- 1 trivial
- 2 error
- 3 Another Billion definition
- 4 Requested move 2006
- 5 1836311903 is not a prime number
- 6 a billion seconds ago
- 7 US Dollars
- 8 Historical Accuracy
- 9 Short and Long scale billion
- 10 Do the 10-digit numbers belong here?
- 11 42
- 12 Requested move
- 13 Aping
- 14 Move discussion in progress
- 15 Millions, Billions and Trillions
- 16 Aping and Unifying
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 22.214.171.124 (talk) 21:32, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Error: factorization of billion is 2^9 * 5^9
Quote: About 10^9 years ago, the first multicellular organisms appeared on Earth.
- Changed "multicellular organisms" to "multicellular eukaryotes", per our article evolution of multicellularity. Thanks. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Another Billion definition
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.
Why count any differently?
- 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)
1836311903 is not a prime number
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)
a billion seconds ago
"About a billion seconds ago the first episode of Saturday Night Live was aired" a billion seconds is 31 years? if so thats 1975! EDIT: whoops forgot sig Triangl 02:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- What's Saturday Night Live and where is it shown? Isn't this US-centrism? Can you find some other event that the whole world will recognise? Ian Cairns 08:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Also that gets more and more inaccurate with a short amount of time, at least the others are over a great enough time span to make any inaccuracy unimportant. Wheatleya 21:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I think this...
"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.
2) historical interest and fact should document and acknowledge the alternative definition. Oxford English Dictionary. Reference: http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutwords/billion
The above clearly also affects higher number naming (as the OED notes)
Niceandtidy 13:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- This is covered in the article Long and short scales and would be useful here - or linked. Ian Cairns (talk) 14:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Short and Long scale billion
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.--Xania talk 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)
Do the 10-digit numbers belong here?
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 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)
Move discussion in progress
Millions, Billions and Trillions
A Billionaire has 1,000,000,000,000 or more pounds, dollars, whatever. Therefore Billion is defined by having 12 (not 9) 0's after the 1. It seems that this definition of Billion has been replaced by an AMERICAN definition of Billion, which has only 9 0's after the 1. How are we to teach our children correctly, or even know anything about numbers if our definitions of value are constantly changed?
"After several decades of increasing informal British usage of the short scale, in 1974 the government of the UK adopted it, and it is used for all purposes including official."
We only used it "informally" because we were constantly bombarded by that version from Americans. Thats just one MORE thing the Americans have managed to force on us.
"The original meaning of the word billion is a bit complex. The prefix bi- means two, and the suffix -illion comes from the word million. But the origin of million itself is obscure."
"The original French definition of million-million was adopted by other European countries, notably England and Germany, and spread around the world through European colonialisation."
Case closed, and subject dismissed, I believe. A Billion is one million million, (1,000,000,000,000) and always will be. Any attempt to screw with that fact is pointless! Bluddy americans! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 19:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Aping and Unifying
The persone above who mentiond Aping...? I am English, and the term "aping" would actually be correct. Unifying would mean a two-way agreement, like both countried came to a mutual understanding, a compromise. Aping means "copying", which is what some did..."informally" apparently. However, just because SOME people decide to copy others, it doesn't mean the rest of us should be forced to...especially against our will. Stupid government!
SOME people like Hitler's ideas, and still copy this "way of life" that he preached...that doesn't mean EVERYONE in the world should do the same...does it?
FRANCE created the billion, and we spread it around a lot. Why does this "new" (american) definition overtake the original? Why dont we just start calling a car a modusbrum and eventually force the world to comply...WHERE DOES IT END? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)