Talk:Rowlett
|
|
Somebody wrote on the List of numbers article a system of numbers this way that can be described as using Greek prefixes instead of Latin prefixes. Where did it come from?? 66.32.147.97 18:14, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
It was finally created. But, why does Russ Rowlett re-direct here?? It looks like a person's name, doesn't it?? 66.245.82.140 23:15, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Date for being in use
This system is proposed as of 2004. Can anyone answer the question "What year will it become official??" Feel free to include what it can depend on, as well as any sources. 66.245.124.202 20:14, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I can't answer the above questions, but I would like to add:
- Which authority will decide whether it's official or not?
- Who or where is the user community for this number system?
The world seems to be haggling over the short scale and long scale. Where will Rowlett eventually fit in? Thanks, Ian Cairns 20:42, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Somewhere on the Internet (I don't know where) there should be a poll:
Do you think the English langauge should start using Rowlett as standard soon?? The poll should:
- Start at least January 2005
- Anyone 16+ years is allowed to vote
- The poll should be cleaned up once every 6 months and after being cleaned up one may re-vote
- Try to survive for as long as possible
- All voters must explain the reason
What would be the result at 2035 if this poll, assuming it starts in 2005, survives this long?? 66.245.11.176 21:32, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Google searches
By doing a Google search, it is revealed that "gillion" gets thousands of hits; whereas "tetrillion" gets less than 100. Any comments?? 66.245.110.91 14:00, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Advantages vs. disadvantages.
Please read this very slowly and carefully:
- The traditional -illion system has words with ambiguity in meaning.
- The repetetive system "thousand million million" gets too wordy.
- Scientific notation is generally fine, but it can be awkward in certain cases such as saying "two to the ten to the ninth"; is it clear that it is referring to 2^(10^9) (which is an exponent written in scientific notation) or (2^10)^9 (which is simply 2^(10*9) or 2^90.
- Any additional choice besides Rowlett's proposed numbering system not among the above?? 66.245.0.149 22:05, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I read it very slowly and carefully and have the following response:
- There are two -illion systems - the long scale and the short scale, and, yes, there is ambiguity between their uses of the same term. The ambiguity start at 109 and above. As a result this is not of great consequence to most people in their everyday lives.
- The repetitive system is fine if it avoids the above ambiguity, and one can also use SI prefixes and '10 to the power' to avoid this. How often do you find yourself using words above 109 in everyday speech?
- I don't find scientific notation awkward - and it is universally accepted within the scientific community and is taught widely in schools. I don't often have to speak your examples and find that brackets resolve any such ambiguity when written. I certainly wouldn't adopt an alternative numbering system just to overcome this.
- Where did Rowlett come into the above discusion? Where is its user base / who uses it? As of today, if there is little or no 'de facto' usage of Rowlett, then where is the 'de jure' usage likely to be authorised? SI? Seems a bit unlikely.