This article is within the scope of WikiProject Numbers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Numbers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This is the page to jot down interesting facts about 10-digit numbers. If enough (at least three) interesting facts are gathered about a particular 10-digit number, it could possibly warrant its own article. PrimeFan 19:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Isn't it a bit too trivial to be mentioned here that a certain number is repdigit. It is trivial for numbers in he decimal representation to decide if it is repdigit or not. If we include this, divisibility by seven would be less trivial and should be mentioned. So I am going to delete repdigit now. Andreask 16:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC) Vvvv — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 21:32, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
In English (in the UK) and the rest of Europe 1 billion is 1,000,000,000,000.
It is logical. Viz. 1 million 1,000,000 1 billion (bi= 2 sets of millions) 1,000,000,000,000 1 trillion (tri= 3 sets of millions) 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 1 quadrillion (quad= 4 sets of millions) 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 1 quintillion (quin= 5 sets of millions) 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 etc.
In the UK, 1 billion _was_ 10^12 but is currently very widely understood to be 10^9 - see long and short scales for the discussion. If you believe your version to be true, please find any recent supporting definition from, say, a BBC or government or national newspaper website and post the link to Talk:long and short scales. Thanks, Ian Cairns 01:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
The long scale comes from the Latin. But if we have mille (thousand), millione (million), and milliard (109), why not bille (1012), billion (1015), billiard (1018), trille (1021), etc.? Neither the "short" nor "long" scale is entirely internally consistent. It's better to go with the more concise naming system, in either case. Why use two words when one will suffice? --Eideteker (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and sign your vote with ~~~~
Support per my reasons above. Voortle 00:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. The current title is unwieldy but unambiguous. Why upset the minority who use the other definition of billion? It's not that hard to read. Your point about "most links referring to the number link to billion" is totally inaccurat: see my counts below. jnestorius(talk) 00:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
(following comments by me and Voortle moved up from after the counting subsectionjnestorius(talk) 22:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC))
Nobody uses "billionaire" to mean "someone with 10E12 dollars". As for moving links, that's why disambiguation pages exist. jnestorius(talk) 22:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose, there are two definitions for things over 999,999,999. 22.214.171.124 04:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose - for you billion may have a unique meaning, but for much of the world the word is ambiguous. 1000000000 is uniquely understood by both sides. This was the whole reason for creating the article Long and short scales. Ian Cairns 08:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Support. As Voortle said, we can link to the other, less common meaning of billion meaning "1,000,000,000,000" at the top of the article so that there won't be any confusion. How do we expect people to know how many zeroes this has? 1000000000 (number) will confuse even more people than billion, because many people won't know how many zeroes it has without having to stop and count them. 126.96.36.199 14:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. A billion is a million of millions for many people. Renaming this to billion would be an example of Systemic bias--Asteriontalk 16:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose per Asterion, Ian Cairns, etc. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
"billion" is the usual name for the number in English speaking countries. The other meaning of "billion" is generally used in other European languages. There's no reason to have a hard to read title to accomodate nonnative English speakers. This is the English Wikipedia after all. We shouldn't pretend like it's not. If you want to accomodate nonnative speakers, go to the simple English wikipedia. Voortle 14:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
(preceding Voortle comment moved up from after the counting subsectionjnestorius(talk) 22:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC))
I would support a move to 1000000000, which redirects here anyway. The "nnnnn (number)" suffix is a convention useful for small numbers, so 1776 is the year rather than the number, but the year 1 billion [sic] is unlikely to have a Wikipedia article for a looong time. jnestorius(talk) 22:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
For the sake of accuracy, all of the articles mentioned below should be disambiguated to 1000000000 (number).--Asteriontalk 10:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
1836311903 is listed as a fibonacci prime, but it is in fact divisible by 139.
You're quite right, anonymous user. 1836311903 = 139 * 461 * 28657, as I've just double-checked with Mathematica. It's still a Fibonacci number, however. I will amend the article accordingly. Thanks for pointing this out. PrimeFan 22:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
"In finance, the possession of one billion United States dollars allows one to be ranked among the world's wealthiest individuals."
is not only a strange thing to have in this article (what does it mean by 'allows'?) , but it irrelevant (If I had one dollar less, wouldn't I still be considered weathy?). If there's no objection, I'd like to remove it.
Well the same could be said about any of the facts (eg)109- 1 km is still over six times the earth-sun distance. The fact it is wikilinked to a page which gives further details means, IMO, it can stay, though I've taken out the 'allows'. The Yeti 00:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
If one accepts that the (almost) universal defininition of Billion is the "American" one, however logical/illogical it can said to be,there remains two related issues.
1) older documents of non-American origin, especially UK/European ones may well have been written using the "British" definition. For accuracy, one needs to be aware that pre early 1970's (a personal approximation) the term would most probably refer to the non-American definition needs to be understood.
My understanding was the a short scale billion (that which is used in the USA and almost always in the UK nowadays) is 1,000,000,000 and a long scale billion (the traditional billion from British English and most other languages) is 1,000,000,000,000. But the introduction (until I changed it a minute ago) claimed that they are exactly the same (1,000,000,000). Surely not otherwise why would they be called 'short scale billion' and 'long scale billion' if they're exactly the same? I found it very confusing.--Xaniatalk 00:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Not only Europe, in Estados Unidos Mexicanos the number 1,000,000,000 is named "One thousand million" and billion is 1,000,000,000,000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deplanonose (talk • contribs) 20:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
The one billion page reads as "is the natural number following 999,999,999 and preceding 1,000,000,001", while the fourty-two page reads as "is the natural number immediately following 41 and directly preceding 43." Why the absence (or appearance) of the words "immediately" and "directly"? The numbers pages should have consistency here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khonkhortisan (talk • contribs) 03:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Move to 1,000,000,000. There's clear consensus to remove the parenthetical, and this appears to have the best support among the suggested titles. Cúchullaint/c 15:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
As far as I know, the largest year we have an article for is 2059. We don't even have articles for most four-digit years, let alone extremely large years similar to 1000000000. We're not like to have an article on such a year for a long time, if ever. Voortle (talk) 02:09, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Oppose should be 1,000,000,000 IMO. Proposed title is an improvement over status quo. RedSlash 22:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Support. (number) is not necessary. Year 1000000000 is in the very distant future. I'd also support a move to 1,000,000,000.RightGot (talk) 05:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Comment I think it should just be 1 billion. Unreal7 (talk) 16:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Or billion. I'd support a move to that as well. English speakers don't really use the long scale these days. RightGot (talk) 20:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Support no reason to disambiguate in this case. 1,000,000,000 would be also acceptable.--Staberinde (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The description "aping US English" in the first section is political commentary and does not belong in an encyclopedia. But I'm not sure what to replace it with. "Unifying with" sounds somewhat positive to me and could incite people to change it again. Can a native speaker of English decide, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tompoko (talk • contribs) 20:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)