Talk:Long and short scales

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Minor error?

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)
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 x3 which associates 3 to x*x*x. --Najro 07:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2004 talk

Here is the top line of the table. I removed it because it consumes a large amount of vertical space, and is equally well covered (if not so concisely) by the text I have just merged from Billion.

  Used in:
  • all the world, except the Short Scale countries
 Used predominantly in

English-speaking countries

etc.

and other countries

– Smyth 15:24, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

To precise : is the english terms "long scale" and "short scale" a wikipedia invention? If yes I'd suggest moving the bit that talks about Wikipedia one paragraph up. If no, I'd suggest deleting the sentence about wp.

Removed:

More importantly, the majority of people have no direct experience with manipulating numbers this large, so a significant proportion of lay readers will interpret "billion" as 1012, even if they are young enough to have been taught otherwise at school. Some even extrapolate "trillion" as a (long scale) billion billions (1024) rather than the actual long scale 1018 or the short scale 1012.

I don't see how this follows. Why would someone who didn't now what billion meant choose 1012 but not 109 (or 107 or any other number). Rmhermen 16:38, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

Because 1012 makes a billion "a million million", which is, if you don't know any better, a reasonable follow-up to a million being "a thousand thousand". [[User:Smyth|– Smyth]] 23:13, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Restored, with some rewording. [[User:Smyth|– Smyth]] 15:12, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Removed:

However, many English native speakers continue to believe that this decision – particularly affected by the financial journalism – is neither a good decision nor will be durable.

I don't think this is true. If you have references that support the existence of a mass long-scale movement gathering force, or that the short scale is likely to lose usage any time soon, please provide them.

Inserting sentences that begin "Some people say...." into even vaguely controversial articles is not a great idea. [[User:Smyth|– Smyth]] 23:33, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This article REALLY needs a reference for the UK adoption of the short scale.

[edit] Thousand Million

I'm an Australian, and I work for one of the state governments, and our preferred official way of describing 1,000,000,000 is neither "milliard" nor "billion", but "thousand million". This appears to be long form, but Australia is listed as short form. I cannot vouch for any other states, but if the long form has official status in at least one state, then it can hardly be said that Australia is a short-form country. Therefore, I'm going to edit the article to reflect this.

This whole topic is contentious enough that it would really be best if you tried to find some sources to cite. Your comment made me realize that there are actually two different issues here. Let me ask this question carefully. I am not challenging the truth of your statement, I'm just saying as long as you've raised the issue, could you take it a little farther?
1) Is it possible to reference your statement that it's the preferred official way in your state? I'm sure there's some kind of style manual, maybe even online. Also, why not mention which state?
2) It is perfectly possible to imagine a situation in which "billion" means 109 yet the preferred word for 109 is "thousand million." Could that be the case for Australia? (There is a very parallel situation with the word "milliard" in English generally: it means 109 whenever it is used, but is almost never the word which people choose to use).
3) Are there "Australian" dictionaries or usage guides, that is dictionaries of the English language that are produced by Australians and reflect Australian usage? Some dictionaries in the U.S. are actually entitled "Dictionary of the American language." Could you look up "billion" in one of them and quote it?
I went to www.australia.gov.au and searched for billion. There were 10 hits - all referred to the short scale definition of billion and were related to financial matters. I searched for milliard or thousand million and received no hits. As a result, I reckon that (central) Australian government policy is to use billion - which is short scale, as per the original article before your changes. Ian Cairns 13:06, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I went to my state government website, and did a search. Here is a listing: [1]. Plenty of results for "thousand million". The only other evidence that I can submit to you is that I work in the finance area of one of the departments, and "thousand million" is the commonly understood term, and has been since before I got there. Lankiveil 07:59, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC).
The use of "thousand million" is hardly peculiar to Australia. I have often seen it in British writing, and in American writing among the relatively few Americans cognizant of the fact that there is or ever was a problem.
To me it is also clear that this term includes the frequent use of numbers such as 56,000 million and 132,140 million and the like, in preference to any "billion" or "milliard" or the like.
While the term "thousand billion" is evidence pointing towards long scale usage, the term "thousand million" is not.
The use of "million million" and "thousand million million" are clear evidence of an ambguity which is being avoided. If memory serves me right, one place where a much longer string can be found is in Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time.
Even if within a localized geographical reason an ambiguity has largely been resolved and usage of "billion" and the like is fairly uniform, the use of these avoidance schemes, once established, are likely to persist as long as there is any ambiguity anywhere in the world (including not just in the English language, but other languages as well). And they'd likely continue even beyond that time.
I looked once for evidence of British use of "billion" to mean 109 in any context other than the monetary context, and could find almost nothing. It is possible that billion as 1012 remains the more common form in other contexts even if the Exchequer has changed the definition it uses for monetary numbers.
Gene Nygaard 11:33, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Here's an example from the BBC: This Dynamic Earth "To our eyes the surface of the Earth may seem like a rather static and stable place. However this is not the case. If we were to speed up time so that a billion years passed by in an hour, we would be amazed to see an undulating surface..." etc.
Here's one from the Guardian: Population boom set to stabilise at 9bn by 2300 "...If fertility levels continue to fall, global population will stabilise three centuries from now at around 9 billion - a far less alarming figure than many have been predicting."
I can't judge the predominance of usage, but short-scale billion is being used outside of financial contexts. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:23, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Australian usage

Some official recognition is given in Australia to a variant of the long form system which uses thousand million to mean 109 and billion to mean 1012.

I'd be happier if someone could cite a reference supporting the bold text, otherwise this is a highly misleading statement. In government documents, the popular media and as taught in schools in Australia, 1 billion is 109 in all cases. --kudz75 06:29, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Lankiveil gave this one, above, an indication that the Queensland government frequently uses the phrase. I can't judge just how prevalent it really is in Australia. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:51, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. Looking at the page, thousand million seems to be used when comparing amounts with the common measuring unit in millions, it doesn't seem to say anywhere that a billion is 1012. Amending the article accordingly. --kudz75 01:11, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I tweaked the wording. I changed "short form" to "short scale" to match the rest of the article. I just left out any mention of "thousand million" being a long scale usage, because a thousand million is unambiguously 109 and therefore (this makes my head hurt!) is not unambiguously long scale. So instead of saying "In Australia, some official documents use the long-scale term thousand million" or "In Australia, some official documents appear to use the long-scale term thousand million" I decided to weasel and just say "In Australia, some official documents use the term thousand million". In the next clause, instead of saying "only in cases where two amounts are being compared using a common unit of one million", I thought it was best to weasel by leaving out the word "only" since I don't think anyone knows this to be a fact.
It seems as if it would be sensible and tasteful to use "thousand million" when naming and comparing quantities above and below the neighborhood of 109 but we shouldn't say it's the rule unless someone finds a style guide that codifies this. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:20, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm in my forties. I was taught in (Victorian) primary school that 1,000,000,000 was a thousand million and a million million was a billion. Sometime in the last couple of decades that has changed in Australia. I assumed it was the result of innumerate journalists slavishly following the US practice, as they so often do. If someone can document this change better than my anecdotal story, should it not be included? Avalon 03:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I have *NEVER* heard anywhere by anyone in Australia that they use the short scale. Australia ALWAYS uses the long scale. It is taught in all schools without exception. The short scale is only used in reference to USA and to economics. It is only through Australia's increasingly strong alliance with America (especially since 1991) that it has ever even once been taught in an Australian school. Even today, the vast majority of Australian schools teach long scale. In fact, name one school that teaches short scale in an Australian school. I have never heard of a single one. Is there a source that suggests that they do? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 14:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


I have no experience with editing Wikipedia so forgive me if dumping this info here is a horrendous crime. Zordrac really seems to have bee in his bonnet about short scale never being used in Australia. This may be true in some academic circles, but it certainly is in use elsewhere. Some references for Australian government (state and federal) usage of the term billion to mean 10^9:

Sustainable Energy Authority Victoria – VIC http://www.seav.sustainability.vic.gov.au/glossary.asp

The Long Paddock website – QLD http://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/ClimateChanges/slides/glossary.html

National Pollutant Inventory – Federal http://www.npi.gov.au/epg/npi/contextual_info/glossary.html

Energy Safety – WA http://www.energysafety.wa.gov.au/energysafety/old_stuff/glossary.html

Queensland Treasury Corporation – QLD http://www.qtc.qld.gov.au/internet/pub.nsf/content/Glossary

Environmental Protection Agency – NSW http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/ieo/Murrumbidgee/report-06.htm


A site that calls a thousand million a billion:

RBA – Federal http://search.rba.gov.au/query.html?library=rba&qt=%22thousand+million%22&nh=10&rf=0&col=rba&ht=0&qp=&qs=&qc=&pw=100%25&ws=1&la=en&qm=0&st=1&oq=&rq=0&si=0


Some sites that use both billion and multiples of millions to try to avoid the issue (I talked to people there and that's what they said!):

ABS – Federal http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/D3310114.nsf/home/home

CSIRO – Federal http://www.csiro.au/csiro/search/CSIROau.html?query=%22thousand+million%22&Go=Go&area=all


The one place where the long scale was found:

SafetyLine Institute – WA http://www.safetyline.wa.gov.au/institute/level2/course15/lecture80/l80_10.asp


There are stacks more businesses in Australia that use short scale too. I'd think it's fair to say that short scale is winning the race in Australia, for better or worse. Give me time and I'll probably find not only some schools, but some universities that use short scale too. Oops, here's one that just came in from an email query: Centre for Astrophysics & Supercomputing, Swinburne University of Technology.

144.137.183.101 01:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


I'm in my 40's and was taught (in a Victorian high school 1971 -1976) that long scale was British and short scale was American, but never given an 'Austalian' definition. The term Billion was only used to describe Billionaires, and they were understood to be American. But what interest me is that I was always taught 'after Billion, the two scales were the same' perhaps meaning that there was only one definition of a Trillion, the 'short' definition, but that was never very clear. If we seldom used Billion, we never used Trillion in any context where it needed a definite meaning other than Trillionaire. Note that in general, Vic seemed to stick closer to Fowler than did NSW and Q'ld. -ize spellings were common until the Oxford dictionary was replaced with the Macquarie (NSW), and issues like this only became widely contentious when computers (and FidoNet) gave more people the opportunity to spell and enumerate in public.

[edit] Neologism?

At best, this pair of terms skirts dangerously close to Neologism -- which would be "unencyclopedic", unsuitable for use in this project. It is a terribly thin thread upon which to hang a great deal of cloaked pro-Franco, anti-American bias.

I have not touched the bulk of this questionable content, but I have concentrated part of it within a standard project usage notice. I would like to say, politely, that my tolerance has been stretched to its limit. — Xiong熊talk* 11:28, 2005 May 7 (UTC)
If you can tolerate it the articles with your notices, I for one think that's a good solution. I have no problem with the notices. I'm perfectly happy with them.
I do not agree that the use of these terms represents pro-French bias, any more than the use of actual French words such as "aileron" or "fuselage" or "role" or "envelope" or "disco" (as in discotheque).
I know of no succinct, accurate, neutral, customary English phrases that refer to the two usages. If I did I'd support using them in preference, but I don't. Fifty years ago "American" and "British" would have worked pretty well, but not any more.
On the other hand, the phrases "short scale" and "long scale" were originally introduced and used without explanation in these discussions, and everybody understood immediately what the phrases meant and began using them too. Most discussants just assumed they were perfectly good English phrases. I was the one who figured out that they were not and that they were translations of French phrases.
I would balk at replacing "long scale" with anything clumsy like "the system of numeric names that uses powers of a million" or "the system of names in which 'billion' means 1012" or "1950s British usage." And I would absolutely object to replacing them with something outright inaccurate like "European usage."
Of course if anyone has any alternatives to "short scale" and "long scale" that are short, clear, descriptive, accurate and not equally neologistic, by all means suggest them. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:59, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
Short and clear but, alas, no longer descriptive nor accurate: "American" verses "British", as far as I can tell, still is how the rest of the English speaking world would describe these. I would support a move to use these terms inspite of the fact that the the bulk of speakers of Commonwealth English have gone and Americanised their usage (against logic). Yes, I agree "long scale" and "short scale" are a pair of neologisms. Not quite sure how this is in any way "thin thread upon which to hang a great deal of cloaked pro-Franco, anti-American bias." Jimp 13Oct05
Here is my suggestion for avoiding the neologisms:
jnestorius(talk) 12:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Right, in the face of overwhelming indifference, I propose to make the preceding changes after 72 hours if nobody objects in the interim. Except that milliard should be a straight redirect to 1000000000 (number), not a disambig. jnestorius(talk) 09:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Objection:  Both entries "milliard" and "Long and short scales" are good like they are. Latter one is short, clear, descriptive, accurate and neutral.
-- Paul Martin 13:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I can live with keeping the existing milliard. As regards "Long and short scales": the content of the article is good, it's just the name that needs to be changed. Revised proposal:


Hi Joestynes,
I don't understand why you want to go back to a status quo ante. What you propose is about what we had before User:Dpbsmith created this entry in 2004, Sep. 1.
Even if your analysis is good, that the meaning of the numeral "billion" is the most important, however long and short scale numerals are conceptual.
It transcends the meaning of this or that numeral. This concept has to be exposed in a own and contiguous article, and not arbitrarly with this or another zillion.
--Paul Martin 15:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • "going back" is not always regressive; for example enclave and exclave were recently merged after a vote; they had been split a couple of years ago.
  • I agree that the concept needs its own article, the present article, which is a good one; the proposed change is only to the name of the article. While "billion (word)" is not a perfect name, I think it is preferable to have a little clumsiness, and to emphasise "billion" at the expense of "trillion", "quadrillion", etc., when the alternative is to use (and so give emphasis to) a made-up term. And a non-transparent term at that: the inlinks to the present article are mainly in the clumsy formulation "for more information, see long and short scales." And it is certainly too strong to call the connection between [the concept] and [the word billion] "arbitrary".
  • I agree that "billion" (unqualified) should not be the name of the present article, for this reason: most inlinks to "billion" assume the thousand-million meaning, so making it a disambig will encourage such links to be changed simply (e.g. "India has over a [[billion]] people" to "India has over a [[1000000000 (number)|billion]] people")
  • jnestorius(talk) 11:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone have any further comments, or have I addressed the points of contention? I would still like to move this article. jnestorius(talk) 16:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I strongly object. You have not addressed the chief point of contention, which is that "Billion (word)" is utterly undescriptive and, as an article title, its not better in any way than "Long and short scales."

As a name for the concept, "Billion (word)" is more of an invention. I don't think you can point to any example of anyone using that name to describe the concept.

"Long and short scales" is short, sweet, evocative, easily understood, and is at least a translation of established terminology rather than being a completely new creation.

This article is not about the word billion, but about two different systems for naming a large class of numbers.

I do not see how "Billion (word)" has any advantages at all over the present name. If think there are some better descriptive" names, like

  • Competing sets of definitions for English names of number ending in -illion
  • The systems of number names formerly known as "American" and "British" usage
  • Number naming systems with superbases of 1,000 and 1,000,000
  • Thousands-based and millions-based English number naming systems
  • Three-digit versus six-digit grouping systems for naming large numbers in English

then propose a few, and see whether people think any of them is clearer, or better-established usage, than "Long and short scales."

If there were an established name for this concept, we should use it. I don't think there is, and "Long and short scales" is, at least, a translation of well-known terminology rather than being a completely new invention like "Billion (word)." Dpbsmith (talk) 18:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


I can see I'm not going to get my way here. But nevertheless, some points:
  • I think we agree that an article-name may be either (ideally) a concept-name or (failing that) a concept-description. I think "long and short scales" purports to be a concept-name and as such is a neologism. "Billion (word)" attempts to be an concept-description; it may be vulnerable to charges of being an inadequate description, but it is bogus to call it an "invention" since (I believe) no reader could mistake it for a concept-name.
  • I dispute that "Long and short scales" is "easily understood". It is easily remembered once explained, but it is impossible to deduce its meaning from the name. It is "short sweet and evocative", but only once the context has been explained. I like the term and hope it catches on, but it's not Wikipedia's job to evangelise on its behalf.
  • If you think "billion (word)" is opaque as a description, fair enough. That's grounds for rejecting it. I concede that "billion (word)" is not a perfect name, just as you do for "long and short scales".
    • My thinking is that the central issue in the 2 scales is the difference in meaning of "billion"; all other differences flow from that. The word "milliard" is of lesser importance: plenty of English-speakers who have used or understood "billion" for "million million" would never have used or understood "milliard", preferring "thousand million". Words "trillion", "quadrillion", etc are of increasingly marginal practical relevance.
    • There are a fair number articles with (word) in their name: football (word), praxis (word), Soviet (word), democracy (word), etc.
  • As an aside, looking at your rhetorically-proposed alternative descriptive-names, can I point out:
jnestorius(talk) 10:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


Excuse jnestorius, for not having replied for a long time.
Otherwise, at least one other opinion than the mine was usefull. That's done with Dpbsmith's contribution. I agree with his statements.  --Paul Martin 10:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I dont think billion (word) is the optimal name but now I have created that page and redirected it here.
I dont think the present title is optimal either because the usage of the word scale disagrees with certain mathematical terminology. The mathematical scale is 1 for both long and short "scales". (a=1, short r=1000, long r=1000000). The title should rather be "Long and short common ratio", but that does not sound good either.
How about "American and European numeral systems"? --Najro 09:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Just because a word is used in one way in Math, it does not rule out that it can be used in another way too, as long as the meaning is clear from context. "American" and "European" are incorrect, so why not keep "long and short"? Yes, if you think of the title of this article as a concept defined by this article, it's a neologisms, but we have lots of articles with descriptive titles that are not accused of being neologisms. We need this article, not to help users finding out what "Long and short scales" mean if they come across that somewhere outside of Wikipedia, but as a way of structuring the way information is presented in the Wikipedia, so that we do not need to repeat the same information on pages like billion, billiard, trillion, etc. I do not expect any user to type "Long and short scales" in the search box, but I expect users to follow links to this article from billion etc. --Noe 09:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I would not say that "American" and "European" are incorrect, I would say they are approximate. I think the present title teaches the readers an incorrect meaning of the word scale, and that is not good. However, since I can not read "Histoire comparée des numérations écrites" I have missed the explanation to why the word scale was selected. Guessing again, it might have been that the decimal base in the book is supposed to be raised to the power of 1, 10 = 101, and then the exponent 1 is scaled by 3 or 6, creating "super"bases 103*1 and 106*1. Then the title could be "Long and short scaled base exponent" (which I do not suggest). New suggestion: "-illion numerals". --Najro 15:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] It's no neologism, anymore !

  • 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.

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)


[edit] Italian usage of "billion"

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)
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)

[edit] Long scale vs. short scale?

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)

[edit] Knuth's -yllion

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)

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)

[edit] Mixed usage in British English

If memory serves from my days with free access to the Oxford English Dictionary, modern british usage has adopted shortscale but only up to and including a billion. A trillion and beyond use the long scale. I decided not to edit directly until somebody can check this. Shadebug 17:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

OED2 (i.e. the 1989, most recent version) says billion is "commonly" a million millions in Britain, but "increasingly" a thousand millions in Britain. The identical distinction is drawn for trillion and quadrillion, but not for quintillion, though the word is rare enough that I doubt that that's very informative. Coldchrist 02:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

According to that unreferenced history, 1974 is when Britain changed from long scale to short scale entirely. Its funny really, since I wasn't even born until the next year, yet I have never once heard of short scale being used in any school. Yet apparently since 1974 it has been used in all English speaking countries. Strange that. I've never met anyone who uses short scale, and I know a lot of people younger than me. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 15:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] When the change for Australia

The article says 1974 for when "all English speaking countries" changed to short scale. I was born in 1975. I live in an English speaking country. I have never in my entire life met anyone who uses the short scale. It was not taught at my school. It has not been taught in any other school that I went to (I went to 11 schools in 4 states). The only time that I encountered it was in advanced mathematics in 3rd year university when we were learning about history of mathematics, and also in economics. That's it. Most people I knew thought that Americans were incredibly rich, since they were billionaires - which means having a million million dollars. And that was the case certainly until 1990. It was unheard of before then, other than on American TV shows etc. 1990 was the first mention of the short scale in Australia as anything other than academic interest.

From what I can gather, the change from Australia being wholly long scale to being partially short scale (only with reference to Economics and in certain legal cases) is due to the following reasons:

When it became official for Australia to use short scale in discussing finances was somewhere in that time period. I believe it was around 1997 or 1998. It was used with legal cases sometime after that, I believe 1999.

Australia does not use short scale for mathematics or in general use, and it is not taught in schools. If anyone wishes to suggest that it is, then please provide sources. I note that there is not a single source in this article.

Also, the assertion that "all English speaking countries" use short scale is ludicruous. Traditionally, all British English countries (i.e. every English speaking country aside from USA and Canada) used the long scale. Therefore, it should more correctly state that short scale is used by USA and Canada as the only 2 English speaking countries. From what I can gather, New Zealand and UK are in the same boat as Australia, although they may have changed to partial use of the short scale at different times and for different reasons.

I have not seen a single school in Australia where mathematically "billion" is taught to mean "a thousand million". I have seen the mathematics curriculum for 10 high schools in the past 2 years, and not a single one teaches short scale for mathematics. Indeed, I have never seen short scale taught in a single school in Australia, other than for economics. It is taught as an alternative, yes, but as an American alternative.

I believe that it might be more accurate to describe Australia, UK and New Zealand as either "long scale" countries or else as "mixed" countries, where they use long scale for some things (e.g. counting, mathematics) and short scale for a handful of other things (e.g. finances). To suggest that short scale is in widespread use is somewhat silly. Especially without sources. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 15:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, just an addendum. There is also a 3rd scale, which is sometimes referred to as the "absolute" scale. I was taught about this in Mathematics as well.

Put simply, short scale (used in USA) is thousand million = billion, thousand billion = trillion. That scale I have also heard referred to as the "thousand base scale".

Long scale (used in GB) is million million = billion, million billion = trillion etc. That scale I have also heard referred to as the "million base scale".

The third scale (only used in mathematics and academia) is an absolute scale, and is million million = billion, billion billion = trillion, trillion trillion = quadrillion. It is not used for any practical purpose however, only for academia. Having an interest in Mathematics, I used it quite a lot.

I can remember being taught that when I found out about the American scale (short scale), which was around 1988. That was the first time that I had even heard that it existed.

I personally prefer the absolute scale with counting. Either that, or SI units. But I stick with long scale when forced to, since that's the standard in Australia and I have to be good. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 15:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the article could use more sources. But I'd like to see a source for "absolute scale," because I've never heard of that one. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh I doubt that you've heard of it. Absolute scale is not used anywhere other than as a theoretical term. It shouldn't be included in this article. I think it might be called something else anyway. Its what existed before the British system we now call "long scale". Its totally obsolete. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
For what it's worth, New Zealand usage is the same mess. The only large numbers in frequent discussion are money amounts and with inflation, millions are now small change amongst the prattling class. I had always used (as taught in school) thousand million but most speakers do not bother, they just use billion and grasp for drama thereby. It seemed obvious that a billion should be a million millions, just as a million is a thousand thousands (though annoyingly, a thousand is not a hundred hundreds), and upwards to a trillion being a billion billions, and so on. This gives a non-redundant name scheme for large numbers. Using millions you can count up to nine hundred and ninety-nine thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine of them, and only then advance to a billion. This is rather more interesting than the drab thousand-counting that is associated with the kilo- mega- giga- scale of SI. But dealing with large numbers was obviously too much for young minds to grapple with. For most people the subsequent deluge of US culture washed away faded memories that something might actually not be done the USA way. NickyMcLean 03:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
In any case, looking over the article, I think the two sentences you tagged should go until someone can provide a verifiable source. I've rewritten the first one, because the point is that "American" vs. "British" usage are no longer good ways to refer to short and long scale. And I've snipped the second, because:
a) even if true, it is NOT an event that occurred in 1974 and doesn't belong in the 1974 entry in the list;
b) verifiability policy is clear that the burden of providing evidence is on the contributor. Even if true, now that it's been challenged it should go until someone can find a citation. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Did Harold Wilson really say that?

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: [2] 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)


[edit] Demonstrative arguments for the long scale

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)

At the same site, now, one can read something about hexadeciamal zillion names and universal hexadecimal number names through the million. If anyone is interested to study it...

[edit] Billiard

2:55, 2 January 2006 Shd (→Comparison - there is no such number as billiard)

http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutwords/billion:

In the 'British' system, it would also possible to use 'billiard' for 'thousand billion', 
'trilliard' for 'thousand trillion', etc., but this has not so far caught on.

So I put it back in. -- 62.214.239.104 19:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Puerto Rican Usage

The current article puts Puerto Rico in the list of short scale countries, but then in the text says that the term billón means 1012 there. That would seem to be long scale usage, as in the rest of Latin America. I am familiar with long scale usage in Spanish, but I could imagine that short scale usage could be common in coloquial usage due to the influence of American English there. But I would like confirmation of this fact before making any change to the article. I can imagine that the long scale might be official in Puerto Rico but the short scale might be quite commmon in coloquial usage. Anyone able to confirm this? --imacdonald 23:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jan 18

User:Paul Martin has made several bold changes to the article, with some good ideas. However, some of the grammar needs correcting; some of the facts may be challenged, e.g. status of Puerto Rico vs U.S.; some of the comments are NPOV, e.g. erudite communities, and it would have been useful to discuss these proposed changes first. I've reverted these edits pending further discussion here. Thanks, Ian Cairns 12:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Math rules for the two scales

[edit] Plain text (no info loss on copying)

  • Long scale: 10↑(n×6) = n + -illion
  • Short scale: 10↑((n+1)×3) = n + -illion

[edit] Mathematical notation

  • Long scale: 10^{6n}\, = n + -illion
  • Short scale: 10^{3(n+1)}\, = n + -illion

--88.152.105.240 18:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Superbase of large numbers

Common numbers use base 10, but larger numbers could use a larger base for improved readability. That base is suitable a power of 10, becoming a superbase of 10. Long scale use superbase million, Short scale use superbase thousand. The suffix -illion is clearly connected to a million = 106, so one can say that long scale "owns" this suffix (since 1475). Short scale with base 103 have to use their own suffix, like -sand derived from thousand. One could artificially construct new names of numbers for short scale using this suffix.


Value Base Thousand Notation Base Thousand B. T.
logic		 Gillion System
(base thousand)		 Short Scale
(base thousand
with offset)		 S. S.
logic		 Long Scale
(base million)		 L. S.
logic		 Nicolas Chuquet
Long Scale Notation
(base million notation)
100 = 1 one (103)0 one one (103)1 − 1 one (106)0 1
103 = 1 000 thousand (103)1 thousand thousand (103)1 + 0 thousand 103 * (106)0 1000
106 = 1 000 000 bisand (103)2 million million (103)1 + 1 million (106)1 1' 000000
109 = 1 000 000 000 trisand (103)3 gillion billion (103)1 + 2 thousand million 103 * (106)1 1000' 000000
1012 = 1 000 000 000 000 quadsand (103)4 tetrillion trillion (103)1 + 3 billion (106)2 1' 000000' 000000
1015 = 1 000 000 000 000 000 quintsand (103)5 pentillion quadrillion (103)1 + 4 thousand billion 103 * (106)2 1000' 000000' 000000
1018 = 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 sextsand (103)6 hexillion quintillion (103)1 + 5 trillion (106)3 1' 000000' 000000' 000000


Long scale makes good sense when used with long scale notation. At trillion three groups of zeroes are visible.
Base thousand makes good sense when used with base thousand notation. At "sextsand" six groups of zeroes are visible.
Gillion System makes good sense when used with base thousand notation. At hexillion six groups of zeroes are visible.

The choice between short scale or long scale is the choice of wanting to group digits in groups of three or in groups of six.

One drawback of long scale is that people mix up million with milliard. Maybe better to use the term thousand millions instead of milliard. The purpose of long scale was not to make groups of three digits so terms milliard, billiard,... creates confusion. User:Najro 19:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


Note: Nicolas Chuquet himself actually used an antiquated zillion prime-separator [3]. I allowed me to modify your table in this sens. -- Paul Martin 19:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


Hi user Najro,

  • Your invented "Sand-System" is instructive. It's surely not a way to go in practice, nevertheless it's a good explanation. Bravo Najro.
  • The Gillion system ("gillion" means "giga-million") is I.M.H.O. no solution, since this "-illion" refers to base thousand (?!) :
    Pentillion = 10005. That's not-consistent. Like you said: "The suffix -illion is clearly connected to a million."
  • Because currently Germans, Frenchs and some others more still maintain their decimal comma,
    the BIPM recommands non-breaking spaces for all-thousand-separators.
  • However the modern English decimal point will surely gain; worldwide.
  • The modern long scale notation could be : comma-separators for the zillions and non-breaking spaces for the intermediary thousands.
  • The use of zilliards doen't "create confusion", since one trilliard is million power three-a-half. However, " thousand trillion " is good as well.


"Najro scale": Base thousand Short scale: Base thousand with offset Long scale: Base million
Value Logical
"Najro scale" notation		 Najro
Name		 B. T.
logic		 Logical
short scale notation		 S. S.
Name		 S. S.
logic		 Logical
long scale notation		 L.S.
Name		 L. S.
logic
10 0 =
1
one
 (103)0 1 one (103)1 − 1 1 one (106) 0.0
10 3 =
1, 000
thousand
 (103)1 1 000 thousand (103)1 + 0 1 000 thousand (106) 0.5
10 6 =
1, 000, 000
" bisand "
 (103)2 1, 000 000 million (103)1 + 1 1, 000 000 million (106) 1.0
10 9 =
1, 000, 000, 000
" trisand "
 (103)3 1, 000, 000 000 billion (103)1 + 2 1 000, 000 000 milliard (106) 1.5
10 12 =
1, 000, 000, 000, 000
" quadsand "
 (103)4 1, 000, 000, 000 000 trillion (103)1 + 3 1, 000 000, 000 000 billion (106) 2.0
10 15 =
1, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000
" quintsand "
 (103)5 1, 000, 000, 000, 000 000 quadrillion (103)1 + 4 1 000, 000 000, 000 000 billiard (106) 2.5
10 18 =
1, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000
" sextsand "
 (103)6 1, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000 000 quintillion (103)1 + 5 1, 000 000, 000 000, 000 000 trillion (106) 3.0

-- Paul Martin 13:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


Hi,
I wonder if there is an article about all-thousand-separators somewhere? non-breaking space#Uses? SI#SI_writing_style? Decimal separator#Examples of use? ISO_31-0#Numbers? Decimal#Grouping of digits?

I have collected all the superbases I have found into the article Decimal superbase. --Najro 08:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

More of grouping of digits: Names of numbers in English#Cardinal numbers? Positional notation? Myllion System? Knuth -yllion? --Najro 14:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion: Split long scale section in two

I have a problem with/suggestion about the list of Long scale countries near the bottom of the public page for Long_and_short_scales. That is supposed to be a list of countries, but instead it contains a list of languages. I suggest the following:

  • Change this:

Long scale countries (heading)

Most other countries. Examples: French, Danish and Norwegian milliard... (paragraph text)

  • Into this:

Long scale countries (heading)

Most other countries.(paragraph text)

Examples in different languages (heading)

French, Danish and Norwegian milliard... (paragraph text)

This would enable one to add individual country names to the "long scale" list without having to refer to the usage of a certain language, and it would enable one to add language usage examples even if those languages are commonly used in countries that use the short scale.

Your comments?

I apologise for not formatting my text correctly... I'm rather new to the wikipedia (feel free to format my post for me).

-- leuce 13:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Australian usage

Quote:

In Australia, some documents use the term thousand million for 109 in cases where two amounts are being compared using a common unit of one 'million'.

Isn't that the case in any country using any of the scales? If that's the only case where "thousand million" is used in Australia, it does not deserve mention.--Niels Ø 14:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guitel

The following has just been deleted from Long and short scales/Reference: Guitel (extracts) because it did not qualify as an article in its own right. It was contributed: 2006-01-19 09:16:51 Lucky Luke. -- RHaworth 19:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

After having mentioned the terms échelle longue – échelle courte at the outset (p. 51/52) of her 861 pages comprehending dissertation Histoire comparée des numerations ecrites (English: Comparing history of the written numeration), Paris, Flammarion, 1975, the French mathematician Genevieve Guitel added – in the complements of her work – an entire chapter: Les grands nombres en numération parlée (État actuel de la question); in English: The large numbers in oral numeration (Present state of the question), pages 566-574.


[edit] Who translated who?

This article says : Short scale is the English translation of the French term échelle courte. So it gives the expression that the term was common in french, and was transposed in english. Okay. Problem : the french article says exactly the opposite ! User:86.71.93.12 10:22, 20 August 2006


This English article was created by User:Dpbsmith on 2004 September 1.

The English version of 2005 February 7:

Long scale is the English translation of the French term échelle longue, which designates a system of numeric names in which the word billion means a million millions.

Short scale is the English translation of the French term échelle courte, which designates a system of numeric names in which the word billion means only a thousand millions.

Both systems have been used in France at various times in history.


was translated verbatim by the French User:Jim2k on 2005 February 9 at 01:23.

Échelle longue est traduit dans les pays anglo-saxons par long scale. Termes français à l'origine qui désigne un système de noms numériques dans lequel le mot billion veut dire un million de millions.

Échelle courte est traduit dans les pays anglo-saxons par short scale. Termes français à l'origine qui désigne un système de noms numériques dans lequel le mot billion veut dire seulement un millier de millions.

Les deux systèmes ont été utilisés en France à des époques diverses de l'histoire.


Nine hours later, fr:Utilisateur:Archeos obviously, ignoring this term made this revision which stayed till now.

L'expression Échelle longue est la traduction de l'expression utilisée dans les pays anglo-saxons long scale, expression française à l'origine qui désigne un système de noms numériques dans lequel le mot billion veut dire un million de millions.

L'expression Échelle courte est la traduction de l'expression utilisée dans les pays anglo-saxons short scale, expression française à l'origine qui désigne un système de noms numériques dans lequel le mot billion veut dire seulement un millier de millions.

Les deux systèmes ont été utilisés en France à des époques diverses de l'histoire.


The Guitel reference in the English version was added only on 2006 January 19, by User:Lucky Luke.
This same reference was added in the French article on 2006 July 26 by myself.

While Jim's version said, that the term "échelle longue" is translated in English by "long scale"...
Archeos changed to: "The term échelle longue is the translation of a term used in the Anglo-saxon countries..."
however, also his version mentions "the term is originated French", but without references he can't say more.


  1. I don't think that "the term was common in french". Before the Wikipedia article, perhaps only several hundred or thousand specialists knew and used it.
  2. I don't think that "the french article says exactly the opposite".
  3. Since we have the scientific references, I think, we can continue to use the term with good conscience.

But you are right, the French article must be improved on this topic. Also its title: from "Long scale" only one, to the correct "Long and short scales"!

Paul Martin 17:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


Yes, the name of french article is not right, and a name change is in the pipeline (i asked it a few days ago). So we agree that the expression originated in french and was translated in english, I have corrected the french article accordingly. Raminagrobis.

[edit] History and Re-history

Paul, I've reverted your reversion. I don't think there is any need to repeat historical information more than once in an article. The history table is there for that. The lists underneath were intended to give (and did give) the _current_ position of the various usages. I've attempted in my edits / reverts to give a clear view of the current position of the short scale countries. Adding in subclause after subclause, in particular repeating the various historical positions, is obscuring the information. Please don't get me wrong. I'm not anti your edits - I'm always open-minded towards any edits that add to the value of an article. But clarity also adds to the value of an article. Ian Cairns 22:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ian, the history table gives a short synopsis. For all intents and purposes, it is usual to restate the facts of a synoptic table in the paragraphes. That's good, clear style. However, according to your request, not in "Current usage". (Even if, not seldom, other Australians assert, that the short scale is not their current usage. But the world-wide media-lobby for a common English short scale use – though, against the world entire – presently don't accept these opinions. Thirty years of promoting the short scale would be lost! Impossible!!)
So I put it in "Notes". I hope, now, for you it's more acceptable. In the article, the aspect of the unclear official status was hitherto missing entirely.
Paul Martin 14:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC) PS. Oh, you are right, Ian, also the point of the official status is already inside. I didn't see. I thought, it was only treated in talks. Excuse.


[edit] Arrogant edit

Paul I removed the following section from the article becuaee it is a POV rant. Please justify why you think this is encyclop(a)edic in value. Are there no english links that you could have used instead? Thanks, Ian Cairns 08:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

"Lingua franca In our contemporary world, another important question surrenders by the effective role of the English language as langue véhiculaire, third language. Since the beginning of 20th c. and especially since the 1950s, the English language acquired a de facto status of an international language. In all worldwide exchanges and particularly in sciences, the English language becomes the new lingua franca, playing its adjuvant and very helpful role in worldwide communication.

A serious question arises by the fact that seemingly – currently – the English-speaking countries – or at least its influential parts – got into their's head to use a nomenklatura, which is quasi-unanimously rejected in the world entire. By proceeding in this arrogant manner – more than once in history – an existent domination was lost. Even when this was not expected! "

[edit] Distinguish between the two long scales

There are really two long scales, with either 'million million' or 'billiard'. The two are not distinguished in the article, which is a bit confusing. I have added a bit about this in the intro, pointing out that the actual long scale (million million) is rarely used anymore. And for that reason I've also changed the order in the table. But in the rest of the article it is not always clear which of the two long scales are meant. Is there no terminology to distinguish between the two? I used "long long scale", in which case the other would become "short long scale" but that's not great terminology. :) DirkvdM 07:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

There was / is only one Long Scale, with two usages / words for each of the values. Firstly, the dominant one used in English was: Million, Thousand Million, Billion, Thousand Billion, Trillion, etc. and secondly the one that never really caught on was: Million, Milliard, Billion, Billiard, Trillion, etc. What usage there was of the second kind was interchangeable with the first usage. Saying that there were two scales, but that the only difference between them was the words used is going to confuse. I'll revert your prominance of Milliard, etc. since they were not used / were hardly ever used in English, in favour of the dominant form: Thousand Million, etc. which certainly was used. I'll let other decide whether there were two scales or two forms of the same scale. Ian Cairns 07:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Looking back at it, I was unable to make sense of what it was saying. So, I've removed it here in case further discussion is needed. Ian Cairns 07:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Original text: The long scale is originally based on the French succession of thousandfolds 'mille - million - billion', which then continues alternating with the suffix '-ard'; 'milliard - billiard - trillion - trilliard'. It is, however, named after the usage of terms like 'thousand million' for 'billion'. Thus, there are two versions of the long scale, of which one is not long at all. The actual long long scale is not used anymore in languages other than English.

Maybe that wasn't written too well. But there really are two long scales and the term logically applies to the use of 'thousand million' (what else could it mean?). So there should at least be a mention of that and in the rest of the article it should be mentioned which of the two are meant. The last isn't true. In Spanish the 'long long scale' is also used. But the Spanish Wikipedia uses Billón for 1012. To confuse matters, my Dutch-Spanish dictionary gives 'billón' for 'biljoen' (long scale), but for 'miljard' it gives 'billón, millar de cuentos, mil millones'. So billón can have two meanings in Spanish? (¿¡And 'millar' doesn't mean 'millard' but 'thousand'!?) Better not make any more such (too strong) claims about other languages without a good source. Btw, this confusion between the scales must have led to some serious misunderstandings, or else it eventually will in this globalising world.
Anyway, other than that, I don't see what is unclear about the text. DirkvdM 07:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Please can you be specific. Is this Long Long Scale (LLS) used other than in Spanish? If only Spanish, then that needs to be said. We also need citations for its existence, and where it is used. Where does this LLS come from? What values does it have - I'm still not sure? If it is used in English, which I can't confirm at all, is it simply the Long Scale with Milliard in place of Thousand Millions, etc? I would call that the same Long Scale with alternative wording for the values. That wouldn't seem to be a different scale at all. Perhaps there are differences somewhere? Thanks, Ian Cairns 07:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/o/n/Talk%7ELong_and_short_scales_9c97.html"