Talk:101 (number)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Numbers, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative and easy-to-use resource about numbers. Suggestions for improving multiple articles on numbers and related subjects should go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers.

Oh dear, what to say about this? One hundred and one is improper English; it should be simply One hundred one. Unfortunately this mistake has been carried over into all the following numbers. --Eequor 14:30, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Oh dear. No it isn't improper English. It is English as spoken by the English. See talk:1001 (number) talk:102 (number) etc..

Ugh. It's an unsightly misuse of and, especially in such constructions as one-hundred-and-first. And needlessly separates the number into a list when it should be kept whole. Perhaps this indicates a need for separate uk. and us. editions of Wikipedia, rather than pretending English is a single language. --Eequor 18:12, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well I'm afraid that this is merely your subjective opinion, to my ear (and I think most Britons) someone saying "one hundred one" sound weird and like a foreigner with a poor grasp of the language. Mintguy (T) 10:04, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)~

It's worth pointing out that the English language article claims:

English has lingua franca status, due to the military, economic, scientific, political and cultural influence of the United States of America and to a lesser extent that of the United Kingdom.

There's an argument in there that American English is the dominant form and should be given preference, but that's just POV and US-centric besides. --Eequor 18:24, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It should be changed because - I think if the British Empire had collasped after the American revolution, I suspect that Spanish or French would have become the lingua franca. Mintguy (T)

[edit] Ambiguity in first paragraph

It currently says "101 is the smallest number requiring thirteen letters in English." As far as I've understood, this could mean two things.

1. 101 is the smallest number of those which require thirteen letters, in English.
2. 101 is the smallest number in that it requires thirteen letters, in English. (in this case, the original sentence would need a comma, but there's already missing another comma so I guess the author didn't use punctuation.)

I think we should find a proper way to write this. I don't know what the correct statement is, so I can't rewrite it :).

--MathiasRav 16:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the paragraph means to say: 101 is the smallest number of those which require thirteen letters, in English.

"One hundred one" (101) = 13 letters. "Two hundred one" (201) = 13 letters but a bigger number. And there are numbers requiring less letters than 13, so it can't mean the second statement.

Anyway, I wouldn't know if 101 is really the smallest number of all numbers with 13 letters. There needs to be a source given for this statement. I don't know if this can be found in the book from the "Reference" section (Wells, D. The Penguin Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Numbers London: Penguin Group. (1987): page 133). And what about negative numbers? Does "minus" count to the amount of letters? Bisco 20:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

101 is the smallest number requiring thirteen letters in English is false. Counterexamples include negative seven (-7), minus nineteen (-19), seven over nine (7/9), and one point seven (1.7). Of course one can modify the original statement to say smallest non-negative integer and go back to the linguistic debate. -- 17:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 101 - the basics

Does anybody know why 101 is used to indicate that basic information on a topic will be provided? Haven't found anything on that phrase's origin.

Right, I came here to ask that same question. One would expect 102 or 201 to be the next level up. I asked this at the humanities ref desk. DirkvdM 08:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Like DirkvdM I came here for the answer to this question - I thought this page would be 101 101, so to speak. My theory, awaiting confirmation, is that it comes from the course numbering used in US higher education; the first 1 refers to a 1st year course, and the 01 indicates that it is the first of these, thus the most basic. Makes sense? Moletrouser (talk) 11:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Possibly first chapter, fist section. Often used to explain the basics of what is to come.. Not sure though, I came here for an ansver. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.217.160.189 (talk) 10:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What's the British spelling rule?

OK, I definitely don't want to get into an argument over which of British/American is correct or better, as they did above. But as an American, I want to learn what the British rule for inserting "and" is. Every time after "N hundred ..."? Do you do it for thousands, too -- one thousand and one? Millions and up? Do you do it for every grouping, like "one million and one thousand and one hundred and one"? I'm genuinely curious.

British English and American English have nothing to do with it. The only way of writing 101 is one hundred one', I fully accept that it is not widely used, but it does not make it less true.

Hi totally-missing-the-point dude. I thought I made it clear that I do *not* want to discuss correctness here. I want to find out when people (be they British, illiterate, space aliens, whoever) say "and", what the rule is. If you want to argue about correctness again, start another thread, please.

I am not your 'dude', please try to remain polite.

On one hand you ask for the rule "... what the rule is." and on the other you to discuss correctness, "I do *not* want to discuss correctness here.", make up your mind. Unless you mean something else by correctness.

As I said, the rule is fairly simple, you cannot use "and" in English for numbers 100 to 999. In fact you cannot use it between 0 and 999, this is why we say 'twenty one' and not 'twenty and one'. And that's the rule, full stop.

But in the UK, (and South Africa as far as I know), we use 'and'. So to answer your original question, in the UK, (and a few other countries), people say 'One hundred and one' but there is no 'British rule' as such. FFMG 18:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Saying the "only way" implies you are an authority over all things language. I shan't resort to sarcasm but this is really a bit over the top. It is standard practice to use "and" in numbers over 100 in British English, e.g. "Four hundred and ninety-nine", "One thousand, four hundred and ninety-nine", etc. The only time you'll hear it without any "and" is in retail, where it is becoming more common to say "four-nine-nine" or "one-four-nine-nine" for the above examples. All you keep doing is saying "I'm right, you're wrong", and you're getting close to falling into proof by assertion. The article is fine as it is and barely mentions the British phrasing - I don't see what's worth getting so worked up about. Let it lie and enjoy some peace at Christmas time. Onesecondglance (talk) 09:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are on about. I never implied that I was an authority, I replied to the OPs. This is the talk page, not the article so I don't need to reference everything I say.

So, at the risk of repeating myself, we say 'twenty seven', 'forty five' and not 'twenty and seven' or 'forty and five'. The same applies to 101 and so on.

If you are not happy with that point of view then you are welcome to give your own understanding of the rule.

Why do you want to change the article? I, (or the OP), never asked to change the article.

So I am not sure why you are even trying to revive an old, (small), discussion. Maybe this is nothing more than trolling?

Anyway, have a great Christmas. FFMG (talk) 11:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to change the article - in fact, if you read my post you can see I want to leave it as it is - but not get biased toward one opinion or other. I was actually just giving a reply to the question that was actually asked in this topic, whereas you have repeatedly just assumed that because you say one thing, this is correct over all others. There's no rule as such since this is a regional variation. BTW, I am no more a troll than you are a sock puppet. Merry Christmas anyway. Onesecondglance (talk) 09:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, you lost me, you mentioned changing article not me.

You make an assertion to disprove my assertion.

You never answered the OP, what on earth makes you think you did?

You obviously have no clue what a sockpuppet is.

Anyways, this is going nowhere and I hate taking troll bait more than I have to, take care. FFMG (talk) 10:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't have the patience to argue with you. You're being deliberately antagonistic... hmm, like a troll. Don't bother replying to this, I shan't anymore.Onesecondglance (talk) 12:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)