Talk:2091: Million, Billion, Trillion - Revision history

2.98.65.8 at 21:37, 13 October 2025

2025-10-13T21:37:07Z

2.98.65.8 at 21:28, 13 October 2025

2025-10-13T21:28:28Z

2.98.65.8 at 21:21, 13 October 2025

2025-10-13T21:21:30Z

2001:4C4E:1C08:A700:6509:1E47:400D:BF05: 1000000000000000

2025-10-13T20:52:58Z

1000000000000000

172.68.102.XXX: Blanked the page

2023-04-24T06:16:27Z

Blanked the page

172.71.154.5 at 06:15, 24 April 2023

2023-04-24T06:15:34Z

162.158.203.26: arguing

2021-06-23T11:34:25Z

arguing

Paralyzoid at 17:49, 29 July 2019

2019-07-29T17:49:49Z

NiceGuy1 at 03:59, 26 January 2019

2019-01-26T03:59:28Z

172.68.144.157 at 04:32, 24 January 2019

2019-01-24T04:32:43Z

@@ Line 50: / Line 50: @@
 What about quadrillions (and beyond)? Does the trend of the perceived size decreasing by less and less continue, or the perceived size stays approximately the same, or does it increase? [[Special:Contributions/2001:4C4E:1C08:A700:6509:1E47:400D:BF05|2001:4C4E:1C08:A700:6509:1E47:400D:BF05]] 20:52, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
-:I personally tend to overthink quadrillions and beyond, to the extent of leaving myself only capable of comparing numbers explicitly described in the same terms. With billions and trillions, I ''might'' have a basic clue as to whether they're quoting short-scale or long-scale '-illions' (and they're 'only' factors of a thousand/a million different), but further beyond that the potential inconsitency gets absolutely absurd, with a thousand-million(/milliard, or 'billion' for those who use the far less justifiable naming system). You've really got to start using some form of powers-of-ten notation by then (even if not before).
+:I personally tend to overthink quadrillions and beyond, to the extent of leaving myself only capable of comparing numbers explicitly described in the same terms. With billions and trillions, I ''might'' have a basic clue as to whether they're quoting short-scale or long-scale '-illions' (and they're 'only' factors of a thousand/a million different), but further beyond that the potential inconsitency gets absolutely absurd, with a thousand-million(/milliard, or 'billion' for those who use the far less justifiable naming system) just for whatever the quadrillion might mean. You've really got to start using some form of powers-of-ten notation by then (even if not before).
 :On the other hand, when I was still learning about large numbers, I was under the impression that "a thousand thousands is a million (correct), a million millions is a billion (correct, at least to my current preferd scale), a billion billions is a trillion (no!), ...etc". Based upon ''that'' impression, every actual number-name (upon either basis) is drastically under-valued from all my original expectations. [[Special:Contributions/2.98.65.8|2.98.65.8]] 21:21, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:28, 13 October 2025
Line 50:		Line 50:

	What about quadrillions (and beyond)? Does the trend of the perceived size decreasing by less and less continue, or the perceived size stays approximately the same, or does it increase? [[Special:Contributions/2001:4C4E:1C08:A700:6509:1E47:400D:BF05\|2001:4C4E:1C08:A700:6509:1E47:400D:BF05]] 20:52, 13 October 2025 (UTC)		What about quadrillions (and beyond)? Does the trend of the perceived size decreasing by less and less continue, or the perceived size stays approximately the same, or does it increase? [[Special:Contributions/2001:4C4E:1C08:A700:6509:1E47:400D:BF05\|2001:4C4E:1C08:A700:6509:1E47:400D:BF05]] 20:52, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
−	:I personally tend to overthink quadrillions and beyond, to the extent of leaving myself only capable of comparing numbers explicitly described in the same terms. With billions and trillions, I ''might'' have a basic clue as to whether they're quoting short-scale or long-scale '-illions' (and they're 'only' factors of a thousand/a ~~nillion~~ different), but further beyond that the potential inconsitency gets absolutely absurd, with a thousand-million(/milliard, or 'billion' for those who use the far less justifiable naming system). You've really got to start using some form of powers-of-ten notation by then (even if not before). [[Special:Contributions/2.98.65.8\|2.98.65.8]] 21:21, 13 October 2025 (UTC)	+	:I personally tend to overthink quadrillions and beyond, to the extent of leaving myself only capable of comparing numbers explicitly described in the same terms. With billions and trillions, I ''might'' have a basic clue as to whether they're quoting short-scale or long-scale '-illions' (and they're 'only' factors of a thousand/a million different), but further beyond that the potential inconsitency gets absolutely absurd, with a thousand-million(/milliard, or 'billion' for those who use the far less justifiable naming system). You've really got to start using some form of powers-of-ten notation by then (even if not before).
		+	:On the other hand, when I was still learning about large numbers, I was under the impression that "a thousand thousands is a million (correct), a million millions is a billion (correct, at least to my current preferd scale), a billion billions is a trillion (no!), ...etc". Based upon ''that'' impression, every actual number-name (upon either basis) is drastically under-valued from all my original expectations. [[Special:Contributions/2.98.65.8\|2.98.65.8]] 21:21, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:21, 13 October 2025
Line 50:		Line 50:

	What about quadrillions (and beyond)? Does the trend of the perceived size decreasing by less and less continue, or the perceived size stays approximately the same, or does it increase? [[Special:Contributions/2001:4C4E:1C08:A700:6509:1E47:400D:BF05\|2001:4C4E:1C08:A700:6509:1E47:400D:BF05]] 20:52, 13 October 2025 (UTC)		What about quadrillions (and beyond)? Does the trend of the perceived size decreasing by less and less continue, or the perceived size stays approximately the same, or does it increase? [[Special:Contributions/2001:4C4E:1C08:A700:6509:1E47:400D:BF05\|2001:4C4E:1C08:A700:6509:1E47:400D:BF05]] 20:52, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
		+	:I personally tend to overthink quadrillions and beyond, to the extent of leaving myself only capable of comparing numbers explicitly described in the same terms. With billions and trillions, I ''might'' have a basic clue as to whether they're quoting short-scale or long-scale '-illions' (and they're 'only' factors of a thousand/a nillion different), but further beyond that the potential inconsitency gets absolutely absurd, with a thousand-million(/milliard, or 'billion' for those who use the far less justifiable naming system). You've really got to start using some form of powers-of-ten notation by then (even if not before). [[Special:Contributions/2.98.65.8\|2.98.65.8]] 21:21, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:52, 13 October 2025
Line 48:		Line 48:
	[https://xkcd.com/1162/ Log scales are for quitters who can’t find enough paper to make their point ''properly''.]		[https://xkcd.com/1162/ Log scales are for quitters who can’t find enough paper to make their point ''properly''.]
	[[User:Paralyzoid\|Paralyzoid]] ([[User talk:Paralyzoid\|talk]]) 17:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)		[[User:Paralyzoid\|Paralyzoid]] ([[User talk:Paralyzoid\|talk]]) 17:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
		+
		+	What about quadrillions (and beyond)? Does the trend of the perceived size decreasing by less and less continue, or the perceived size stays approximately the same, or does it increase? [[Special:Contributions/2001:4C4E:1C08:A700:6509:1E47:400D:BF05\|2001:4C4E:1C08:A700:6509:1E47:400D:BF05]] 20:52, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 <!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.-->
-Salve o popolo d'eroi Salve o Patria immortale Son rinati i figli tuoi Con la fede e l'ideale<br>
-Il valor dei guerrieri La vision dei pionieri La vision dell'Alighieri Oggi brilla in tutti i cuor<br>
+I actually think we have ''too many names'' for large numbers. It's really only necessary to introduce a new name when you reach the ''square'' of the previous name. So, we'd still have tens and hundreds, but there's no need for "one thousand, one hundred" when you can just have "eleven hundred". We'd be better off just naming 10^4, 10^8, 10^16, 10^32, and that's already well beyond anything needed for normal usage, with only a handful of names. None of this "quattuordecillion" stuff that no-one can remember without sitting down and working it out. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.86.64|172.68.86.64]] 05:32, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 : And what you get is a super-weird "double-log" scale! The British (and other nations') usage is correct. Anything above thousand is completely abstract for a human being and intuitively nonlinear (some nations - ancient Greeks and others - go as far as ten thousands, a myriad, but this is it). A thousand squared is already far beyond intuition so it is a good candidate for a new unit representing A BIG NUMBER, plus log scale is a good abstraction allowing for rapid expansion in magnitude. So taking Latin numerals and adding an -illion suffix (except the irregular million) for subsequent powers of 10^6 is a really convenient system. Of course, it goes only as far as ordinary Latin numbers go, then you need to invent something else, but at this point it's only for entertainment. For anything physical you probably would never need a number much larger than a googol. -- [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.90|162.158.90.90]] 09:26, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:34, 23 June 2021
Line 19:		Line 19:

	I said this earlier, and I'm going to say it again - the split between use of the short scale and the long scale is NOT a U.S. thing, nor an Atlantic Ocean thing! Just navigate to the hyperlinked page on Wikipedia, and scroll down to the graphic map showing who uses which system to see this very clearly. The majority of the globe uses the short scale except for the following regions: Europe other than Britain, Iran, some countries in Africa, and some countries in Latin America and South America, as well as French speaking regions in otherwise short-scale countries. Notable non-U.S. short-scale countries include Russia and Australia, along with Eastern South America and most of Africa. It's frustrating when people insist on making something about those U.S.A. people that has nothing to do with us. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht\|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht\|talk]]) 14:51, 28 December 2018 (UTC)		I said this earlier, and I'm going to say it again - the split between use of the short scale and the long scale is NOT a U.S. thing, nor an Atlantic Ocean thing! Just navigate to the hyperlinked page on Wikipedia, and scroll down to the graphic map showing who uses which system to see this very clearly. The majority of the globe uses the short scale except for the following regions: Europe other than Britain, Iran, some countries in Africa, and some countries in Latin America and South America, as well as French speaking regions in otherwise short-scale countries. Notable non-U.S. short-scale countries include Russia and Australia, along with Eastern South America and most of Africa. It's frustrating when people insist on making something about those U.S.A. people that has nothing to do with us. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht\|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht\|talk]]) 14:51, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
		+
		+	: While you are right that these passages are misleading, you appear to misinterpret the graphic you mentioned (which makes your comment misleading). Maybe Antarctica has fooled you but the split is not lopsided the way you claim. Basically all of Latin/South America uses the long scale except for Brazil, Guyana, Belize, and a dozen and a half small Caribbean islands. As the short scale plus milliard is a hybrid form, counting them to either side is insensible (and especially ludicrous since the common usage rarely extends to numbers where the difference to the long scale becomes apparent; so if anything, they are rather using the long scale). But even if we disregard them, the countries where the long scale is used outnumber and outman those using the short scale. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.203.26\|162.158.203.26]] 11:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

	: Even the line containing the "In Britian" hyperlink does NOT say what the linked page actually states - that Britain uses the short-scale now, although they used the long-scale quite some time ago (before 1974). [[User:Ianrbibtitlht\|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht\|talk]]) 14:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)		: Even the line containing the "In Britian" hyperlink does NOT say what the linked page actually states - that Britain uses the short-scale now, although they used the long-scale quite some time ago (before 1974). [[User:Ianrbibtitlht\|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht\|talk]]) 14:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:49, 29 July 2019
Line 43:		Line 43:

	Something not mentioned, and I think is relevant, is that part of the problem with the dashed regions is HOW you say the number. "500 million" might feel like more than 1 billion, because of the stated 500-vs-1 phenomenon, but someone might also say it as "half a billion", which would clearly feel like less (half is less than 1). And these dual terms don't appear until after the 100 mark - nobody would say "a tenth of a billion" or any smaller fraction. I'll leave this here a while, and if I think of it later I may add it to the description. [[User:NiceGuy1\|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1\|talk]]) 03:59, 26 January 2019 (UTC)		Something not mentioned, and I think is relevant, is that part of the problem with the dashed regions is HOW you say the number. "500 million" might feel like more than 1 billion, because of the stated 500-vs-1 phenomenon, but someone might also say it as "half a billion", which would clearly feel like less (half is less than 1). And these dual terms don't appear until after the 100 mark - nobody would say "a tenth of a billion" or any smaller fraction. I'll leave this here a while, and if I think of it later I may add it to the description. [[User:NiceGuy1\|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1\|talk]]) 03:59, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
		+
		+	[https://xkcd.com/1162/ Log scales are for quitters who can’t find enough paper to make their point ''properly''.]
		+	[[User:Paralyzoid\|Paralyzoid]] ([[User talk:Paralyzoid\|talk]]) 17:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:59, 26 January 2019
Line 41:		Line 41:

	Comic No. 558, https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/558:_1000_Times is directly related to this one.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.133\|162.158.154.133]] 08:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)		Comic No. 558, https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/558:_1000_Times is directly related to this one.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.133\|162.158.154.133]] 08:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
		+
		+	Something not mentioned, and I think is relevant, is that part of the problem with the dashed regions is HOW you say the number. "500 million" might feel like more than 1 billion, because of the stated 500-vs-1 phenomenon, but someone might also say it as "half a billion", which would clearly feel like less (half is less than 1). And these dual terms don't appear until after the 100 mark - nobody would say "a tenth of a billion" or any smaller fraction. I'll leave this here a while, and if I think of it later I may add it to the description. [[User:NiceGuy1\|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1\|talk]]) 03:59, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:32, 24 January 2019
Line 40:		Line 40:


−	Comic No. 558 ~~'1000 Times'~~ is directly related to this one.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.133\|162.158.154.133]] 08:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)	+	Comic No. 558, https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/558:_1000_Times is directly related to this one.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.133\|162.158.154.133]] 08:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)