Talk:Four is the number of letters in the ...: Difference between revisions
Talk:Four is the number of letters in the ... (view source)
Revision as of 20:20, 12 September 2023
, 8 months ago→Short scale
(added the current state of the never-ending sentence for the 2,202th word.) |
|||
| (7 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
__TOC__
==the first 2,202 words of the never-ending sentence==
To aid in diagnosing any problems with this task, here is the output from a modified REXX programming entry that shows the current state of the never-ending sentence when computing/finding the number of letters in the 2,202<sup>nd</sup> word.
The output was shown (wrapped, with word-splits on the 100-byte boundaries) on a terminal screen that was exactly 100 bytes wide.
<pre>
11 is the number of letters in the word 2202 [ninety-ninth,]
Line 155 ⟶ 159:
Hopefully, the above output is correct. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]])
==What's in a number?==
It might be good to extend your definition of numbers; for instance there is no "and" in 387. (I would have said, incorrectly for this task, ''"three hundred '''and''' eighty-seven"''). --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 19:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
-----
I assume you meant to say ''what's in the (English) spelling of a number?''.
It seems that there are a number of people that seem to prefer using an interjected <big> ''and'' </big> between the '''hundreds''' digit and the '''tens''' and '''units''' digits. This interjection is wrong (in my opinion), but it still seems to be allowed by others and people tolerate it as acceptable either way. I was in the banking arena for a time, and the only time <big> '''and''' </big> was demanded was when a financial number was spoken (voiced), such as $611.50''':
six hundred eleven '''and''' fifty cents
or
six hundred eleven dollars '''and''' fifty cents
It was the inclusion of the '''and''' that gave the listener an audible clue to the end of the (whole) part of the number and separated it from it's (decimal) fraction.
Another case in point: you see the numbers: 300 87
Another person asks, "what do see?"
And you say, "three hundred and eighty-seven."
Still another case in point: you see: 387
Another person asks, "what do see?"
And you say, "three hundred and eighty-seven."
Same answer, but an incorrect interpretation by the listener.
It can be seen that the use of superfluous <big>'''and'''</big>''s'' can cause misunderstandings and misinterpretations, and bank tellers and cash register attendants are taught to be exact when counting financial numbers (as receiving sums, making change). At least, they used to be taught. A lot of (newer) cash registers automatically give change from a tendered amount, and most tellers don't even count the change anymore. (sigh).
Of course, some cash registers just dump the coins in a tray in front of the customer, thereby precluding the teller from counting the change.
Note that not all people (of authority) agree on the spelling of numbers; ''The Chicago Manual of Style'' for instance, uses the superfluous '''and'''.
Also, there is a mention of such sequences (as the ''four-is'', ''Eban'', and ''Aronson'') somewhere in the ''The On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences® (OEIS®)'' that says that sequences that use the English words of spelling out numbers can be problematic as there isn't an agreed upon way of spelling large numbers. (I search and searched, and I cannot find where I saw that mention in OEIS.)
Furthermore, note that the '''OEIS'''® entry '''A072425''' is incorrect.
<br>" '' The four-is sequence merely counts the letters in the words of the generating sentence. '' "
Well, any-a-ways, I think something should be added to this Rosetta Code's preamble, but I'm unsure on how to word such a mandate without starting a long discussion on the subject. Any suggestions?
-- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 21:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
What about adding this to the task's preamble:
For the purposes of this task, no <big><big> '''and''' </big></big> words are to be used when spelling a (English) word for a number.
-- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 00:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
== Short scale ==
The short scale numbering system (or as the task calls it, "the American version") has been used in the UK since 1974, and the Oxford English Dictionary notes that "milliard" is "a term now largely superseded by billion" in UK English.
I suggest that rather than saying "Furthermore, the American version of numbers will be used here (as opposed to the British). 2,000,000,000 is two billion, not two milliard." it would be better to say "Furthermore, the short scale numbering system (i.e. 2,000,000,000 is two billion) will be used here", with a link to the relevant Wikipedia page [[wp:Long and short scales]].
--[[User:GordonCharlton|GordonCharlton]] ([[User talk:GordonCharlton|talk]]) 08:39, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
: As this has not prompted any disagreement, I have made the change.
--[[User:GordonCharlton|GordonCharlton]] ([[User talk:GordonCharlton|talk]]) 20:20, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
| |||