'd like some reference that it is actually taught in schools.  I found a lot of references that said that it wasn't, but I couldn't find any that say that it is.  As stated elsewhere, it seems that it is SOLELY used for finance in UK, Australia et al, and is not used in mathematics generally.  In other words, we say "I have a billion dollars" to mean a thousand million, whereas we would say "there's a billion grains of sand here" to mean a million million.  
The whole AusInfo hoax was of interest to me too.  AusInfo was never a printing press.  It was the name given to the Australian Finance Department, and was solely in charge of financial policy.  Even currently they explain that they choose to describe their statements using short scale, but make a point to explain what that means, which I am sure they wouldn't do if it was in general usage, and I am sure that they would have mentioned it somewhere if it was official policy.  I had a check on their web site here:  and there is not a single article that talks about them setting any policy at all about numbering.
That's not to say that they haven't.  But I am not convinced that they have the power to set such a policy anyway.  All that they are able to do is to decide how they as a department will count.  And, from 1997, they have counted using the short system for financial reports.  That's it.  There is no evidence that this has been adopted beyond financial systems. Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 17:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did Harold Wilson really say that? 

message: The best I read on this topo is this Excursus. A conscious polemic, but an excellent one. Nothing to subjoin. All's ruled. Limping John 07:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Demonstrative arguments for the long scale