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
(→What's in a number?: added a bunch of comments.) |
|||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 2 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.
Line 189 ⟶ 193:
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'''.
Line 201 ⟶ 208:
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has been used in the UK since 1974, and the Oxford English Dictionary notes that "milliard" is "a term now largely superseded by billion" in UK English.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)
| |||