Talk:Long and short scales

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 (On Australian Usage)

[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)

Sorry, but that is complete nonsense. In over 20 years, I have never met anyone in the UK who uses the long scale. I have never seen the long scale used in any field, whether government, media, science, finance, industry nor anywhere else. Suggesting that people may be confused due to poor education may or may not be true, but is surely irrelevant. Billion always means 10^9. Trillion always refers to 10^12. I have never ever seen milliard used. The long scale is now a historical curiosity. Bobcousins 13:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to add further confusion, I agree with Zordrac. If Bobcousins has never met anyone in over 20 years in the UK who doesn't use the long scale he's not talking to many people! I was taught at school that a billion is a million million, and that it was "a curiosity" of the US that they called 1,000 million a billion, and I've lived my whole life believing that. And I'm only 22! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.169.193 (talk • contribs) 12:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree, as I've never used nor been taught to use the short scale (in England). In a sense it is good that the British media, particularly science magazines, use the short scale – but at the same time it misleads a lot of British people reading them who, for example, think that a world population of 6 billion means 6 million million rather than the correct 6 thousand million. — Lee J Haywood 20:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, there are some confused people around ;-) A recent BBC article documents what I believe is modern British usage http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/more_or_less/6625545.stm. I made a search of online UK usage of billion, and could not find *any* that used 10^12, apart from dictionary entries and individuals claiming that 10^12 is the "correct" usage, or is what is "taught in schools". Style guides for the Times, Guardian, BBC etc all indicate 10^9 is the preferred meaning of billion. I could not find any resources relating to UK schools that indicated usage of 10^12. It may well be true that schools teach the 10^12 usage, but that appears to be an anomaly. Academics appear to be the least willing to adapt to current usage. If you can find any examples of modern UK publications that actually use 10^12, I would like to see them - I don't mean dictionary definitions, but actual use in the field. Bobcousins 10:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Despite erroneous statements here and in the main article the British use of short scale 10^9 to mean a billion is universal and has been for decades. Anyone claiming otherwise is simply mistaken. Of course you can find confused people who have no clue about any issue you care to name but anyone sufficiently sentient to understand 10^9 would refer to it as a billion, nothing else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.129.121.63 (talk) 10:58, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

I've yet to meet anyone who uses or teaches Short scale. I've been through three separate secondary schools (I moved around a lot when younger) and three colleges - and all the Maths and Physics teachers taught us Long scale. I'm frankly surprised as I've only ever seen Short scale used by the media, most people refer to it a "American style". I'm very surprised though, to see that a country adopting European notations for most measurement is moving away from SI units in other areas. Not that it matters. I continue to get good marks on my course for correct use of Long scale so it doesn't affect me. As for the claim that "anyone sufficiently sentient to understand 10^9 would refer to it as a billion, nothing else" - You'd be AMAZED at the number of people ho would refer to it as a trillion - the majority of laymen seem to have little understanding of numbers above a million at all, they just guess the word based on those they have heard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.188.60 (talk) 20:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

19 years old here, have been taught the 10^12 definition of billion through school, and had the 10^9 known as an "American billion"... That, and I've asked/been asked quite a few times "an English billion or an American billion?" Trust 22:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I find it impossible to believe you and am struggling to find some charitable explanation. A billion meaning 10^9 has been absolutely universal in Britain for over 30 years. TheMathemagician (talk) 17:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I can remember it happening. The British Government *did* order that one billion should be the short scale for official government publications in about 1974. I clearly remember this being announced in the mass media at the time. It was about then that 1000 million was a figure that actually started to get some use in finance, and that these large scales had previously been a rarely used curiosity. I also remember clearly that the BBC, ITN, and *all* the newspapers *immediately* started using a billion for 1000 million. It is true however, as some people have stated here, that much of the public (and perhaps some schools) continued to use the long scale for quite some time after that, as the British are wont to do with their "traditional values".--Farry (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Farry you are quite right as I remember it too. The switch was universal and has been ever since. I am still baffled by the comments above from people claiming to have never been taught that a billion was 10^9 or even met anyone using it that way. They are either genuinely confused or just making mischief. Every single reference to a billion that I have ever seen or heard since the mid-70s has been 10^9. There is really no possibility of any school continuing to teach that a billion is 10^12. This complete fallacy of believing the old usage lives on in Britain today needs to be laid to rest. TheMathemagician (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese

I removed the sentence "Particular number names exist up to a billion" becuase I think it looks like a joke.

up to which billion?
The cite given Japanese_numerals#Basic_numbering_in_Japanese says no such thing; the later cite Japanese_numerals#Powers_of_10 contradicts it. jnestorius^(talk) 02:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think they actually exist up to much higher than that (an American quindecillion, by the looks of it), but only in myriads, not thousands. Honestly, until coming here (I've a tiny bit of instruction in the language) I'd thought you just said "myriad myriad." Twin Bird 08:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Most other countries?"

Isn't it kind of arrogant to say this, when you mean "most linguistic descendends of Europe or Southwest Asia?" Admittedly, this is a fair bit of the world, but it leaves out a chunk of Africa, several Pacific Island nations, and most of South and Southeast Asia. India, China, Japan, and Korea are mentioned as exceptions, but these are only the countries most familiar to Americans - do Burma, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, Nepal, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka use the long scale? (I honestly don't know; please don't try to break my case by pointing out that one or two of them do when the article says "most.") What about sub-Saharan African countries that use Khosian or Bantu languages? What about Malaysia, Indonesia, and the various independent Polynesian states? Not to mention all of the sub-national linguistic entities in Russia, Canada, the US, China, Australia, and India especially, among many other countries - it's not as though they never use large numbers. I mean, it really does seem very Eurocentric. Twin Bird 08:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it only says most, not all. But how can we list every country in the world when quite frankly no one here really knows ? It is just a shorthand phrase. Suggest something better if you wish - but to avoid another edit war (!), let's discuss it here first ! If any users from countries not listed know the word for billion in their languages, add them to the list. The Yeti 02:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Amended terminolgy now. Hope this helps The Yeti 22:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is a good point. In Chinese numbers are based on ten-thousand's(10⁴.(pronunced as "Wan" in Mandarin) So hundred thousand is called "shi wan" (ten ten-thousand), million 10⁶ is called "bai wan" (hundred ten-thousand), 10⁷ as "qian wan" (thousand ten-thousand), and the next level is Yi 10⁸, the cycle repeats adding the ten, hundred, and thousand in front of the level. However since SI prefixes are in thousand's 10³, the government(both Taiwan and mainland) made translations that are inconsistant with daily usages. (enclosed with Chinese SI prefixes, at least you can check what they are). [[1]] p.s: As far as I know, Koreans have the same system as Chinese, with different prounaciations. Oscar Liu at 7:03 May 14, 2007 GMT

[edit] Please, please, please, a source

"most people outside financial spheres in the UK continue to understand and use the long-scale more effectively than what many still regard as USA usage."

We've had gobs and gobs of personal testimony by Wikipedians on both sides of this point. What we have not had is any good source citations to back up any of it.

What does the word "billion" really mean to the average Briton who is not closely connected with finance? Does "billion" really mean 10¹² to the average person? Is it a hotly debated "culture war" item, like "Merry Christmas" versus "Happy Holidays" in the U. S.? Or is it just a concern of older people who, having had it drummed into their head in school and now resent its not being drummed into younger heads? Or what? Dpbsmith (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the above text from the article pending discussions / citation / resolution here. Ian Cairns 18:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I am British, live in Britain, and am nearly 40. I've never heard in 20 years billion to mean anything but the short scale. I can imagine some in the older generation (over 70) maybe using it, but even then it must be rare. The long scale is not even mentioned now at schools. Let's look at it this way, who is going to use the word billion except in official or mass media usage ? Where could you colloquially use billion as an exact number (rather than generally, eg billions of grains of sand) except in official/mass media usage, where they default to the short scale. Basically, I agree, unless a cite/ref can be shown to prove the long scale is in use somewhere in the UK, I would recommend deleting any text stating it is in constant use, etc. The best I would say (as the article currently does) is occassional usage.

The Yeti 01:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

PS Noting some of the above paragraphs, I was also taught in Australian (NSW) schools in my youth. Billion, when mentioned, was virtually always the 'American' use. To say otherwise would be disingenious The Yeti 01:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

(moved from User talk:81.86.138.31)

You write: the "traditional usage" of a billion to mean 10¹² is [...] normally taught in many sectors of education. I find this extremely implausible. Can you give an example? – Smyth\^talk 18:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact that I work in education, that I have had two generations of my own children in full-time education and that all these experiences taught / used / still use traditional (and correct) European long-scale usage. I write from experience, not some theoretical wish-point.

I deduce from this that with the mention of 'two generations of your my own children' that you are of the 'older' generation, where the long scale may still come to mind more often than the short scale. However, the article is mostly trying to clarify the commonest current language usage among British people. The use of "correct meaning" is meaningless in this context. Which sector of education are you in ? The Yeti 21:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no "correct" meaning; this is a question of usage. Are you saying that you teach, and your children were taught, that "billion" is 10^12, to the exclusion of 10^9? Or are you simply saying that children are taught that both meanings of the word are in use and so they should be careful? I'm sure nobody would disagree with the latter. – Smyth\^talk 16:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I would disagree about your idea of correct v. usage. Mathmatically I contend that 10 to the power 12 IS correctly designated as the "next" division above a million, and that 10 to the power 9 is no more significant than a thousand times 100 (100,000).

Sorry this is twaddle, and irrelevant to the article. This article does list both long and short scale terms for 10⁹ (under the paragraph 'Comparison'). What the current argument is about is not the mathematical terminology, but its use in UK common language. Please prove that your usage in language is "correct" and that the short scale is not, and please do so using references. Besides, no-one thinks 10⁵ is significant enough for a new name; but 10⁶ is designated 'million', and one can argue (as in the USA) that 10⁹ would also have a new name (in this case short scale 'billion'). The Yeti 21:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

However, leaving that aside: - In the UK children ARE commonly taught that both meanings are in use: further they are taught that the 10 power 9 usage is predominatly USA and that one should take care because it is a)in existance b)possible to confuse c)possibly an incorect usage mathmatically.

The "incorrectness" to which you refer is surely etymological, not mathematical. It would certainly be more consistent if (Greek prefix)-llion meant 10^(6*(Greek prefix value)) rather than 10^(3 + 3*(Greek prefix value)), but there are many worse inconsistencies in the English language, and if an overwhelming majority of people uses a less consistent definition then you just have to live with it (or avoid the word completely)

You never answered my original question: what are children taught about 10^12? Are they taught that this is the "real" meaning of the word "billion", and that they should actually use it as such? Or are they simply taught to avoid the word because of its ambiguity? – Smyth\^talk 17:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I had thought I HAD answered your question, and quite clearly too.

No you had not. The question asked was "Are you saying "billion" means only 10¹² and is taught/used to the exclusion of 10⁹? Or are you saying that children are taught that both meanings of the word are in use, and so they should be careful?" The former needs citations, but the latter no-one has argued with. (And as I am British & live in Britain, the former seems unprovable to my experience). The Yeti 21:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

A source, a source, a source, please. If children are taught that both meanings are in use and they should be careful, surely someone, somewhere has published this in a curriculum guide or a school textbook. If there are conflicting sources, we can cite both.

I grew up in the U. S. and have no vested interest at all in this matter. I can easily believe any of the following:

that children are taught that a billion is 10⁹
that children are taught that it is 10⁹ but that older books and older people may use it to mean 10¹²
that it can mean either and they should be careful
that there are a few schools that teach that it is 10¹². For all I know, there may be schools that teach children how to perform financial calculations in pounds, shillings and pence because, well, it's good mental discipline (like learning Latin) and you never know, they might come back someday

Personal testimony from individual experience is interesting, but doesn't resolve the question of what should go in the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding swedish usage

The statemets reagarding swedish usage in this article is wrong. It says "Sweden, where 10^9 is commonly called Milliard, a long scale term, but the short scale is used for 10^12 and above", but 10^9 is called "miljard", not milliard, and long scale is indeed used, 10^12 is called biljon for example. Battra 10:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] thousand million should go....

I know Wikipedia follows a non-partisan policy with regard to spelling and word-usage, but there comes a time when excessive loyalty to this principle can become a fetish and a burden, and such is the case here. There is such a thing as the natural atrophy of usage where customs, experience and new needs combine to favour some usages over others. In such cases, some variants become first “rare”, then “obsolete', then “archaic”. Over time, the “American” use of million, billion and so on, has comprehensively displaced the notion of “milliard” and “billiard”, the latter excluded from many dictionaries.

There is an excellent reason for this, whose meaning has exercised me of late, but wherefore I know not. I began to notice that there are numerous instances where the “American billion” makes itself useful, but comparatively few, outside of astronomy, where the old “English billion” does so, although I am not quite sure why. The Earth's population is about 6 billion for example, and having to say 6 thousand million is a nuisance. The populations of China and India are both about a billion (US). Virtually every numerous aspect of Planet Earth can conveniently be expressed in US billions and (occasionally) trillions. Had the English / French system prevailed, and considering that milliard never took off, there would be no new word to deal with numbers between a million and 999 thousand million, a silly state of affairs. I would be interested to hear any views about why so many parameters can employ US billions, from social and economic and financial studies (one can have US “billionaires” but hardly English ones for example), and the natural sciences, and so few are amenable to the English billion and its offshoots.

Please, let a hundred flowers bloom and a thousand thoughts contend on Wikipedia, but let's not flog a dead horse. Some things are better left to rest in peace. The only reason that ambiguity arises today is because some diehards insist on persevering with an outmoded system. Myles325a 10:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Er, so what? Just because you wish to delete the long scale terminology does not mean the rest of the planet is going to. Even if the (English speaking) world is slowly adopting the short scale use, it is not universal. And the article is not here to try and define one usage over another, but to report that there are two different systems, and where they differ. The usage of 'thousand million' is pretty clear and does not allow for ambiguity. The use of 'billion', in Australia, and particularly elsewhere, still does. The Yeti 23:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

"Thousand million" was very, very widely used in print before 1990 or thereabouts. If there's evidence that it's truly obsolete and not seen any more, the article should say that, but there's no reason to delete what was a very common usage within living memory of many readers. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] English Billion a THOUSAND times greater than US Billion

For a subject as well-masticated as this one, it is surprising that an important detail has not been more adequately dealt with. Experiment: go and ask a naïve subject: “Which is bigger, an American Billion or an English Billion?” If they reply correctly that the English one is, then ask them “By how much?” You will probably find that most people don't know. In fact, from my experience, most people, hearing the phonemic set “illions”, just assume that the amounts are very large, but there is not much to be made of it. In fact, an English Billion is a THOUSAND TIMES larger than the one adopted by her erstwhile colony. That would throw anybody's paperwork out. The gap grows more immense as the numbers become larger. The English Trillion is a full MILLION times larger than that of the US. And so it goes, the discrepancy between the English and American variants grows exponentially as the hierarchy ascends. This fact is the most salient in the whole discussion, and while it is implicit in the material included in the table, it would be illuminating to add a column on the far right which would spell out the scope of the discrepancy. Myles325a 10:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it should be more clearly spelled out, but I don't know how salient it is in the workings of the world, because once you're off by a factor of 1,000 who cares if it's actually a factor of 1,000,000? Both are so staggeringly wrong that the difference is a detail. Numbers greater than the British billion are never used in reality, except perhaps in physics or the occasional hyper-hyper-inflated currency, so it doesn't affect anything. But it is an interesting point that's worth pointing out, since you're correct that it can be easily missed in the current layout/discussion. ... and so I've added it, and while I was there I redid the definitions slightly since I think they left out the key point, how each new term increases the total by a set amount. - DavidWBrooks 11:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The myth wont die but there has been no such thing as an English billion for over 30 years. Really. TheMathemagician (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 09:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge proposal

What do you think of merging this article with "Names of large numbers"? Mdotley 21:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

This article describes two different schemes for naming large numbers. As such, it is outside the Names of large numbers article. Why do you think these articles can be merged? Ian Cairns 22:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

No. Subject is entirely different, and is not do with the names of large numbers, but rather the names of large number in different countries. The Yeti 23:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The 'names' article has to rehash much of this info to explain why there are different names. This article has to give many of those names as examples of what it is talking about. So, they may technically be different subjects, but there is a whole lot of duplication between them.

Besides which, the whole issue here is that there are two different systems for the names of large numbers. OK, so we give the two different sytems in one part of the article and the names in another part. Both articles have to do both things. Why should the whole issue have to be rehashed on each of two different pages? Look at both pages, and you'll see what I mean. Mdotley 02:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Still disagree. The article, whether there is duplication or not (and I think the duplication is minor) have different foci and intentions (which you've just admitted). The Names of Large Numbers article is already long enough without lumping this one into it, and does not clearly explain the difference between the long & short scales. Why do you wish to merge ? It is a clumsy attempt to tidy things up when they don't need it. The Yeti 02:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right that it doesn't explain them clearly -- but it doesn't make sense without it, and the current attempts to explain it are poorly done. By the time that page could be fixed up, IMHO, you'd have most of the good content from this page. In any case, there doesn't seem to be any consensus for the change -- or against it for that matter, as you and I are the only ones discussing it.

Why merge? B/c that there is enough overlap that the merge would consolidate the good information and ease the anti-vandalism maintenance burden. Mdotley 04:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm against the merge. The overlap isn't onerous and the articles are sufficiently different in scope to remain separate, I think. - DavidWBrooks 12:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Fine, you guys probably spend more time here than I do, anyway. Informal proposal withdrawn. Mdotley 00:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

PS, I've stopped watching this page, so please leave a note on my talk page if you want to drag me back into the discussion. :-) Mdotley 00:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flags

A quick note to say that I added quite a lot of changes tonight, including several copyedits and numerous flags, to the article. Perhaps I should have discussed this here beforehand - however, I hope that other interested editors can agree that the flags add a certain international flavour to this important article. If the flags do not receive general approval, then please be careful in rolling back the edits - some of the copyedits added grammatical corrections to the article. Thanks, Ian Cairns 23:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see the point in adding flags, but I'm not going to remove them unless at least a few people agree with me. Also, I propose to disgroup countries using the same spelling for a word, as imho it makes them look like they share a language or something (yes, the list will grow, but if we remove the flags, less space will be used). Jalwikip 08:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Er, 'disgroup'? Please explain what you plan to do ?? Examplise it here first please. The Yeti 20:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not usually a fan of graphics in articles, but I think the flags are perfectly fine. And I think the current grouping of countries is fine, too - I didn't see any erroneous implications. - DavidWBrooks 22:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

What I meant to say (sorry for being absent a while) is that because of the grouping of countries that just happen to have the same written words for 'milliard' and 'billion', it looks like they somehow share a language, or share something else. It's currently a non-issue though, as now each country is listed separatly. Jalwikip (talk) 14:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1 000 000 000 000 / Trillion

(ie) 10^12, billion or trillion depending how you look at things. The page 1000000000000 (number) page has been redirected from a page similar to 1000000000 (number) to Orders of magnitude (numbers). If you disagree with this redirect (or agree), please comment ~~here~~. This comment will self-destruct in a few days ('cos it'll be redundant then). The Yeti 22:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion has now moved on to HERE. Please comment. The Yeti 13:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Another day, another poll ... this time on whether to keep the trillion page as is, or to redirect to names of large numbers. Please comment HERE. The Yeti 02:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Usage Section

The usage section is pretty inconsistent with the rest of the text. The long scale subsection lists countries that use short scale. The definition used also indicates short scale. The section called short scale, lists long scale countries and has the same definition as the short scale. Confusing. --Miw 09:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Italian use

"Colloquially, bilione can mean both 10⁹ and 10¹²": actually I'm Italian, and I've never heard people using bilione meaning 10⁹

[edit] Table

I've removed this from the historical table

1994: Italy confirmed their official usage of the long scale. (Direttiva CE 1994 n. 55, page 12 (Italian) (ref: Direttiva CE 1994 n. 55, page 12). (Italian) ).

The reference uses the words, but does not describe the usage:

                         Fattore          Prefisso Simbolo

1 000 000 000 000 000 000 = 10¹⁸ trilione esa      E
    1 000 000 000 000 000 = 10¹⁵ biliardo peta     P
        1 000 000 000 000 = 10¹² bilione  tera     T
            1 000 000 000 = 10⁹  miliardo giga     G
                1 000 000 = 10⁶  milione  mega     M
                    1 000 = 10³  mille    chilo    k

so it's certainly good evidence that the long-scale is in official use in Italy, but cannot be said to be confirmation in the way that a statement like "In all official documents, 10^12 is to be described as bilione and 10^9 as miliardo" would be. jnestorius^(talk) 00:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Estonia, respectively the post-Soviet states and the former Warsaw Pact states

Anyone knows which system Estonia use? I am Danish, but I still want to know. --[Svippong - Talk] 11:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Refered to Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Estonia. MrZaius^talk 12:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Edited the article and answered your question. H2ppyme 19:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Since Soviet Union decided (in which year and by which act?; maybe by Stalin?) to align the US-americain short scale usage, therefore,
in all these the post-Soviet states and former Warsaw Pact states, the short scale is latently present: "Big brother watched!"

However, since the long scale is well the common european scale (excepting Soviet Union and now the "pushover UK") the status of Latvia, Estonia and Bulgaria is unclear.
Just like actually in UK. Although financial circles, including media nowadays aligned to the short scale. "To be billionaire" sounds much better than "to be a milliardaire".

In the case of Turkey – one bets – this was a decision of the turkish "inflation" central bankers, without any legal act.

In the case of Iran: Was it a thankful act of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who decided to align to the US usage? No one knows.

I place value on this declarative statement: There is no primary anti-americanism in my assessments. Not on your life !

Notwithstanding, the short scale will perish, because the hexadecimal billion is long-scale, i.e. 1, 048 576 to the power two !
Modern logarithmic. Just like the good old Chuquet. None can imagine a hypothetical hexadecimal billion as 0x 400,00000 !!?

Modern binary numeration logic is stronger, even than all these US-Dollar pseudo-billionaires; e.g. like this 20th billionaire ;-)

-- Gluck 123 (talk) 20:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] United Nations (UN)

Is there an official use on the United Nations? Some documents in english by UN use Billion meaning 10⁹, but the documents in spanish use sometimes "Mil Millones" (thousand millions). Godot 20:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] clearer intro

As "bi" and "tri" mean powers of two and three, I made the logic of the long scale clear in the intro:

""billion" means "a million squared" (10^12), "trillion" means "a million to the third power" (10^18), and so on."

However, it may be just as clear to keep "million million":

""billion" means "a million million" (10^12), "trillion" means "a million to the third power" (10^18), and so on."

Harald88 09:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's interesting. I wrote a series of programming examples for a class I was preparing to teach. The examples involved choosing which base to use for short scale (1,000) or long scale (1,000,000). Some of my East Asian students need to use "4-digit scale" (10,000); see below. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Error

"In written communications, the simplest solution for moderately large numbers is simply to write the full amount- i.e., 1,000,000 rather than 1 milliard or 1 billion." - That should be 1,000,000,000, shouldn't it? 62.113.159.156 17:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] East Asian countries

This might not fit in "long and short", because it's not based on 10^3 or 10^6 but I've run into it many times over the last 30 years.

Korea and Japan use numbering systems based on 10^4 (yes, that's ten thousand = 10,000).

Korean example

1 il
10 sip
100 baek
1,000 chun
10,000 man

So 54,000 would be 5 man 4 chun. And 987,000 would be 98 man 7 chun

It really gets interesting with larger numbers:

9,234,678 is 923 man + 4 chun 6 baek 7 sip 8
25,548,324 is 2,554 man + 8,324 chun

Should we call this the East Asian scale?
Translation problems are easy to make, because the 3-digit grouping of the non-Asian world and the 4-digit grouping can lead to a power-of-ten error. A large number can be inflated or deflated by a factor of 10 or 100 if the translator is in a hurry (and they usually are, at conferences). --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thousand, Million, etc

Amended the long scale definition to read "every new term greater than million", and clarified re million.

Although "thousand" doesn't fit within the "-llion" naming scheme, it is an integral part of the short scale, "thousand, million, etc". This is particularly implied by the table, and "every new term is 1 000 times greater than the previous".

The existing long scale definition did not make it explicit that million is the same in both scales. For anyone not familiar with the powers-of-10 clarifications in brackets, there is some chance that they might come away thinking that "million" is thousand x 1 000 000. HexAmp (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This is a linguistic issue

The discussion taking place here is a mathematical one, but shouldn't it rather be a linguistic one? The system of "numbers", as distinct from "number words", is a simple base 10 one (as are the oriental systems below incidentally). The issue under discussion here arises out of different concepts for the system for the naming of the numbers.

In the English language, in common with many others, numbering started off with unique words for the numbers from 0 to 9. The next order or magnitude was then constructed from these words with the suffix -teen or -ty added, to signify "ten". In the first half of the second millenium there was a steady evolution of the terms "hundred"s, then "thousands"s and then "million"s. It should be remembered that the gross national product of the UK in was

The general "rule" of extension of the number-labeling system is to avoid doubling up words. Labels such as "ten ten" or "ten twenty" were avoided and instead a new word was coined, such as "hundred", and the label would become "one hundred" or "two hundred" instead. Well that WOULD have been the sytem, and it would have led to the creation of a "double order" naming system.

However, in the first half of the second millenium, a complication arose. Perhaps circumstances were in a way similar to this current debate on "billion", but at that time time it revolved around the everyday usage of the term "thousand". You can still see the issue today. It is common to say "fifteen hundred" instead of "one thousand five hundred", or "nineteen hundred and sixty four", and not "one thousand nine hundred etc", or even: "fifteen hundred pounds" rather than: "one thousand five hundred pounds". But however it happened, the "two orders of magnitude" language system mutated into the "three order" system we have now, and which is today denoted by the use of commas to separate the groups of three.

Using these rules the extension of the British numbering system is logical and consistent. All was well until the "billion" issue, which comes from the needs of global economics and inflation. It also coincided pretty much with the rise of American influence after WWII. And unfortunately America is a lot bigger than Britain!

The American system simply chose to lose touch with its roots, and to start a new system over at the million point. Why? Well perhaps because if a billion means only a thousand million then you get to be a billionaire a lot faster! :P

LookingGlass (talk) 07:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

"then you get to be a billionaire a lot faster!" That's true.

Even Warren Buffett has to multiply his wealth by sixteen before, he'll be a true dollar-billionaire. So, currently, they are all feigned, masqueraded as "billionaires". But, it sounds good.

-- Gluck 123 (talk) 15:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)