Ur Lord Tedric Posted October 11, 2004 Report Share Posted October 11, 2004 It's probably over 15 years now since we British officially adopted the US style Billion. As an accountant it makes things easier transatlantically... Centhen What do you mean "officially"??????? And yes, I did indeed forget... It's politicians, media types, lawyers and ACCOUNTANTS!!!! How can it be possible to offcially change a simple, logical, mathematical construct? What you mean is - you gave in just because your templates didn't contain large enough boxes for the ever larger numbers that materialised from over the 'Pond'. Now us modern with it guys just make our spreadsheet columns wider - go on, I know it's anathema, but you really must give up those paper forms..... Now, that all said, I'm not greedy, if the taxman wants to give me a refund in Billions, I shall be quite happy whichever style they pick!!! Mx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WKE235 Posted October 11, 2004 Report Share Posted October 11, 2004 I'm sorry Ur-Lord, but you are wrong. According to the 1913 Webster's Dictionary: Definition: \Bil"lion\, n. [F. billion, arbitrarily formed fr. L. bis twice, in imitation of million a million. See {Million}.] According to the French and American method of numeration, a thousand millions, or 1,000,000,000; according to the English method, a million millions, or 1,000,000,000,000. See {Numeration}. If you track back further, your will find that Jules Verne (yes, he was French) used the term "two billions two hundred and fifty millions of cubic miles" to describe the volume of the earths oceans in 20000 Leagues under the Sea in the 1870's. Pushing further back you can find references to Billion (or 10 to the 9th) referenced in astronomical texts back into the 1700's. You see, the use of 1,000,000,000 as 1 Billion has been common usage for hundreds of years, both in language and in mathematics. Indeed it is the English and their insistance of 1,000,000,000 being a Millard, and 1,000,000,000,000 being a Billion, who were out of step with the rest of the world for quite some time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
athonian Posted October 11, 2004 Author Report Share Posted October 11, 2004 *sings the star spangled banner* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EternusIV Posted October 11, 2004 Report Share Posted October 11, 2004 You see, the use of 1,000,000,000 as 1 Billion has been COMMON usage for hundreds of years, both in language and in mathematics. Indeed it is the English and their insistance of 1,000,000,000 being a Millard, and 1,000,000,000,000 being a Billion, who were out of step with the rest of the world for quite some time. I'm a big fan of both sides of the debate...but in this regard: Ken: 1 The British: 0 Except for the whole pint thing. Whoever says 'Pint?' first is always the winner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TErnest Posted October 11, 2004 Report Share Posted October 11, 2004 Sorry, two screen names on this comp and I used the wrong one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CLEernest Posted October 11, 2004 Report Share Posted October 11, 2004 Thats Better! Id cry. I have no warships. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WKE235 Posted October 12, 2004 Report Share Posted October 12, 2004 Except for the whole pint thing. Whoever says 'Pint?' first is always the winner. So what are you trying to say? I understand that the HBOB definition of Pint: The quantity of brew which can be carried in a one Billion ton HBOB delivery ship, sufficient in amount to slake the thirst of all POP on even the driest homeworld can be confusing. Or course, after having a "Pint" of HBOB finest, everybody seems like a winner (and we're all friends, singing merry tunes). So is it whomever orders a "Pint" first seems like a winner (at least until the next morning of course)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EternusIV Posted October 12, 2004 Report Share Posted October 12, 2004 You're right...I meant 'orders' a Pint Ken: 2 The British: 0 EternusIV: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ur Lord Tedric Posted October 12, 2004 Report Share Posted October 12, 2004 I'm sorry Ur-Lord, but you are wrong. According to the 1913 Webster's Dictionary: Definition: \Bil"lion\, n. [F. billion, arbitrarily formed fr. L. bis twice, in imitation of million a million. See {Million}.] According to the French and American method of numeration, a thousand millions, or 1,000,000,000; according to the English method, a million millions, or 1,000,000,000,000. See {Numeration}. If you track back further, your will find that Jules Verne (yes, he was French) used the term "two billions two hundred and fifty millions of cubic miles" to describe the volume of the earths oceans in 20000 Leagues under the Sea in the 1870's. Pushing further back you can find references to Billion (or 10 to the 9th) referenced in astronomical texts back into the 1700's. You see, the use of 1,000,000,000 as 1 Billion has been common usage for hundreds of years, both in language and in mathematics. Indeed it is the English and their insistance of 1,000,000,000 being a Millard, and 1,000,000,000,000 being a Billion, who were out of step with the rest of the world for quite some time. No, no, no.....we can't give in that easily!!! When it comes to the English language - you can't go to an American dictionary! That's just not playing by the rules - and we knew the French were guilty anyway. It's not just the billion that we're worried about, but the knock on effect. Million, Billion, Trillion, Quadrillion, etc are part of a series of powers of 10^6. I won't give in! I still maintain it's a devaulation that has horrendous repercutions. And they wonder why the youth of today can't do basic maths...... Mx PS And isn't an American dictionary of English something of a non sequiter...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Uriel Posted October 12, 2004 Report Share Posted October 12, 2004 "That's just not playing by the rules - and we knew the French we're guilty anyway." Correct if I'm wrong, but shouldn't it read "the French were guilty anyway." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ur Lord Tedric Posted October 12, 2004 Report Share Posted October 12, 2004 Correct if I'm wrong, but shouldn't it read "the French were guilty anyway." Yup, little slip of the finger there....... Mx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hughestrog Posted October 12, 2004 Report Share Posted October 12, 2004 You see, the use of 1,000,000,000 as 1 Billion has been COMMON usage for hundreds of years, both in language and in mathematics. Indeed it is the English and their insistance of 1,000,000,000 being a Millard, and 1,000,000,000,000 being a Billion, who were out of step with the rest of the world for quite some time. I'm a big fan of both sides of the debate...but in this regard: Ken: 1 The English: 0 Except for the whole pint thing. Whoever says 'Pint?' first is always the winner. Less of the English please. That really peeves me off that does. British is fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EternusIV Posted October 12, 2004 Report Share Posted October 12, 2004 Less of the English please. That really peeves me off that does. British is fine. Noted and edited. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hughestrog Posted October 12, 2004 Report Share Posted October 12, 2004 Thanks for that Didn't want to cause too much trouble :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WKE235 Posted October 13, 2004 Report Share Posted October 13, 2004 Million, Billion, Trillion, Quadrillion, etc are part of a series of powers of 10^6. I won't give in! I still maintain it's a devaulation that has horrendous repercutions. And they wonder why the youth of today can't do basic maths...... Yes, the original definition, oh so long ago, was as you say. BI for twice as many, TRI for three times as many, QUAD for four times as many. And using Million (10^6) as the root, Billion would have been 10^12, Trillion 10^18, etcetera... But that definition is so ancient, I'm surprised it was brought up. Somewhere in time, an alternate definition took root. Using 10^3 as the root, Million (10^6) means one added set of three zeros, Billion (10^9) means two added sets of three zeros, Trillion (10^9 ... the size of the next Concordium ship I plan to build) means three added sets of three zeros. This all ties into the usage of comma's within the numbers to donote the breakup into sets of three. As to why that became common (use of the comma's in sets of three), heck if I know. Still, having a name for each added set of three zero's beyond Thousand and Million seems to have in part driven this naming standard. I know, you'll argue that under the 10^6 schema, everything was named. 9,000,000,000 was 9 Thousand Millions. And some even created names like 9,000,000,000 would be 9 Millard under the old way (I guess the value between Billion and Trillion, 10^15, would be called Billard? Gives a new meaning to a game of pool). For whatever reason, Million, Millard, Billion lost to Million, Billion, Trillion. Anyway, there is NO devaluation occuring. Many terms for older measurements (Span, Bushel, Stone) have adjusted and changed over time as the values gained more precision or more common usage was adopted(Foot, Gallon, Pound .... or now Meter, Litre (or Liter depending on how you abuse your language), Kilogram). Same thing here. Somehow it became common that 10^9 is Billion. The value is still the same. Merely the term we use has changed. It's all just a name when you get down to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.