Talk:Indian numbering system

Title of this article ("Indian Numbering System" vs "South Asian numbering system")

The title of this article should be "Indian Numbering System" or "Indian Sub Continent numbering system". Reason: At present Wikipedia is redirecting "Indian numbering system" to "South Asian numbering system". In this context "Indian" refers to the Indian Subcontinent. Using the term South Asia by various definition includes more countries/territories than the defined Indian Subcontinent. As such not all South Asian countries follow this numbering system. The numbering system and its details provided in the article itself points to this fact. As such, this type of numbering system cannot be generalized for South Asia. It is very specific to the Indian (or Indian Sub Continent) numbering system. As a reference to why using the term South Asia in this context is disputed, please refer the article mentioned in the sources. Source: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_numerals; [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_subcontinent; [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Asia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logbookmark (talk • contribs) 18:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with talk. India is a much older identity than South Asia and refers to the whole modern-day Indian Subcontinent. The Muslim world coined the word Hind for the Indian Subcontinent and Europe termed in as the Indies before the British finally named it as India, all much before the term South Asia was coined. Obviously India is different from modern-day Republic of India. People relating the two would also confuse the continents of America with the United States of America and therefore demand change in titles of any America-related articles!

We already have so many different terms based on India, such as Indian Subcontinent, Indian Ocean, Indian Civilization, Indian numerals, etc. Why not then rename them all to South Asian? Of course not! Because they are taught the world over as 'Indian' and not 'South Asian'. The same goes with Indian Number System. It was Indian before it became South Asian.

I know Pakistani users will oppose this change of topic. I've seen them hotly debate any India-generalized topic covering all of Subcontinent, without understanding the essence of this word 'India' and the difference between India- the Subcontinent and India- the country, which the rest of the world understands much better than them! Their paranoia can be attributed, in part, to their Indophobic school curricula. I'm yet open to receiving their opinion over this matter.

It is, however, essential that this debate be reignited and the mods be back to discussing this issue. The person who had changed the title from 'Indian' to 'South Asian' had promised a talk over this but has since perhaps become dormant. Rest of the mods are urged to join in. --therash09 (talk) 21:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

This isn't really about Indian - or South Asia - numbering systems. The numbering system is the same as anywhere else. The only difference is the use of lakh and crore for larger numbers.119.224.91.84 (talk) 05:43, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Padma vs Padm

I was showing this page to several India colleagues and all agreed that the Hindi word listed for "Padma" says "Padm" in Hindi, so is perhaps the English or the Hindi incorrect? I do not know enough obviously to correct this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oneliketadow (talk • contribs) 18:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The correct spelling is padma (exact devanagari translation), but the pronunciation is "padm". But I have changed the spelling to exact Hindi. Hope this satisfies you. However, I have hidden the numbers after padm, as they get into the way -59.95.35.182 (talk) 11:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

untitled

General usage of higher denominations today are recursive e.g. 2 lakh crores (2 followed by 12 zeros).

Would 10¹⁴ be refered to as "1 crore crores"?

Basically

It should be Taken in account, how the numbering system was built and can used effectively.

1	Single Digit {One}	[Ekam]
10	Two Digits {Ten}	[Dasham]
100	Three Digits {Hundred}	[Shatak]
Now onwards the trick begins
1,000	Four Digits {Thousand}	[Shahastra]
10,000	Five Digits {Ten Thousand}	[Dasha Shahastra]
1,00,000	Six Digits {Hundred thousand}	[Laksh/lack]
10,00,000	Seven Digits {Milion}	[Dasha Laksh/lack]

Lakh and crore articles

I converted lakh and crore to redirect here, but this was reverted. The redirect still makes more sense to me to avoid duplication, but I don't feel strongly enough about it to do it again. However, the text I moved in here from the other articles was left in place. Someone might like to remove it, to avoid further duplication. Or restore the redirects. 207.176.159.90 23:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Challenging?

I don't see any need to describe the numbering system as challenging. What makes it so? The only thing that has confused me is why the first grouping is 1000, then each term is 100 of the last. If anybody knows why that is (my family doesn't) that would make a good addition. Rahulchandra 15:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Higher numbers

Anybody has an explanation on what follows?

The 28th Canto of ‘Yudha Kanda’ of the Valmiki Ramayana has one of Ravana’s spies — Suka — describing to him the size of Rama’s army. Before he tells the size of Rama’s army, the spy goes on to illustrate the nomenclature of the number system. Note that decimal numeracy is taken for granted. Here is what the spy says:

   * 100,00,000 is one crore (10**7)
   * 100,000 crore is one shankh (10**12)
   * 100,000 shankh is one mahashankh (10**17)
   * 100,000 mahashankh is one vrinda (10**22)
   * 100,000 vrinda is one mahavrinda (10**27)
   * 100,000 mahavrinda is one padma (10**32)
   * 100,000 padma is one mahapadma (10**37)
   * 100,000 mahapadma is one kharb (10**42)
   * 100,000 kharb is one mahakharb (10**47)
   * 100,000 mahakharb is one samudra (10**52)
   * 100,000 samudra is one ogh (10**57)
   * 100,000 ogh is one mahaough (10**62)

Higher numbers idea is interesting, and especially new figures (vrinda, samudra, ogh) but "reuse" of kharb, padma,... is puzzling. Disdero 09:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

“A hundred thousand Shankus are said to be one Maha Shanku. A hundred thousand Maha Shankus are called one Vrindam here. A hundred thousand Vrindas are said to be one Maha vrindam. A hundred thousand Mahavrindas are called one Padmam here. A hundred thousand padmas are said to be one Mahapadmam. A hundred thousand Mahapadmas are called one Kharvam here. A hundred thousand kharvas are said to be one Mahakharvam. A hundred thousand Mahakharvas are called one Samundram. A hundred thousand Samudras are said to be one ogha here. A hundred thousand oghas are acclaimed a one Mahaugha.”

The source text can be found here http://www.valmikiramayan.net/yuddha/sarga28/yuddhaitrans28.htm Disdero 09:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I have created a table based on the above, and have used exact sanskrit transliteration -Azykwv (talk) 13:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Isn't this limited to hindi numbering? Personally I haven't any number higher than Arhab being used. (Cloud02 20:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC))

article is self contradictory

It says they are grouped in two's, but the examples are grouped in three's first, the subsequently n two's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.180.217.90 (talk) 19:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Nobody any idea why that is, even after so many years? Apparently this also confuses native people (see above, addition from 2006) --Ph0nq (talk) 13:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

even powers

It would be helpful for those of us not accustomed to this system to explain what happens to even powered numbers. E.g., 10⁴ and so forth. Tloc (talk) 06:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Simple, 10^3 is one thousand; 10^4 is 10 * 10^3 ie ten thousand. 10^8 is ten karod (crore), 10^10 is ten arab, etc. -Azykwv (talk) 13:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect representation of adant singhar?

Adant singhar is shown as "100,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,000" (note the initial "100" without a comma). However, I believe the correct representation is "1,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,000". Can someone more knowledgeable than I confirm? Afalls (talk) 23:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

You are right. I have corrected it. But the power notation is better to understand (Don't count the zeros!) -Azykwv (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The languages needed

The list of languages needed to view this article is not complete. As far as I can tell there is at least Burmese (which I don't have on my computer, because it's weird arabic and a few more (see the Usage in different languages section) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.48.57.36 (talk) 13:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Urdu has no mention in this article?!

— iFaqeer (talk to or email me) 01:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Please smile (see the last section) -Polytope4d (talk) 21:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

100 crore

The introductory text of the article says

 "1 billion (100 crore) is written as 1,00,00,00,000"

but the large numbers table show it as 100,00,00,000. These can't both be right. I think the table is correct, but not sure enough to want to edit the page. Michealt (talk) 16:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

It should be 100,00,00,000 (as we call it "one hundred crore"). But it depends on what you want to depict and may be written as 1,00,00,00,000. One lakh crore is written as 1,00,000,00,00,000 (notice the three-zero group appearing in the middle: actually a crore is written first and a lakh is simply attached to its left). This may get confusing at times but is not. Hence we've decided to create a separate table after "padm" and keep it hidden. You can always unhide it. -59.95.35.182 (talk) 12:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

WARNING: I believe this Article may be infected by a virus on the Wikipedia server.

While I was able to access this Article (and hence this Talk Page) in Safari, Firefox crashes every time I click on this Article. Furthermore, this is the only Article that makes Firefox crash. All other Articles are just fine in Firefox. This leads me to believe there is a virus on this page to which Safari 5 is immune while Firefox 16 is not. I have restarted my computer several times, and there is still the same problem with only this particular Wikipedia Article.

Therefore, my suggestion to improve the Article is: A skilled Admin should clear the server file behind this Article of any and all viruses, bugs, or errors it may presently contain.

Signed,

The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

As soon as I upgraded to Firefox 26, I was able to access this Article smoothly. No more beach-balling, no more Force Quit, just an Article rendered like any other on Wikipedia. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I propose that this article to be merge into the Indian numerals article. This article is basically about the treatment of large numbers in the Indian system, and the current article name, "Indian Numbering System", has the same meaning as "Indian numerals". For example, the Chinese numerals article has a section for large numbers as used in the Chinese system.--Joshua ^{Say "hi" to me!}_{What I've done?} 11:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this would be a good idea. These are two distinct topics: the names of large numbers vs the characters used to represent numbers. Both articles are large enough to stand on their own; combining them could detract from clarity. What might fit for Chinese might not fit here; note that the large number names in Chinese have their own characters so it's not as untangleable. Jimp 08:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Jimp. Not a good idea to merge the two. -Polytope4d (talk) 16:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Against. Do not merge 101.163.17.98 (talk) 13:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)