3 ms·

Not to be nitpicky, but you probably want to review how you typed those numbers. The second is smaller than the first, and the commas are not grouping the zeroe

by scbrg 11y ago

Not to be nitpicky, but you probably want to review how you typed those numbers. The second is smaller than the first, and the commas are not grouping the zeroes in groups of three. I suppose you mean either 10^5 or 10^6, but I'm not sure which.

gauthr 11y ago
They're using the Indian numbering system -- see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_numbering_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_numbering_system
- talmand 11y ago
  That's really interesting, thanks for the link. But it still doesn't make sense, because if you remove the commas from 1,00,000 and 2,00,00 you end up with 100000 versus 20000. Based on the examples in your link I'm assuming that the last figure should be 2,00,000. In the examples all the high number always end with three zeros.
- scbrg 11y ago
  Wow, I did not know about this. Thank you for the link. As sibling poster points out though, there still ought to be an error in the numbers as written, as the second is smaller than the first, but the context of the text implies that it should be larger.
rasz_pl 11y ago
Not to be racist, but this is exactly what I experienced when dealing with projects outsourced to India.
vram22 11y ago
As others have said: anjanb probably meant 1 lakh (100,000) [1] and 2 lakh (200,000). His second number was likely a typo. [1] Not sure why the asymmetry between thousand and lakh (when these units were created), though (10^3 vs an additional 10^2). Another difference: Billion in India used to mean 1 million million (like the British), rather than the American meaning of 1 thousand million. Linking to this post (mine), since it is somewhat apropos :-) http://jugad2.blogspot.in/2010/06/bhaskaracharya-and-man-who-found-zero.html http://jugad2.blogspot.in/2010/06/bhaskaracharya-and-man-who...

3 ms·

Not to be nitpicky, but you probably want to review how you typed those numbers. The second is smaller than the first, and the commas are not grouping the zeroe

by scbrg 11y ago

gauthr 11y ago
They're using the Indian numbering system -- see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_numbering_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_numbering_system
- talmand 11y ago
  That's really interesting, thanks for the link. But it still doesn't make sense, because if you remove the commas from 1,00,000 and 2,00,00 you end up with 100000 versus 20000. Based on the examples in your link I'm assuming that the last figure should be 2,00,000. In the examples all the high number always end with three zeros.
- scbrg 11y ago
  Wow, I did not know about this. Thank you for the link. As sibling poster points out though, there still ought to be an error in the numbers as written, as the second is smaller than the first, but the context of the text implies that it should be larger.
rasz_pl 11y ago
Not to be racist, but this is exactly what I experienced when dealing with projects outsourced to India.
vram22 11y ago
As others have said: anjanb probably meant 1 lakh (100,000) [1] and 2 lakh (200,000). His second number was likely a typo. [1] Not sure why the asymmetry between thousand and lakh (when these units were created), though (10^3 vs an additional 10^2). Another difference: Billion in India used to mean 1 million million (like the British), rather than the American meaning of 1 thousand million. Linking to this post (mine), since it is somewhat apropos :-) http://jugad2.blogspot.in/2010/06/bhaskaracharya-and-man-who-found-zero.html http://jugad2.blogspot.in/2010/06/bhaskaracharya-and-man-who...