5 ms·

> Not to mention that a Danish "billion" is not the same as a US "billion". Google correctly translates the Danish original "milliard" to the US "billion". A 5

> Not to mention that a Danish "billion" is not the same as a US "billion". Google correctly translates the Danish original "milliard" to the US "billion". A 5 (Danish) billion kroner fine would be higher than our total GDP. > this is one of the fewer cases where US metric makes much more sense. Don't see that. A bi-llion is million million. A tri-llion is a million million million. Makes perfect sense to me.

okamiueru 14y ago
Ah, I like to think in steps of factors 10^3. Thousand, Million, Billion, Trillion. Very rarely do you get to numbers above this (non-science related), and when you do, scientific notation is more relatable. I think I have almost never in my life (in Norway), seen "Billiard", "Trillion" or "Trilliard" used anywhere.
- abrahamsen 14y ago
  As you noted, we still have factor 1000 steps. -ard is 1000 -ion.
  - okamiueru 14y ago
    You're right. I should also have mentioned that it was more intuitive (for me), that {mono-, di-, tri-} was the 1000 factor prefix, as opposed to {mono-|{-ion,-ard}, di-|{-ion,-ard}, tri-|{-ion,-ard}}. I'm not arguing expressibility. It's just different names. I just found the system my country uses (long scale) to be less intuitive than the one used by the US (short scale). Just take a look at the comparison [1], and make up your own mind on what is intuitive, and what not. I'm not saying you or anyone is "wrong". I find it hard to see good reason for the long scale, but I'll entertain arguments. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Long_and_short_scales#Comparison http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Long_and_short_sca...
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - sesqu 14y ago
      A good argument against the short scale is that it has a confusing offset. A quadrillion (short scale) is 1000^(4+1)=10^15.
ars 14y ago
> Don't see that. A bi-llion is million million. A tri-llion is a million million million. Makes perfect sense to me. Why is the million the base unit? Numbers are always written in groups of thousand, not million. Sorry, but in this I agree with okamiueru - the short scale system makes much more sense.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]

okamiueru 14y ago

Ah, I like to think in steps of factors 10^3. Thousand, Million, Billion, Trillion. Very rarely do you get to numbers above this (non-science related), and when you do, scientific notation is more relatable. I think I have almost never in my life (in Norway), seen "Billiard", "Trillion" or "Trilliard" used anywhere.

abrahamsen 14y ago
As you noted, we still have factor 1000 steps. -ard is 1000 -ion.
- okamiueru 14y ago
  You're right. I should also have mentioned that it was more intuitive (for me), that {mono-, di-, tri-} was the 1000 factor prefix, as opposed to {mono-|{-ion,-ard}, di-|{-ion,-ard}, tri-|{-ion,-ard}}. I'm not arguing expressibility. It's just different names. I just found the system my country uses (long scale) to be less intuitive than the one used by the US (short scale). Just take a look at the comparison [1], and make up your own mind on what is intuitive, and what not. I'm not saying you or anyone is "wrong". I find it hard to see good reason for the long scale, but I'll entertain arguments. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Long_and_short_scales#Comparison http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Long_and_short_sca...
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - sesqu 14y ago
    A good argument against the short scale is that it has a confusing offset. A quadrillion (short scale) is 1000^(4+1)=10^15.

ars 14y ago

> Don't see that. A bi-llion is million million. A tri-llion is a million million million. Makes perfect sense to me. Why is the million the base unit? Numbers are always written in groups of thousand, not million. Sorry, but in this I agree with okamiueru - the short scale system makes much more sense.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]