Talk:Indian numbering system

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Indian numbering system article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

India Start‑class High‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

Intelligent lifeforms

What is that first sentance? flippy floppy phares about being admired by intelligent lifeforms? Did I miss first contact? If someone cannot substantiate what this means, it's going...

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)[reply]

Hindi bias

I think it is more of an article on hindi number system, not a general (indian) one.

Duplication and Bias

1. The articles crore and lakh deal with similar topics. It is better they redirect here.

2. There is a bias towards Hindi words and phrases - this might not apply to other countries and probably even other states in India.

3. People say Thousand not Hazaar in the business environment.

59.92.67.152 07:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

“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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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.