Talk:101 (number)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Numbers
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.
 

OK since Docu says he isn't going above 100 I'll join in for 101 and up. Professor M. Fiendish, Esq. 05:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Use of "and"[edit]

Oh dear, what to say about this? One hundred and one is improper English; it should be simply One hundred one. Unfortunately this mistake has been carried over into all the following numbers. --Eequor 14:30, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Oh dear. No it isn't improper English. It is English as spoken by the English. See talk:1001 (number) talk:102 (number) etc..

Ugh. It's an unsightly misuse of and, especially in such constructions as one-hundred-and-first. And needlessly separates the number into a list when it should be kept whole. Perhaps this indicates a need for separate uk. and us. editions of Wikipedia, rather than pretending English is a single language. --Eequor 18:12, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well I'm afraid that this is merely your subjective opinion, to my ear (and I think most Britons) someone saying "one hundred one" sound weird and like a foreigner with a poor grasp of the language. Mintguy (T) 10:04, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)~

It's worth pointing out that the English language article claims:

English has lingua franca status, due to the military, economic, scientific, political and cultural influence of the United States of America and to a lesser extent that of the United Kingdom.

There's an argument in there that American English is the dominant form and should be given preference, but that's just POV and US-centric besides. --Eequor 18:24, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It should be changed because - I think if the British Empire had collasped after the American revolution, I suspect that Spanish or French would have become the lingua franca. Mintguy (T)
Well, in French, the number 101 is said "cent et un," being in English "one hundred and one"; and, seeing as English is derived from Germanic and French, it would seem that, by the root of the language, you are incorrect and that "one hundred one" is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.251.83 (talk) 02:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Why so many people using "101" without knowing the meaning? Can someone tell me the meaning.
This is not true, in French it is "cent un". FFMG (talk) 13:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Ambiguity in first paragraph[edit]

It currently says "101 is the smallest number requiring thirteen letters in English." As far as I've understood, this could mean two things.

  1. 101 is the smallest number of those which require thirteen letters, in English.
  2. 101 is the smallest number in that it requires thirteen letters, in English. (in this case, the original sentence would need a comma, but there's already missing another comma so I guess the author didn't use punctuation.)

I think we should find a proper way to write this. I don't know what the correct statement is, so I can't rewrite it :). --MathiasRav 16:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

If the statement is true, it misses the "and" --TimothyJacobson (talk) 03:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


I think the paragraph means to say: 101 is the smallest number of those which require thirteen letters, in English.
"One hundred one" (101) = 13 letters. "Two hundred one" (201) = 13 letters but a bigger number. And there are numbers requiring less letters than 13, so it can't mean the second statement.
Anyway, I wouldn't know if 101 is really the smallest number of all numbers with 13 letters. There needs to be a source given for this statement. I don't know if this can be found in the book from the "Reference" section (Wells, D. The Penguin Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Numbers London: Penguin Group. (1987): page 133). And what about negative numbers? Does "minus" count to the amount of letters? Bisco 20:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

101 is the smallest number requiring thirteen letters in English is false. Counterexamples include negative seven (-7), minus nineteen (-19), seven over nine (7/9), and one point seven (1.7). Of course one can modify the original statement to say smallest non-negative integer and go back to the linguistic debate. -- 17:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

101 - the basics[edit]

Does anybody know why 101 is used to indicate that basic information on a topic will be provided? Haven't found anything on that phrase's origin.

Right, I came here to ask that same question. One would expect 102 or 201 to be the next level up. I asked this at the humanities ref desk. DirkvdM 08:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Like DirkvdM I came here for the answer to this question - I thought this page would be 101 101, so to speak. My theory, awaiting confirmation, is that it comes from the course numbering used in US higher education; the first 1 refers to a 1st year course, and the 01 indicates that it is the first of these, thus the most basic. Makes sense? Moletrouser (talk) 11:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Possibly first chapter, fist section. Often used to explain the basics of what is to come.. Not sure though, I came here for an ansver. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.217.160.189 (talk) 10:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I came for that precise reason too, idioms sometimes being hard to get by themselves when foreign to them/language. 217.109.86.113 (talk) 07:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Me too! --Boivie (talk) 19:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Ta-daaa: 101 (term) 193.197.171.98 (talk) 15:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

What's the British spelling rule?[edit]

OK, I definitely don't want to get into an argument over which of British/American is correct or better, as they did above. But as an American, I want to learn what the British rule for inserting "and" is. Every time after "N hundred ..."? Do you do it for thousands, too -- one thousand and one? Millions and up? Do you do it for every grouping, like "one million and one thousand and one hundred and one"? I'm genuinely curious.

British English and American English have nothing to do with it. The only way of writing 101 is one hundred one', I fully accept that it is not widely used, but it does not make it less true.
Hi totally-missing-the-point dude. I thought I made it clear that I do *not* want to discuss correctness here. I want to find out when people (be they British, illiterate, space aliens, whoever) say "and", what the rule is. If you want to argue about correctness again, start another thread, please.
I am not your 'dude', please try to remain polite.
On one hand you ask for the rule "... what the rule is." and on the other you to discuss correctness, "I do *not* want to discuss correctness here.", make up your mind. Unless you mean something else by correctness.
As I said, the rule is fairly simple, you cannot use "and" in English for numbers 100 to 999. In fact you cannot use it between 0 and 999, this is why we say 'twenty one' and not 'twenty and one'. And that's the rule, full stop.
But in the UK, (and South Africa as far as I know), we use 'and'. So to answer your original question, in the UK, (and a few other countries), people say 'One hundred and one' but there is no 'British rule' as such. FFMG 18:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Saying the "only way" implies you are an authority over all things language. I shan't resort to sarcasm but this is really a bit over the top. It is standard practice to use "and" in numbers over 100 in British English, e.g. "Four hundred and ninety-nine", "One thousand, four hundred and ninety-nine", etc. The only time you'll hear it without any "and" is in retail, where it is becoming more common to say "four-nine-nine" or "one-four-nine-nine" for the above examples. All you keep doing is saying "I'm right, you're wrong", and you're getting close to falling into proof by assertion. The article is fine as it is and barely mentions the British phrasing - I don't see what's worth getting so worked up about. Let it lie and enjoy some peace at Christmas time. Onesecondglance (talk) 09:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are on about. I never implied that I was an authority, I replied to the OPs. This is the talk page, not the article so I don't need to reference everything I say.
So, at the risk of repeating myself, we say 'twenty seven', 'forty five' and not 'twenty and seven' or 'forty and five'. The same applies to 101 and so on.
If you are not happy with that point of view then you are welcome to give your own understanding of the rule.
Why do you want to change the article? I, (or the OP), never asked to change the article.
So I am not sure why you are even trying to revive an old, (small), discussion. Maybe this is nothing more than trolling?
Anyway, have a great Christmas. FFMG (talk) 11:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to change the article - in fact, if you read my post you can see I want to leave it as it is - but not get biased toward one opinion or other. I was actually just giving a reply to the question that was actually asked in this topic, whereas you have repeatedly just assumed that because you say one thing, this is correct over all others. There's no rule as such since this is a regional variation. BTW, I am no more a troll than you are a sock puppet. Merry Christmas anyway. Onesecondglance (talk) 09:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Again, you lost me, you mentioned changing article not me.
You make an assertion to disprove my assertion.
You never answered the OP, what on earth makes you think you did?
You obviously have no clue what a sock puppet is.
Anyways, this is going nowhere and I hate taking troll bait more than I have to, take care. FFMG (talk) 10:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't have the patience to argue with you. You're being deliberately antagonistic... hmm, like a troll. Don't bother replying to this, I shan't anymore.Onesecondglance (talk) 12:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Here in the UK, we use the word "and" as follows:
"ninety nine"
"one hundred and nine"
"one hundred and ninety nine"
"one thousand and nine"
"one thousand, nine hundred and ninety nine"
"one million, nine hundred and ninety thousand and ninety nine"
I can't work out the rule exactly, but everyone knows it without exception, and the lack of the word "and" makes numbers sound very awkward. Similarly, we go AND do something. The US English "Go tidy your room" sounds very strange to a British English speaker.
Amy (talk) 00:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
The rule is, "and" stands for a missing place. So in "one hundred and one", the "and" stands for "no tens". So one could labouriously say "one hundred, (and) no tens and one" or "one hundred and one". Similarly, "one thousand (no hundreds, no tens) and nine". I think that is the way the grammar works, the "and" elides missing units. Be it "a million and one" (no hundreds of thousands, etc etc etc). I am not sure how this works with measures having decimal places; I think then one tends just to count digits. three point one four one five nine six three five (kinda a bit of pi) or trying to think og something bigger the cosmological constant maybe or something it would still be quoted each digit I think?
Of course with Imperial measure and old currency it makes it more interesting. Six and threepence for example (6s. 3d., six shillings and threepence), the "and" essentially elides the "shillings". I am probably the last person in the world to say things like threepence and fourpence and ten bob (10s.), though when I asked yesterday at the post office how much ninepenny stamps now cost I got a funny look. Apparently they've always been ninepence.
Mixed units also cause difficulties. Six feet and two inches, or six feet two inches (or even six foot two inches, six foot two, eyes of blue.... no hang on that's an old song. And an American one. Without "and").
I have a feeling that I managed to make some sense then spoil it. Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 00:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

One foot and a foot. Oh that's two feet.[edit]

The British always use "and"; one hundred and one; one hundred and twenty. More old fashioned is perhaps things like four and twenty (24) as in the ditty "four and twenty virgins came down from Inverness/ and when they went back there were four and twenty less" (which should of course be four and twenty fewer). Houseman has a poem in A Shropshire Lad which starts "When I was one-and-twenty, I heard a wise man say..." and ends "But I am two-and-twenty, and oh, 'tis true, 'tis true".

I am not sure if it is correct to put North American here. I went out with a Canadian for seven years and I never remember having heard her use it without "and". Now, Canadian speech varies a lot and she grew up as French Canadian, but I think if she dropped the "and" I would have noticed it. And I can't remember any of her sisters doing so either, some of whom grew up in Francophone Canada and some in Anglophone Canada. That may just my not noticing but I would guess it's a US thing not a North American thing.

I can give you the syntax but it's difficult to graph here. "And" should be used (in Br. Eng.) to disambiguate the smaller unit. This is a bit tricky quite to describe. It's redundancy, more for the purpose in speech than in writing, to say "One hundred seven" can be confused with "seven hundred" (100 and 700 written seldom are likely to confuse) so to add "and" separates them to ensure they are not heard wrongly. That is a bad way to put it, I am sure I could think of better, but that's the basic premiss-- a bit of redundancy so it isn't misheard. That's not a conscious thing of course, just it happens to have grown up that way. The French point made earlier is very interesting actually, I'd have to look back pre-1066 to see how they were expressed in ME or OE but I am not sure if that would do much good, would be interesting anyway.

Would those in the US say "six half" or "six and a half"? I thnk the latter. At least the Br. Eng. is consistent, in that sense.

Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 00:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

101 Holidays[edit]

Some has added '101 Holidays' to the list, which I do not think is notable, if for no other reason than it wouldn't be referred to as '101' but is jsut a name which begins with 101. It was given an external link but I have made it a Wiki link. If it is notable someone can create the page, if not then it should be deleted. a_boardley (talk) 10:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I've gone through the list checking refs and so forth. Since nothing has been placed here for four months, I saw little need to attempt discussion. I've added references where appropriate, and removed entries where not. I've not simply delelted them, but stuck them into an editor comment saying why I think they don't belong. (I can't see, for example, how a procedure at a Disney firm is notable, whereas the R-101 airship is not. Shit forgot R-101 better add that). SimonTrew (talk) 00:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

This needs some serious cleanup[edit]

I judge from chat and history nobody has bothered with this since 2008. Wow, this short article I was expecting to be about 10 minutes to check cites, how wrong I was.

It has lots of calls that are either irrelevant, wrong, not notable, or redundant. I've listed them in the article text as comments. For example, Miller planes of 101 are bugger all to do with the natural number 101, that's shorthand for a vector 1xa 0xb 1xc. I would argue that if someone is looking up information about Miller planes they are unlikely to hazard 101 (number) as a guess.

This really needs a big cleanup. I hope I've done more harm than good. It's already essentially a double redirect.

Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 00:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

O dear me, I meant I hoped I'd done more good than harm! SimonTrew (talk) 23:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Disney[edit]

Is it worth noting that various companies (such as Disney) use 101 as a code that something has gone wrong. In this instance, it is pronounced one-oh-one --TimothyJacobson (talk) 03:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Images[edit]

Why should this article have no images? I added some relevant images from wikimedia, but DAJF deleted them claiming that images are not helpful. What is the general consensus on images in this article? (14 September 2009) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.49.118.114 (talk) 15:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Use of "and" (again)[edit]

Can someone expalin the use of "and". I thought it was used mostly in British English but in America people would normally say "one hundred one" instead of "one hundred and one". Now, though, I notice both Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton use the "and" in these numbers, so what's the plot? Is it a regional thing in North America or what? Mister Flash (talk) 19:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Use as update[edit]

My native language isn't English, but I've seen quite a few uses of 101 in titles when trying to explain something. For example Mac 101 or Blackberry 101. What is meant by that? --83.119.136.130 (talk) 10:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

American universities use a system of course numbers with the first year introductory course usually numbered 101 and this has led to the number becoming synonymous with basic introductions. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Roi Et Province...[edit]

...DOES NOT MEAN 101 IN THAI!! It means King and Province in French

  • King = Roi
  • et = and
  • Province = province

ThisguyYEAH (talk) 23:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

broken values in generated number box[edit]

The binary value of 101 shows as 101(subscript-2), the ternary value shows as 2(subscript-3), etc. These are wrong, as are the various other values below these.

I looks to me like the html generator, when reading the "101" value, converts it incorrectly.

The same kind of problem is on the "201" page too, and I reported it there too.

I'm using a recent version of Google Chrome.

Dr Smith (talk) 19:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

FIXED

Dr Smith (talk) 07:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Term[edit]

I propose that 101 (term) be merged into this article. The sentence that it's intended for coordination of course levels between universities is untrue[original research?], and sourced only to an encyclopedia without a recognized publisher. The fact that the term is frequently used for a beginning course could be added to the "number" article if adequately sourced. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Some universities have the first digit indicating the year number (well, sort of);
  1. Freshman
  2. Sophomore
  3. Junior
  4. Senior
  5. lower level graduate course
  6. upper level graduate course
but, for example, Caltech has
1-99: Undergraduate courses. (Usually, 1 is a freshman course, but 2 may be a second year course or an alternate freshman course)
100-199: Lower level graduate course
200-299: Upper level graduate course
300-399: Seminar or independent study.
I see that Course numbering in North America has at least one plausible source for the statement in 101 (term), but that suggests against notability, as it's only in (some states) in the United States. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:13, 23 December 2013 (UTC)