Talk:Billion/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Meaningless Phrase

I found this phrase to be useless:

The original meaning, since the beginnings of modern times, is...

"The original meaning" is more clear in meaning, while "since the beginnings of modern times" is somewhat redundant and a lot more vague. If it was the original meaning, then we could assume that it has been since the "beginnings of modern times," whatever that means. When was "the beginnings of modern times?" A hundred years ago? A thousand years ago? Last week? Where/when/by whom was the word coined? What information am I supposed to obtain from this phrase? Or why not just omit the meaningless phrase altogether?

--68.77.118.13 03:21, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Untitled/Misc

!!!!!ETHNOCENTRISM ALERT!!!!!! There are too many European languages mentioned in this article. Please add more diversity and/or multiculturalism.

Given that most English speaking countries, including USA, Britain, Australia, Canada have adopted the US usage. It only makes sense that, in Wikipedia, an English encyclopedia, we follow the U.S. convention: one billion equals one thousand millions. The alternative to such convention is to avoid using this ambiguous term all together.

I do hate ambiguous terms. However, I wasn't aware the the the other English speaking countries had standardized on the Yankee terminology. This will be useful info for the future. Thank you! --maveric149

I don't think the other english countries had standarized to use the US value for billion. Please provide references if that is really true. Also it would be good to have in mind that English is THE international language. Similar words like "billon" in spanish, or "billion" in french, means 10^12, and these languages are getting into the ambiguety now. While all these languages have a similiar word to milliard to say one thounsand million.

I'm sure I heard somewhere that the French adopted the US billion before the British did. Does anyone know anything about this? -- Stewart
The other way 'round. The US adopted the French version. The French later came to their senses and reverted to the original version (which was also theirs) but it was too late: the seeds of this madness were already sown. Jimp 04:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The origin of the word is bi (twice) million (million), one million million, 2*6=12 zeroes.

And the problem is if we use billion for 10^9 ¿what should we use for 10^12? The whole numbering system breaks!! -- dax5

The UK officially uses the US Billion for treasury reports. In other usages either the US or the international billion can occur. I would always say "thousand million" or "US billion" in the UK, as this is the only way to avoid confusion. Whereas I agree that it makes sense for the WikiPedia to use the US billion (where exponential notation is not practical), I think it should explicitly say "US billion" wherever it is used, or many people will be confused. See http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/large.html for more info. -- Chris Q 12:02 Oct 3, 2002 (UTC)

Please see my discussion of Names for Large Numbers. -- Stephen001

The main point is that Milliard is not ambiguous. Why do you prefer using US billion? Some kind of the American nationalism?
I suppose, then, that color being the article, rather than colour must be some sort of discrimination against United Kingdom citizens... what are those called, anyway, United Kingdomese? ugen64 00:25, Dec 25, 2003 (UTC)
British, perhaps? Jugalator
I'm surprised that a United Stasean like ugen64 would be confused. Andy G 19:12, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
No more than any United Kingdomian would be. --mav 05:38, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)


The citation from Nicolas Chuquet is wrong. He defined billion = 10^12, see http://www.miakinen.net/vrac/nombres#lettres_zillions (french) An explanation for the mis-citation might be here http://www.heise.de/tp/deutsch/inhalt/co/17069/1.html (german)

Already fixed while I had typed this --pkl, 30 Mar 2004
Ok, but now the History part does not make sense because there is apparently no conflict between Chuquet's system (billion=10^12) and Pelletier's system (milliard=10^9, billion=10^12). Who introduced billion=10^9 then?? --Gdm 11:14, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)


Also, according to http://www.linguistlist.org/issues/7/7-451.html in Italian and Russian the 10^9-system is used with the exception that "billion" is used as a less frequent synonym of "milliard". --Gdm 11:14, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I removed

This is also the convention adopted by Wikipedia.

as I don't believe it's true. According to the Manual of Style, this is one of the words to avoid in Wikipedia. I am not aware of any policy saying a billion is always 109 in Wikipedia. Angela. 17:08, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, you just deleted it. The statement that Wikipedia uses "Billion" in the sense of 109 has been in this article for a long time and I think it remains very important. There are many articles linking to "Billion"; some of them talk about the different usages, but many others use the term in the sense of 109 without saying so. It is then important that people who click on the billion link are told what the term means in Wikipedia, precisely because of its very ambiguity: the most likely reason they clicked on the link in the first place is to find out: "what do they mean with a billion?". I agree that it would be preferable to avoid the word altogether, and I added that to the article. But that alone won't help the hapless surfer who comes here from George_W._Bush or from Big Bang. AxelBoldt 08:39, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Why do americans try to rape us with the imperial system. Nothing makes sense - How many miles is 1 yard?? How many feet is 1 mile,... c'mon... adopt the international metric system and make your life easier. English world is no more technology leader. 1 billion is (1.000.000)^2, trillion is (1.000.000)^3 and so on...

True or false??

True or false: there are still plenty of English speakers (in no particular country on earth) who still think that the proper meaning of this word is 10^12. 66.245.90.177 14:34, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm sure that's true, since a) it was certainly true in the 1960s and many people alive then are still living, and b) AHD4, particularly significant since it's an American dictionary, gives it as one of the meanings for "billion" with the comment "chiefly British."
By the way, Anthere tells me that in France, the customary phrase for 1012 is "mille milliards," precisely because it is unambiguous. I was going to say something about this in the article--a query to a USENET newsgroup on French society and culture seems to confirm it--but I'm still puzzled by the fact that Googling, restricted to French-language pages only, on "mille milliard" and "mille milliards" generates far fewer hits than "billion." Perhaps it's colloquial spoken usage and not formal written usage.
But, where are you going with this? Common sense says that people who wish to be understood internationally and cross-culturally should avoid using the word "billion," and, conversely, people reading international and cross-cultural material need to be alert that "billion" has two meanings and the correct one must be determined by context. There's no point in fussing about it, the word will always be ambiguous. Even if the entire world were to get together on this, there will always be the issue of quotations. I mean, you're not going to pretend that Carl Sagan said "Thousands of millions and thousands of millions." (Yes, I know he never actually said it...)
By the way, when I looked up the entry in Fowler where he recommended that the British adopted American usage, he may have answered a question that had always puzzled me, namely, what's so "two"-ish about 109 or "threeish" about 1012? He's suggesting that an (American) "billion" is "one thousand multiplied by itself twice." Dpbsmith 16:31, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Let's follow through on that logic. Three is one added to itself twice. Hence three is twoish. Similarly four is one added to itself thrice and thus threeish. In general any integer, n, greater than one is one added to itself n-1 times. Thus for all intergers, n, such that n>1, n is (n-1)ish. One thousand million is no more twoish than three: calling it a billion is an afront to logic but, alas, it seems we're stuck with it. It is a nice way of remembering what American large number names mean though. I suggest the Americans adopt British usage ... a snow flake's hope in Hell. Jimp 25Nov05
You'll need to disambiguate the term "British usage" - is this current usage, as per the Government and BBC, or traditional usage? Ian Cairns 08:23, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Traditional. Jimp 26Nov05

Value of one billion!

I am British and Australian, a scientist, engineer and teacher. Reading the current article I am surprised to find that it suggests that British and Australian usage of the word billion now follows the American usage of the word! Sorry, not so. In both the UK and Australia (and many other English speaking countries I have worked in) the American billion 10^9 is only used when referring to money values - all other usage including science, maths, engineering, construction, surveying, mapping, teaching.... etc, uses the correct value of 10^12.

Jed aus

I'm not surprised. This is an interesting point that is well worth having in the article. But can you provide a reference for this other than your own experience? A scientific journal style sheet, for example? (I would have thought that in science and engineering the word "billion" would simply be avoided altogether in favor of metric prefixes and exponential notation).
I've been tinkering occasionally on this article and Names of large numbers and have found it surprisingly difficult to track down actual usage. For example, at least some French-speakers I've consulted say that 1012 is always referred to as "mille milliards" rather than "billions," but reference books don't seem to mention this. Similarly most dictionaries say that "milliard" is a perfectly good English word for 109, but I have never heard an English-speaking person make use of it either in speech or in writing. Similarly Chuquet, who is sometimes cited as the originator, or at least the codifier of the names ending in -illion apparently refers to billion as meaning 109 and 1012 in two different places within the same work.
Given the great complexity of the topic, I wish you could bring yourself to avoid referring to 1012 as the "correct" value. Both British and American usage both derive from the French—at different periods in history! And no less an authority than Fowler's Modern English Usage recommends using "billion" to mean 109.
If it is true (as you suggest) that British financial usage is different from usage in other fields, and if it is also true that French usage changed as recently as 1948, all I can say is that the words billion, trillion, etc. are all but useless due to ambiguity and that arguing about their correct value is an utterly sterile debate. Dpbsmith 12:51, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I disagree with the hard-and-fast division into "English" and "non-English" in the Billion and Trillion (which is too definite IMO) articles, (but agree the accepted Wikipedia value should be the US one). Here is why.

My Collins English-German dictionary, third edition, purchased in England 1997, has this entry:

Trillion n (Brit) Trillion f; (US) Billion f.

Now the Trillion referred to is the German for 1 followed by 18 zeroes, and Billion is the German word for 1 followed by 12 zeroes. My few German acquaintances tell me they know this difference between the British and American (US) usage of "Trillion". Similarly for Billion. Also I did once hear an English-speaking person use "milliard", I had to ask them what it was! They (a well educated but non-British person) thought it was a common English word.

My Cassell's English-Italian dictionary, admittedly an old 1985 edition, makes the same distinction in this way:

Billion Bilione (English, 1,000,000,000,000; Amer. 1,000,000,000)

Similar distinction for Trillion. Neither divides the usage into "English" and "non-English", speaking or otherwise.

Admittedly current usage in the United Kingdom is either confusion or has adopted the American (US) usage. This has certainly been the case in the financial industry. I was taught the 'old' British usage of both terms in a school run by Americans in a British colony (helps to pass the British exams).

The www.unc.edu link in Talk:Trillion above explains this, so I feel the articles should reflect this admittedly ambiguous difference. I tend to clarify when speaking English to well-educated non-British Europeans (who are aware of the problem with Billion and Trillion), as to exactly which I am using ("American" or "British") to make it clear.

Having said all that I'm not sure what's best: American and non-American; English and non-English; British and American (how the dictionaries usually give it); standard usage and non-standard? -Wikibob | Talk 11:06, 2004 Jul 21 (UTC)

I think it simply needs to be acknowledged that usage is hopeless muddled. Within the United States, the usage of billion = 109, trillion = 1012, etc. has, as far as I know, been stable and consistent for a couple of centuries, so it is probably accurate to characterize this as "United States" usage. But, apparently, France has switched back and forth at least twice; England used to use billion = 1012 fairly consistently but is now inconsistent; I've seen bits of evidence that the usage recorded in dictionaries does not match what is used in the real world (some French speakers have told me that 1012 is commonly referred to as "mille milliards"). And, apparently, Chuquet himself implied both usages within the same work! These eggs are scrambled and there's no unscrambling them.
And the solution is so easy, which is to avoid the use of these words.
It's not really that big a problem, as the usage is often clear enough from context.
Handle it just like acronyms or other things. There should be consistency within any one article. If the meaning is clear from context—and it usually is—nothing needs to be done. If it isn't, then simply define the word on its first appearance: "In 1950, the population of the world was approximately 2 billion (where billion means 1 000 000 000)." Or by adding a numerical value: "The total world production of energy in 2002 was 153 quadrillion BTU (153 000 000 000 000 BTU)." Just look at the page; if it is judged that a reader might actually be confused, then just do the simplest thing that will minimize the confusion. We all need to read and understand books written in British, American, Canadian, Australian English and we all need to read books that are decades old as well as books that are brand new. Dpbsmith 12:30, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)


COME ON!!

Puerto Rico shouldn't be included as one of the exceptions. The most commonly spoken (and one of the official languages) is spanish, and in our use the word billion is meant to be 1 000 000 000 000, while some people use it meaning 1 000 000 000 because of US influence, but this usage is incorrect as anyone who knows spanish will tell you.

For that reason, Puerto Rico shouldn't be included in that list

To balance the article's 1997 quotation from Ken Moore, the current (2004) alt.usage.english FAQ [1] includes the text:

in the last two or three decades, publishers have used "billion" to
mean "a thousand million" (1,000,000,000 = 10^9 = US billion).
The "old" use is still encountered just often enough (in speech,
informal writing, and older books) to cause some Britons to be
unsure of what the speaker or writer means by it.

Ian Cairns 00:31, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Suggestion

Would it assist to create two new pages 'Long scale' and 'Short scale' and put all the history & discussion into these? These pages could also list the countries that adhere to the particular convention. Then, we could refer just to long or short scale rather than English-speaking (plus Brazil, etc) vs Non-English-speaking (except Brazil, etc). This should simply the articles on billion, trillion, etc. etc. Also, despite the encouragement to avoid using these terms, there are over 2000 articles in en.wikipedia that use Billion, most of which use the short scale as far as I can tell. Perhaps we do need to acknowledge this fact when we advise against using the terms? Ian Cairns 12:32, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There are way too many different versions of the table of meanings for million/milliard/billion/trillion. I'd like to see all the information consolidated somehow, but I don't think that separate "Long scale" and "Short scale" articles would be a good way to do it. I don't think that the terms "long scale" and "short scale" are used outside Wikipedia. I'd suggest consolidating all the historical information into Billion (or a new article), consolidating the table of number names into a new template, and making all the other pages like Names of large numbers, List of numbers, English language numerals, Milliard, Trillion, etc. refer to these two. —AlanBarrett 13:25, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I've struggled with names for these two naming systems - there isn't a formal name that is widely used; and all the geography / language involved in who uses what gets very complicated. I agree that we could do well to consolidate all the current articles - several of which I think were created in deliberate competition with each other.
If we had a new article, how should we name it? Ian Cairns 14:49, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I think we want something broader than just "Billion" or "Trillion" (which should each be about only one name), but narrower than "Names of large numbers" (which includes lakh, crore, googol, myriad, and many other terms that are outside the million/billion/trillion family). Perhaps "Million, billion, trillion, and related terms" might work. (I would include milliard and billiard as "related terms".) —AlanBarrett 15:25, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Short scale" and "long scale"

I've never heard these terms used in English. I just did a Google search on billion trillion "short scale" "long scale" and got only two hits, both on Wikipedia mirrors, both referring to this article.

Are these phrases in general use? They're very convenient and very evocative, but have they been used outside this article? Are they real English phrases, or are they translations into English of phrases in general use in some other language? If we're going to use these phrases here, we shouldn't just say the American used is termed the "short scale", we should state clearly who calls it that and where the term arose. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 01:32, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This phrase was inserted by user 81.57.112.41 (possibly User: Michael Chuquet before acquiring his login?) on Aug 10 at 14:50. I suspect that it is a translation from French or German. I also like the brevity of the terminology - I find it self-evident - but do not seek to create new phrases. Ian Cairns 08:48, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Presumably they originated somewhere where both usages were common... I wonder whether that would be France, where the terminology was changed from "short scale" to "long scale" about fifty years ago? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 11:01, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It would appear that the French indeed use the terms échelle longue and échelle courte. I really like the phrases "long scale" and "short scale" but we need to exercise a little care if we are going to use them in Wikipedia, especially in article titles. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 16:33, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
...and therefore I've created an article entitled long scale, and a redirect from short scale explaining why using these terms is a) an excellent idea, and b) not currently standard English usage. It's very telling that the terms are so self-explanatory and easily understood that just about everybody discussing these articles simply started using them. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 17:33, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
That looks great. It should enable some simplification in related articles in due course. Ian Cairns 19:59, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Tracing the origins of a disputed quotation

Nicolas Chuquet is credited as the first person to put down in writing the systematic series of number names byllion, tryllion, quadrilion, etc. But did he use the long scale exclusively? I was fascinated by Robert Munafo's suggestion that Chuquet was inconsistent: [2]. Munafo exhibits a page image showing Chuquet's use of the long scale, and a quotation indicating that he used the short scale. The accuracy of the quotation has, however, been strongly disputed by Michael Chuquet, particularly in Talk:Binary prefix, where he says "One knows that Nicolas Chuquet used the long scale exclusively.... But, a falsified quotation, taken again by hundreds of Web site and a pseudo-scientist 'lucky find' (A double use of Chuquet himself !) let believe the opposite."

I contacted Munafo for the source of the quotation, and he replied:

It is from an earlier version of the web page http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Chuquet , which I downloaded on the 22nd March 2004. Because it is a Wikipedia article, it is no longer available.

Yikes! A dubious assertion of fact in Wikipedia was picked up, pruned of Wikipedian attribution by a process of quotation and requotation, promulgated to a number of other websites, and then (alas) picked up by me as a source to reference in working on current Wikipedia articles. The article from which Munafo got the quotation read:

In 1484 the French mathematician Nicolas Chuquet wrote in his article "Triparty en la science de nombres": Au lieu de dire mille milliers, on dira million, au lieu de dire mille millions, on dira byllion, etc..., et tryllion, quadrilion...octylion, nonyllion, et ainsi des autres si plus oultre on voulait procder.
Instead of saying thousand thousands, one will say million, instead of saying thousand million, one will say billion, etc..., and trillion, quadrillion, ..., octillion, nonillion, and similar as far as you want to proceed.

The original quote in French was inserted by User:Fantasy [3].

I've left a query on User:Fantasy's page. There are really two distinct issues here.

The first is whether the quotation from Chuquet is correct; that is, is there or is there not a passage in Chuquet's work containing the word "au lieu de dire mille millions, on dira byllion?"

The second is a translation issue. Anyway, the question is, if the passage is accurately quoted, can it possibly mean anything other than a "byllion" = "mille millions" = "a thousand millions" = 1,000,000,000? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 12:09, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Some time ago I tried looking this up in Chuquet. The version I found was a modern book with large excerpts from Chuquet and some commentary. I'm pretty certain that the quote on the internet is just wrong - it should be "au lieu de dire million millions, on dira byllion." I didn't find any evidence of Chuquet using a 10^9 billion. [[User:Reube n|Reuben]] 01:50, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The quote was wrong--see above under Untitled/Misc. I suppose it was a case of haplography--someone saw "mille milliers de millions" and read it as "mille millions". EricK 22:41, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article on the number itself

What would be the best title for a Wikipedia article for the number 1,000,000,000 itself rather than an ambiguous term?? 66.245.102.77 17:46, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps 1000000000 (number). —AlanBarrett 18:27, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Milliard

The term Milliard is obsolete in modern British English. See for example long scale which has had that description for a little while now. Even in the days before the UK adopted the 'short scale' billion, Milliard was extremely rarely used in English - thousand million was far more common. Ian Cairns 23:41, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • An editor just removed the word "obsolete" basing this on its appearance in dictionaries. I am, however, beginning to believe that dictionaries are fairly unreliable in this regard. I have never heard the word "milliard" spoken aloud in English and never seen it in print, except in discussions of the word itself, dictionaries, tables, and the like. I'm a U. S. citizen who, however, has always done a fair amount of reading of British-originated material). A Google News search on "milliard" turns up only ten hits; six are surnames, three are in French, and one is a news item in English from a European website, which seems to be an airline discussion forum, [4], which I think is a user-posted item saying "Varig is expected to launch cost-cutting measures wheres its debts have already reached $ 2.4 milliard." I'm going to revert the change with a request that the editor discuss it here, and give examples of actual recent usage. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 12:56, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would also like to remove the word obsolete, but I'll wait. I use the word, am a native English speaker, and have seen its use in several government or national media reports: Australian, Indian, Dutch, Russian (when these last two translate to English). Google on "milliard government" and see that the word is still used by English speaking people around the world. I would agree that very few are aware of the word, but the same can be said of many other words that are not obsolete. I also agree that dictionaries are often wrong. How about very rare? I have no view on the use of milliard to avoid ambiguity, though. -Wikibob | Talk 23:08, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC) Some backpedalling on my part, I've just seen a reference to the 6th edition of Australian Government Publishing Service's Style Manual that recommends avoiding milliard. Some non-news examples of usage: South African pastor writing on popoluation numbers in 2001, coin and paper note collecting. I still think its rarity (in the UK and US, but please note not rare among non-English Europeans who have learnt English) does not justify the obsolete tag. -Wikibob | Talk 23:41, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)

I agree with you. It is extremely rare - to the point that it is not being used. As a result, the word 'obsolete' seems perfectly appropriate. Ian Cairns 01:17, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hello, this is Eric Kvaalen, the one who added a sentence suggesting the use of the word "milliard", and who deleted the word "obsolete". It is true that the word is not used much--the only other people I hear use it are people whose native language is not English. But I don't think the word was ever very common (maybe we could check the Oxford English Dictionary). I suspect it has always been a minority word which exists because of its use in other languages. As an American who has lived abroad for most of the last twenty some years, I think the use of billion for 10^9 is a sort of (unconscious) "American imperialism", and I think efforts should be made to solve the problem. My suggestion is to use the word "milliard" and I think calling it "obsolete" will make people think that one shouldn't use it. EricK 06:43, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Eric. Thanks for that. The point is that even before the British started using the American usage of Billion, we used to call the number 'thousand million' and didn't use the word 'milliard' - which we all associate with continental european languages. To start calling this milliard would represent new usage. I understand that you would like us to use this word, but the simple fact is that the word milliard was hardly ever (if at all) used in British English and never in American English. As such, it is obsolete - hence the article. Thanks 07:24, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I posted a query about this in alt.usage.english and really only got one good reply, but it was a very good one: from Ben Zimmer: [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 00:47, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The latest OED draft entry gives the note, "The term is now largely superseded by <billion>." None of their recent cites use "milliard" in the precise sense of "one thousand million" but instead as an unspecified large number:

(n.) 1990 Man 25 95 Milliards of deities assembled in front of the cave. (adj.) 1981 'J. GASH' Vatican Rip (1983) xviii. 139, I saw a milliard doubts flicker across her face. 1991 'J. GASH' Great Calif. Game (1992) viii. 64 Somebody was changing a picture, a Philip Steer painted in a milliard divisionistic dots.

These are illiterate confusions of the word "milliard" with "myriad", and indicate precisely what tends to happen when the language is permitted to degenerate into meaninglessness.210.235.63.243 12:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

(Jonathan Gash, aka John Grant, appears to be a big fan of this sense.)

The latest cite listed for the specific sense is from 1977:

1977 Outlook for Natural Gas (Shell Internat. Petroleum Co.) 3 This will be followed within a year or so by the start up of two schemes, each involving 10 milliard cubic metres (7 million tonnes) a year.

But a 1974 cite suggests the term was already moribund then:

1974 Encounter 43 IV. 58/2 English schoolchildren are still taught that a thousand million is a milliard.

That was the year that Harold Wilson's government began replacing "milliard" with "billion" in treasury figures, as we've discussed before:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3EF3620E.244F471E@midway.uchicago.edu

How about replacing the sentence

"The obsolete word "milliard" can be used for 10^9 to avoid ambiguity, though this usage is unfamilar to some speakers of English"

with

"Use of 'thousand million' for 10^9 and 'million million' for 10^12 avoids ambiguity. The old word 'milliard', also found in many other languages, can be used for 10^9, but this usage is unfamiliar to many native English speakers."

EricK 18:11, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As an interesting and perhaps controversial side issue, I believe you'll find that any native English speaker who is of the opinion that a "billion" is 10^12 will be familiar with the word "milliard" for 10^9. It is only those who believe that a "billion" is 10^9 who will, inevitably, not require a second word for it. In other words, "milliard" is neither unfamiliar nor (as suggested above) obsolete, but merely known to that class of speakers who adhere to this set of meanings.210.235.63.243 12:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I support this. —AlanBarrett 12:30, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I'd agree with that too. Here in New Zealand many people avoid the term "billion" simply because there are two meanings of it. Milliard is still used, but very rarely (not rarely enough to be considered obsolete, mind you). Certainly the American system of using the term for 1000 million seems wrong compared to the international system of using it for 1 million million. After all, that's where the word comes from "billion" = "bi-million" = million x million. With the US system it becomes impossible to calculate larger terms quickly and easily. An octillion is 1000000^8, except in American. There it's... um... carry three... add one if it's a Thursday... slip two.... But if they want to persist in using it in that way, let them. For ease and simplicity here on Wikipedia talking in terms of "thousand million" and "million million" will solve almost all the problems (and thankfully Webster's dead, so he's not going to start calling 10,000 a million!). [[User:Grutness|Grutness talk ]] 12:40, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Okay Eric, this was a good change, but a similar modification is essential in the entry Milliard. Paul Martin 08:10, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I'd just like to add, FYI, that Croatian language has the term milliard (CRO: milijarda) in normal use for 10^9. In fact, it's the only word we have for this number.
  • Same in Bulgaria.
    • And Finnish. --Kizor 17:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

An egocentric attitude of the United States

This discussion is originated by the egocentrism, arrogance and prepotency of the United States.

In the International System of Units, one thousand millions is one thousand millons (a number one followed by nine zeros) and one billion is one billion (a number one followed by twelve zeros). Period.

But this is a system that Appalacian, Colonican, Columbard, Columbian, Frede, Fredonian, Nacirema, Pindosian (or just Pindos), Stateside(r), Uesican, Uessian, Unisan, Unisian, United States (as an adjective), United States American, United Stater, United Stateser, United Statesian, United Statesman, United Statian, USAian, US American, Usan, USAn, Usanian, Usian (pronounced "YOU-zhuhn"), U-S-ian, Usonian, or Washingtonian do not want to learn.

I don't think the SI defines "billion" at all. A search of the BIPM website turns up three hits, none of them in the definition of the Système international. If you think the SI gives a definition for billion, please give a relevant citation, e.g. the web page within the online documentation of the SI that gives the definition, as I'm sure everyone would agree that such a definition would be very relevant content for this article. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:46, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The SI system does not define names for numbers at all. It defines a set of prefixes for units of measurements to indicate magnitude, and a set of units of measurement. Under SI, a number consisting of a one followed by nine zeros is 1×109, and a number consisting of a one followed by twelve zeroes is 1×1012. --Carnildo 02:49, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Anyway, blame the French. They're the ones that convinced the United States to adopt the short scale in the first place.
I have yet to see any SI definition of 'billion'. The USA is a member state of the Convention du Mètre (gives authority to SI), so it would be interesting if such an international agreement had been achieved. Vinoysandia, unfortunately I think that you are mistaken. If not, please give us a reference because many of us would like to refer to it. Bobblewik  (talk) 19:57, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Checking [5] I see that Wikipedia is the ONLY source not to acknowledge that the 1012 meaning is still used. The discussion here would seem to agree with that also. I've added a NPOV tag to draw attention to this discussion, which I only just remembered to check before "fixing" the article. 213.232.66.5 08:18, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

A quick googling session found this rather informative description [6]. Note that the 1974 change in the UK only affects "official British reports and statistics".
The Rowlett 2001 article is wrong in places. Britain is in Europe AND uses 10^9 predominantly - so it doesn't make sense to talk of an American vs European position on this. This was the reason for the Long scale and Short scale articles. Yes, there are individuals still using 10^12 - but see the quote higher up this article about anyone in the UK using billion = 10^12 being likely to be misunderstood. It's not just government documents. It's also the BBC and the press. I'll remove the NPOV for the moment - pending further discussion in here. Ian Cairns 09:25, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
From checking I've done, the potential for ambiguity in current documents is less than I'd thought. However, http://alt-usage-english.org/intro_c.shtml#billion has a good NPOV description, and Trillion actually explains the ambiguity better than Billion right now, despite being less affected (due to less common usage). http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxbill00.html supports the 1974 date. http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutwords/billion gives another NPOV description. An example of an article which demonstrates the need to disambiguate when using the term: http://www.zoo.co.uk/~z0001246/visnum.html (in this article, when I refer to a billion, this is an American billion, one thousand million, not the old UK billion, which was a million million). Searching does seem to show that (apart from dictionary definitions that are perhaps a little out of date) it is almost invariably referred to as the "old" definition of a billion. In any case, my opinion would be that the possibility of "using the wrong billion" when using source material more than a few years old needs to be made clearer in the article. Also not forgetting any other countries which may still be using the old definitions. It's probably also worth mentioning that scientists generally avoid this term, preferring the SI prefixes.

Contents Box

Anyone know how to make the superscripts show in the section titles in the "Contents" box? --zandperl 02:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't, but if you don't get an answer here, you may want to try the village pump or IRC. Rl 06:15, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Trivia section ambiguity

The billion related trivia section is enjoyable, but (forgive my poor maths skills, please) it is unclear which billion this refers to. It would be great if someone could sort this out.

I have added some text (though it's a bit clunky) to clarify the sense of the word. Thanks for pointing out that ambiguity. —HorsePunchKid→龜 04:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

It appears that there is simular confusion about the word magnetude. When I put magnetude and select search it directs me to The Disney TV channel and an article about mechanical deformation. Six orders of magnitude commonly means one million, but most American dictionaries suggest that the value of magnetude is variable except in Astronomy where six orders of magnetude = 100 times brighter, which tyically corresponds to only a few times more mass. Can someone who knows how, start a disambiguation page for magnetude? Ccpoodle 03:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It's "magnitude" with an i - not an e. "Magnetude does redirect to Disney Channel but magnitude is a dismabig page with several math / astro / seismology articles. - DavidWBrooks 11:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

22 Apr 2006

Mel, You suggest that the long scale Billion (10^12) is in current usage in the UK. Please can you provide any citation for this usage, e.g. newspapers, other media. The BBC and all broadcast media that I have looked at have used the short scale Billion for some time now. Thanks, Ian Cairns 10:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

My change was largely based on personal experience, I'm afraid, though that includes fairly recent discussion of Radio 4. A quick Google throws up [7] (which acknowledges the adoption of the U.S. billion by the U.K. government, but still talks of the British billion as being in common use), [8] (which points out that "the U.S. meaning is still rare outside journalism and finance"), and [9]. There's some (mostly confused) discussion at [10].
The British billion is still widely used outside journalism and finance (always quick to adopt Americanisms) and the government. Perhaps, rather than saying that it is ir isn't used, the article should give more detail. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Please can you reference the Radio 4 discussion. I can't find any usage of 10^12 on any BBC website. Most of your other links have been raised and answered here before. The discussion on your last point is at Long and short scales.
I agree that there are several individuals who continue to use the old version, a bit like pre-decimal currency and metric martyrs - your Grauniad quote seems very apt for these people. However, my experience is that the overwhelming current usage in the UK media (TV, press, web, etc.) is 10^9 and has been for a few years. The dictionaries are lagging behind the street. Can you provide any UK web article currently using 10^12? For example, here is the BBC recently in scientific mood (as opposed to journalism or finance) [11], and here in numerical mood [12], [13]. There are 86 pages of search items referencing Billion at the BBC alone - mostly finance - and all of them using 10^9 AFAICT. Ian Cairns 10:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I count anything on the BBC Website as journalism, whatever its subject. As we have to go by WP:CITE, etc., then even if it's true that the relevant reference works, such as dictionaries, are lagging behind the truth, we have to lag behind too. (Though I believe, though from personal experience only, that the use of the British billion is more common than you suggest. If it comes to that, while "metric martyrs" in the sense of trasesman insisting on using non-metric measures may be rare, the use of such measures in the population is very widespread.)

If I can find other citations I'll add them, but Googling is a tiresome business; one has not only to find relevant uses of "billion", but know enough about the subject matter to be able to tell which they mean. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

layman's explanation

I have put "one thousand million or one million million" in the intro sentence for the casual reader who doesn't know that billion has two meanings, and who is spooked by powers of 10. - DavidWBrooks 14:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)