Talk:Indian numbering system

Comment

I was told Indian numbers to be as follows when I was child

Elam is one Daham is ten or 10 Shatam is hundred or 100 Sahastra is thousand or 1,000 Dashsahastra is ten thousand or 10,000 Laksh is one hundred thousand or 100,000 Dashlaksh is ten Laksh or 10,00,000 Koti or Crore is ten Dashlaksh Dashkoti is ten Koti Abja is ten Dashkoti Kharv is ten Abja Nikharv is ten Kharv Mahapadm is ten Nikharv Shankhu is ten Mahapadm Jaladhi is ten Shankhu Antya is ten Jaladhi Madhya is ten Antya And ten Madhya is Parardh

Does anyone know these numbers? Thus one parardh would mean ten rest to 17 or 100,000,000,000,000,000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamalakarpendse (talk • contribs) 12:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

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)

I found this page an Indian government website which spells it "padam": http://consumeraffairs.nic.in/forms/contentpage.aspx?lid=697. Maybe that's a typo though? Markshep (talk) 11:53, 19 July 2017 (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)

Indian counting system (as it is followed today) uses a simple 3,2,2 based comma separation system with same pattern repeating. So One Lakh Crore should be written as 1,00,000,00,00,000. The idea is that just by looking at the number representation you should be able to read it. This used to be defined correctly in the IN locale settings in Linux in the past, but some one along the line started propagating this 3,2,2,2,... format. I think this happened because not many numbers get written in digits above 100 crores, so the problem was not realized for long. That doesn't mean Wikipedia should propagate this falsehood further. I am going to take up a full rewrite of the article to reflect this. --User:Sivaraj (talk) 06:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

The vedic numbering obviously uses a 3,2,2,5,5,5,... format. So will be revamping this as well. Note that this is not currently being used, and is only for historic purposes. Sivaraj 07:03, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

The article was incorrect in stating that the grouping is repeating groups of 3,2,2. The first three digits from the right (ones, tens, and hundreds) are grouped together, and the rest are grouped in groups of two. A useful reference is the Unicode CLDR data, which is contributed to by professionals from across the world. It's built into all the computer systems, so you can check it yourself. Open your browser console (Ctrl+Shift+I) and type this: (new Intl.NumberFormat('hi')).format(10e16) --harsh_manutd (talk) 13:06, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Repeating group of 3,2,2 is the right way of representing Indian numbers. The reason for number grouping is to easily understand what is written, and able to read it without counting the digits. Since Indian numbers are counted in crores this is the right way of representing them. Unicode doesn't accommodate repeating groups. It only supports single digit repetition or left most group different. This is a technical limitation in Unicode which should be addressed. That doesn't warrant changing the way people use numbers. --User:Sivaraj 10:33, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@Sivaraj - can you share some sources where this is written. From what I could find, and from what school systems in North India are teaching, it's always been groupings of 2 except for the right-most 3 digits. Also, can you tell me your native state - as the 3,2,2 repeating pattern might be a local variation. See these sources: http://www.hindi.co/ginatee/numbers_saNkhyaaENn.html, and http://veda.wikidot.com/sanskrit-numbers. Note that Koti (crore) is 10^7 and Ayuta is 10^9 and Niyutam is 10^11 so why would the comma separators follow different pattern? It doesn't make sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harsh manutd (talk • contribs) 14:58, 24 August 2018 (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)

The article was incorrect in stating that the grouping is repeating groups of 3,2,2. The first three digits from the right (ones, tens, and hundreds) are grouped together, and the rest are grouped in groups of two. --harsh_manutd (talk) 13:02, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree it's confusing, because, if I understand correctly, the same number can be written in 2 forms : either with only 0 grouped by 2, sometimes grouped by 3.

This is from the tables in English, Italian and Spanish wiki articles, and from the comment of -59.95.35.182 (talk) 12:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC) This is what I understand :

"one hundred crore" = 1 arab = 100,00,00,000 = 1,00,00,00,000

"one thousand crore" = ten arab = 1,000,00,00,000 = 10,00,00,00,000

Please confirm to me, and if it is true, then it would make sense to have 2 columns for the Indian system As of today, articles from English wiki, Italian, Spanish and others are conflicting --Emmanuel JARRI (talk) 21:53, 25 August 2019 (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)

This was almost certainly a local glitch; there is no malware in this article and I'm pretty sure it's not possible to introduce any just by editing the wikitext. -- Beland (talk) 21:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.82.22.203 (talk)

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)

I agree these are different things; one is about how Arabic numerals are written in India, the other is about how Indian numerals are written in India. I'll put a hatnote to differentiate. -- Beland (talk) 21:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Why?

Basic aspect of a encyc article seems missing? Turkeyphan^t 13:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Modern use

As lakh and crore were used in the traditional Indian numerical system, why are they also still used in Indian English?Royalcourtier (talk) 05:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

What is the history of the Indian numbering system?

Fascinating! What linguistic or cultural traditions led to the use of commas separating the last three digits, but then every two digits above them? Contrast with the history of the metric system etc. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 16:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Fractions

The article would benefit from a section or example of how grouping works with fractions. Is it "0.123456789", "0.123,45,67,89", "0.12,34,56,78,9" or something else? jodastephen (talk) 15:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

There is no grouping for fractional part of a number. Fractions are written continuously as in other numbering number systems. Sivaraj 11:17, 17 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sivaraj (talk • contribs)

Abbreviations / Suffixes

I think it would be useful for this article to cover abbreviations used for crore, lahk, arab etc.

The articles on Crore and Lahk mention that these are abbreviated to L and cr respectively, but I've been able to find no information on what arab, lahk crore, crore crore, padm etc are abbreviated to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimTim (talk • contribs) 08:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

mahaugha — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.114.197.127 (talk) 06:21, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

A template on Wikipedia to convert between the two systems?

On several pages related to India (or the subcontinent) it is found that the western numbering system is used, especially with currency. Being an Indian, I find it difficult to identify with the magnitude of a value such as ₹150 million. Yes, I can convert it in my mind but that isn't the point. A template that does the conversion of say ₹150 million to ₹15 cr. would, in my opinion, increase the readability of an article. Abhijeetviswa (talk) 07:45, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

This cuts both ways! The relevant Wikipedia Manual of Style section talks of "opportunities for commonality", suggesting that the forms familiar in the West be used (million, billion, etc.) rather than those familiar in the Indian subcontinent (lakh, crore, etc.). This would be more convenient for westerners than easterners; yet both need to have the material presented comprehensibly. A typical English-speaking American or Australian has never even heard of a lakh or a crore, so using these terms fails to communicate with such readers; and the converse may also be true. The smart solution would be to use hints, so that when a reader hovers their pointing device (mouse, pen or finger) over a hinted term, a concise explanation will appear above and beside it. Now, where did I see how to do this? yoyo (talk) 03:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

10,000,00,00,000 or 1,00,00,00,000?

The article suggests that digits are grouped in groups of 2 except for the last 3, but these two anonymous edits claim that after the second group of 2 there's another group of 3. This is not supported by the reference cited near the edit either; it seems that it was made up by that user. It must be deleted or properly cited and the rest of the text changed accordingly. —Cousteau (talk) 00:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Please fix it (revert the IP). See the answer I was given at bnwiki. That says (in Q3) that the Bengali Wikipedia groups like 12,34,56,789.12345 where the first group before "." (789) has three digits, with the others are two digits. Johnuniq (talk) 04:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Lakh

I recently PRODded Lakh; @Imaginatorium: does not seem to agree with that, but he does agree that the article is not very good. More to the point: the topic of Lakh is really the Indian numbering system, which basically amounts to the use of two different multipliers, Lakh and Crore. So I think anything useful on those pages should be merged into this article, and both lakh and crore should redirect to that. Any opinions? ωικιωαrrιorᑫᑫ1ᑫ 16:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

As this is one piece of a larger puzzle conceptually, this does make sense. However I find that the utility of the the frequency of lookup, such as someone not familiar with the concept of Lakh and needing to google it for a definition, finding the Google Featured Snippets page or otherwise finding the reference to Lakh as immediate and condensed increases the ability to rely on Wikipedia as a quick reference for a definition. For example, if a person based in the US was corresponding with someone in India regarding a number, and the response included "5.5 Lakh", the US person may need to quickly look up this definition. The second link (assuming the merge happens) would be the definition of Lakh by Merriam-Webster, where the dictionary responds with a single page. My vote is no, do not merge - however the sentiment for something less frequently subjected to search and quick answer may be more desirable. I personally came to the page today only because I was double checking before I provided an answer to a colleague who hadn't encountered it before (and I'm not the type of person to say "google it yourself"). Dolphx (talk) 22:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

But WP is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not "Google answers". It is here to provide articles, not instant access to factoids. AAMOF, the redirect could (and should) go to the section specific to Lakh or Crore. Imaginatorium (talk) 11:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

@Imaginatorium: Nah, I doubt that'll work, because redirects are no-indexed. Maybe a soft redirect to the Wiktionary definitions or something? That might put the Wiktionary pages higher up on Google search results.

Sorry, what "won't work"? (Remind me what "redirects are no-indexed" means.) WP is not here to win google points either. Imaginatorium (talk) 13:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I am aware of that; tell it to @Dolphx:, not me. ωικιωαrrιorᑫᑫ1ᑫ 13:12, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Lakh and crore are important names of large numbers, just as million and thousand are. Their articles contain important information about how they are used and what they are called in other languages, information that does not belong in Indian numbering system. The articles are short but could be greatly expanded, and that would be the best thing to do: expand the articles, not eliminate them. Merging them is not appropriate. HiMyNameIsFrancesca (talk) 18:06, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Can you explain what information about lakh or crore is not related to the "Indian numbering system"? Imaginatorium (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Support. I completely support merging this (and even crore) into Indian numbering system. The arguments about how users might see the information from Google and such are not considerations, and never were. This is an encyclopaedia and, thus, it has its own format. The second sentence of the Indian numbering system article arms anyone unfamiliar with the system with basically 99% (since the use of terms other than lakh and crore are so rare that even most native users of the system are unaware of their existence) of the knowledge necessary to navigate the system should they encounter it anywhere. There's already a usage section on the page as well, which essentially makes the usage sections in Lakh and Crore redundant. And the page also has an enumeration of the local names of the different counting words in the most-spoken Indic languages as well, which combined with the fact about the usage information overlap, makes the individual lakh and crore articles entirely redundant. Getsnoopy (talk) 16:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Oppose: I'm somewhat thick and wish to ask Alexa "What is a crore" and what is a "lakh". I want a simples easy answer not the whole numbering system. And this article has got template tags already and a merge of something that important into a tagged article is not a great idea.Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:42, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@Djm-leighpark: I don't think you're going to convince many people with an argument about how a structural change to WP's articles is going to disturb your personal Amazon Echo workflow. Regarding template tags, that's all the more reason to improve the article such that those tags can be removed. Getsnoopy (talk) 03:38, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm firmly in the oppose to this regardless. We've not really got a lot of participation here. Thats one argument of many and I've badgered for the last week and IO'm pretty grumpy and you've just rubbed me up the wrong way further by you've put that. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:57, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

This discussion is already pretty messy with 2 alternate merges albeit compatible discussions in place with very little clarity ... with does not really auger well for any merge as it shows muddled thinking and a muddled merge is likely to result. Thats an additional reason.Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Oppose: Thank you for having kept the article. I am reading a news article from India that uses the term. At first I assumed that the term was an abbreviation for an Indian health agency, but then the sentence didn't makes sense! It was so easy for me to google the term, thanks to the wikipedia article. Efficient access to crowd-sourced, vetted information is why wikipedia exists. Those opposed are telling you that we use the current structure. Why not check the logs for the queries that bring folks here, or is the methodology not based on having an information retrieval paradigm? Herewith. "New Delhi: With more than 4.2 lakh confirmed coronavirus cases and 19,100 deaths across the world, the coronavirus pandemic continues to wreak havoc in several countries and scientists are in a race to find a treatment for the deadly virus." from https://theprint.in/science/remdesivir-trials-in-israel-and-italys-drop-in-cases-5-global-developments-on-covid-19/387944/ Failing to use query-based data for the information-retrieval paradigm is a big fail for Wikipedia. Please weigh this carefully to prevent Wikipedia from being obsolete when a platform emerges that does look at query-based retrieval histories. MichelleInSanMarcos (talk) 18:29, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Crore

I recently PRODded Lakh; @Imaginatorium: does not seem to agree with that, but he does agree that the article is not very good. More to the point: the topic of Lakh is really the Indian numbering system, which basically amounts to the use of two different multipliers, Lakh and Crore. So I think anything useful on those pages should be merged into this article, and both lakh and crore should redirect to that. Any opinions? ωικιωαrrιorᑫᑫ1ᑫ 16:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose: I'm somewhat thick and wish to ask Alexa "What is a crore" and what is a "lakh". I want a simples easy answer not the whole numbering system. And this article has got template tags already and a merge of something that important into a tagged article is not a great idea.Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:42, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Indian English has as many speakers as the other forms of English, and this accounting is the norm in that system. If we have million as a stand alone article then we should have lakh and crore. Alternatively we could merge million, lakh, and crore into some common article, like "commonplace big numbers". Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:05, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Digit grouping inconsistencies

For all the written information about the grouping, it states "which group the digits into powers of one hundred in the Indian system (except for the first thousand)". This is reflected in the first table under Use of separators with the third number being "17,00,00,00,000" (?-2-2-2-3). But the fourth number is formatted as "67,89,000,00,00,000" (?-2-3-2-2-3). But in the table under Names of numbers, it's consistently expanding into the format of "10,000,00,00,000,00,00,000" (?-3-2-2-3-2-2-3).

The pattern seems to be a repeating of ",00,00,000" (-2-2-3), and it's not just the first thousand being in a group.

Looking further into the table, it seems to be determined by how you would say the number.

2-2-3 repeated		...2-2-2-2-2-3 expanding
1,00,000	one lakh	1,00,000	one lakh
10,00,000	ten lakh	10,00,000	ten lakh
1,00,00,000	one crore	1,00,00,000	one crore
10,00,00,000	ten crore	10,00,00,000	ten crore
100,00,00,000	hundred crore	1,00,00,00,000	one arab
1,000,00,00,000	thousand crore	10,00,00,00,000	ten arab
10,000,00,00,000	ten thousand crore	1,00,00,00,00,000	one kharab
1,00,000,00,00,000	one lakh crore	10,00,00,00,00,000	ten kharab
10,00,000,00,00,000	ten lakh crore	1,00,00,00,00,00,000	one nil
1,00,00,000,00,00,000	one crore crore	10,00,00,00,00,00,000	ten nil
10,00,00,000,00,00,000	ten crore crore	1,00,00,00,00,00,00,000	one padma
100,00,00,000,00,00,000	hundred crore crore	10,00,00,00,00,00,00,000	ten padma
1,000,00,00,000,00,00,000	thousand crore crore	1,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,000	one shankh
10,000,00,00,000,00,00,000	ten thousand crore crore	10,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,000	ten shankh

Differences in the first grouping is that it counts up to a crore, then it repeats. It's an indefinite method which I can see being preferred for that reason. The second grouping requires a new term for every 100 multiple. – Where the table ends, the following numbers of the first group are: "one lakh crore crore", "ten lakh crore crore", "one crore crore crore", "ten crore crore crore", ... and for the second group it's indeterminate, as the names aren't given.

In the table under Names of numbers, there's also the mention of "hundred arab", "thousand arab", "ten thousand arab", before ending. By the looks of it, it looks to behave like the 2-2-3 repeating / crore crore system, but instead being 2-2-2-3 repeating / arab arab system. One crore crore crore "1,00,00,000,00,00,000,00,00,000" would therefore be thousand arab arab "1,000,00,00,00,000,00,00,00,000".

So this might be something that should be researched and included in the article.

Liggliluff (talk) 10:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)