Talk:1,000,000,000

message: 1000,000,000 = 10^9 = 1 trillion  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.98.232.13 (talk) 17:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

message: This is the page to jot down interesting facts about 10-digit numbers. If enough (at least three) interesting facts are gathered about a particular 10-digit number, it could possibly warrant its own article. PrimeFan 19:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: trivial

message: Error: factorization of billion is 2^9 * 5^9
It should be 2(5^9); it is almost too trivial to have I guess. BMF203 (talk) 17:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope.  2^9 5^9 is correct.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Changed "multicellular organisms" to "multicellular eukaryotes", per our article evolution of multicellularity.  Thanks.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: error

message: ::Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and sign your vote with ~~~~
*Support per my reasons above. Voortle 00:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: 1836311903 is listed as a fibonacci prime, but it is in fact divisible by 139.
:You're quite right, anonymous user. 1836311903 = 139 * 461 * 28657, as I've just double-checked with Mathematica. It's still a Fibonacci number, however. I will amend the article accordingly. Thanks for pointing this out. PrimeFan 22:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1836311903 is not a prime number 

message: How bout, 
"About a billion seconds ago the first episode of Saturday Night Live was aired" a billion seconds is 31 years? if so thats 1975! EDIT: whoops forgot sig Triangl 02:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's Saturday Night Live and where is it shown? Isn't this US-centrism? Can you find some other event that the whole world will recognise? Ian Cairns 08:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Also that gets more and more inaccurate with a short amount of time, at least the others are over a great enough time span to make any inaccuracy unimportant. Wheatleya 21:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  a billion seconds ago 

message: I think this...
"In finance, the possession of one billion United States dollars allows one to be ranked among the world's wealthiest individuals."
is not only a strange thing to have in this article (what does it mean by 'allows'?) , but it irrelevant (If I had one dollar less, wouldn't I still be considered weathy?). If there's no objection, I'd like to remove it.
:Well the same could be said about any of the facts (eg)109 - 1 km is still over six times the earth-sun distance. The fact it is wikilinked to a page which gives further details means, IMO, it can stay, though I've taken out the 'allows'. The Yeti 00:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Dollars 

message: If one accepts that the (almost) universal defininition of Billion is the "American" one, however logical/illogical it can said to be,there remains two related issues. 
1) older documents of non-American origin, especially UK/European ones may well have been written using the "British" definition. For accuracy, one needs to be aware that pre early 1970's (a personal approximation) the term would most probably refer to the non-American definition needs to be understood.
2) historical interest and fact should document and acknowledge the alternative definition.
Oxford English Dictionary.
Reference:
http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutwords/billion
The above clearly also affects higher number naming (as the OED notes)
Niceandtidy 13:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is covered in the article :Long and short scales and would be useful here - or linked. Ian Cairns (talk) 14:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical Accuracy 

message: My understanding was the a short scale billion (that which is used in the USA and almost always in the UK nowadays) is 1,000,000,000 and a long scale billion (the traditional billion from British English and most other languages) is 1,000,000,000,000.  But the introduction (until I changed it a minute ago) claimed that they are exactly the same (1,000,000,000).  Surely not otherwise why would they be called 'short scale billion' and 'long scale billion' if they're exactly the same?  I found it very confusing.--Xania talk 00:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Short and Long scale billion 

message: They seem unrelated to the actual subject of the article (1000000000).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2^3x3^2 (talk • contribs) 14:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do the 10-digit numbers belong here? 

message: The one billion page reads as "is the natural number following 999,999,999 and preceding 1,000,000,001", while the fourty-two page reads as "is the natural number immediately following 41 and directly preceding 43." Why the absence (or appearance) of the words "immediately" and "directly"? The numbers pages should have consistency here.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khonkhortisan (talk • contribs) 03:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  42 

message: The description "aping US English" in the first section is political commentary and does not belong in an encyclopedia. But I'm not sure what to replace it with. "Unifying with" sounds somewhat positive to me and could incite people to change it again. Can a native speaker of English decide, please?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tompoko (talk • contribs) 20:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aping 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Billion which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 14:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: A Billionaire has 1,000,000,000,000 or more pounds, dollars, whatever. Therefore Billion is defined by having 12 (not 9) 0's after the 1. It seems that this definition of Billion has been replaced by an AMERICAN definition of Billion, which has only 9 0's after the 1. How are we to teach our children correctly, or even know anything about numbers if our definitions of value are constantly changed?
"After several decades of increasing informal British usage of the short scale, in 1974 the government of the UK adopted it, and it is used for all purposes including official."
We only used it "informally" because we were constantly bombarded by that version from Americans. Thats just one MORE thing the Americans have managed to force on us.
"The original meaning of the word billion is a bit complex. The prefix bi- means two, and the suffix -illion comes from the word million. But the origin of million itself is obscure."
"The original French definition of million-million was adopted by other European countries, notably England and Germany, and spread around the world through European colonialisation."
Case closed, and subject dismissed, I believe. A Billion is one million million, (1,000,000,000,000) and always will be. Any attempt to screw with that fact is pointless! Bluddy americans!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.180.158 (talk) 19:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Millions, Billions and Trillions 

message: The persone above who mentiond Aping...? I am English, and the term "aping" would actually be correct. Unifying would mean a two-way agreement, like both countried came to a mutual understanding, a compromise. Aping means "copying", which is what some did..."informally" apparently. However, just because SOME people decide to copy others, it doesn't mean the rest of us should be forced to...especially against our will. Stupid government!
SOME people like Hitler's ideas, and still copy this "way of life" that he preached...that doesn't mean EVERYONE in the world should do the same...does it?
FRANCE created the billion, and we spread it around a lot. Why does this "new" (american) definition overtake the original? Why dont we just start calling a car a modusbrum and eventually force the world to comply...WHERE DOES IT END?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.180.158 (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aping and Unifying 

message: In the European Union, the abbreviation for milliard is "mrd". This is used even in those papers written in the commonly-used language, English. Please hunt this down and put it on the web page. Also, they use "mio" for million. This is done because the ill is common to both, or something like that. 173.162.253.101 (talk) 21:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  European Abbreviations  

message: According to https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/eon , an eon is a billion years; should it be added? Thanks in advance. --Backinstadiums (talk) 09:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  'eon' 

message: Does this allow for leap years?  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 09:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I am guessing not because the number of leap days will vary over the duration. Years, months and weeks should ideally be converted into weeks. That would still give readers a sense of time. Betty Logan (talk) 11:09, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  1,000,000,000 seconds 

message: Is a trillion  page here? Tinkerbell72311 (talk) 13:21, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The "trillion" pages are at Trillion, depending on which trillion you want. Betty Logan (talk) 15:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: What do you call 1,000,000,000🤔🤨 2402:4000:20C1:D04D:80FA:B4A5:9D54:9560 (talk) 05:45, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Usually, a billion.  Please see the first sentence of the article for other terms. Certes (talk) 10:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

text: See Long and short scales. Dhrm77 (talk) 15:55, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can 

message: 1,023,456,789 is not the smallest number without repeating digits. That would be -9876543210. If we only count whole numbers, it's 0. Should that entry be changed? Qwerty3521 -- Message me here 21:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.  I've clarified it.  I think "smaller" means "closest to zero" here.  –1,023,456,789 is equally small, but I think it's implied that we only consider positive integers. Certes (talk) 22:38, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

text: 1,000,000,000 = 10^9 = 1 trillion 115.98.232.13 (talk) 17:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  1,023,456,789 

message: Tell me more about:
1,000 = 10^3 units = 1 million
1,000,000 = 10^6 units = 1 billion
1,000,000,000 = 10^9 units = 1 trillion
1,000,000,000,000 = 10^12 units = 1 quadrillion
1,000,000,000,000,000 = 10^15 units = 1 quintillion
1,000,000,000,000,000,000 = 10^18 units = 1 hexillion
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 = 10^21 units = 1 septillion
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 = 10^24 units = 1 octillion
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000= 10^27 units = 1 nonillion or 1 nanillion
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000 = 10^30 units = 1 zillion 115.98.232.13 (talk) 18:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: 10^3=thousand 10^6=million 10^9=billion 10^12=trillion 10^15=quadrillion 10^18=quintillion 10^21=sextillion 10^24=septillion 10^27=octillion 10^30=nonillion 10^33=decillion Semen2 (talk) 16:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it depends where you are located. See Long and short scales. Dhrm77 (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  10^6 = 1 billion 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:300 (number) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 19:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress