Not quite, they are both definitions of what a billion is. Just because one of them is a lot bigger does not mean they just said "wow, that is a lot" and guessed like you're inferring. Also you saying "personally, I think..." and then saying that what you said is a fact is wrong. It is either a fact or an opinion, what you have there is an opinion but seem too narrow minded to see that the word has more than one meaningTorrasque said:Swing and a miss.Xyliss said:So I assume your American. We're not bad at maths, we just have different definitions. Not that either one is more correct (from what I can gather), it just depends who you're talking to. Personally I (begrudgingly) think the American way seems more logical and is used more than the British versionTorrasque said:Um... no?
1 Billion = 1,000,000,000
1,000 x 1,000,000 = 1,000,000,000
1,000,000 x 1,000,000 = 1,000,000,000,000
So... A better question is, why is UK bad at math?
Personally, I think a billion is 1,000,000,000, which is 1,000 x 1,000,000
No matter how you say it, you can't argue with maths.
I wanna meet the person that coined "a billion is a million millions" and slap them.
It might just be an expression, basically saying "HOLY SHIT A BILLION IS ALOT!", but it is still retarded.
Like saying:
"The UK version is a hundred hundreds is a thousand"
"The US version is ten hundreds is a thousand"
(if you are unclear by this definition, it is the exact same as this thread's original post, it is just reduced)
The difference between those two is simple.
One can be seen as an expression, meaning "wow, that is a lot", or just retarded pseudo-math
The other can be seen as the definition of what that number is.
Nine zeros would make it one thousand million.Fraught said:100 hundreds.maninahat said:You think that's crazy? Go to China or India, and you'll find they do big numbers in groups of four, producing numbesr that look like this: 1,00,00,000 etc, as opposed to 10,000,000). Look up the Indian "Crore".
I like a million millions being a billion, but the change to the American sytem is sensible. If you think 1000 million=1 billion is wrong, then why are you okay with 10 hundreds making 1000? Shouldn't you want it to be 100 hundreds?
...100 hundreds.
100 hundreds?
So you had 9 hundreds, up to 999. What the fuck would come next?
Besides, this thread is not about why there aren't a thousand tens, or a bajillion hundreds or an infinity of thousands. It's just about the definition of (one) billion.
Oh, and by the way, I'm curious. What do the British call a one followed by nine zeroes, then?
EDIT: Also...DEM INDIANS.
Exactly, I agree with this guy.Zaverexus said:every three digits changes the name.
hundred, thousand, million, billion, trillion, quadrillion, quintillion, sextillion, septillion, octillion, Nonillion, Decillion, Undecillion, Duodecillion, and on and on.
It's all Latin.
Its not stupid to say, because in neither of the 2 standards do you ever say "million millions". In US way, that's 1 trillion, and in UK way that's 1 billion.Palademon said:I prefer Billion to be a million million because after all, that's a stupid thing to say, so it needs a word, wheres with the other, why can't I just say a thousand million the same way as if I were to say a hundred million?
hunder, thousand, million, milliard, billion, billiard...Korten12 said:Exactly, I agree with this guy.Zaverexus said:every three digits changes the name.
hundred, thousand, million, billion, trillion, quadrillion, quintillion, sextillion, septillion, octillion, Nonillion, Decillion, Undecillion, Duodecillion, and on and on.
It's all Latin.![]()
This thread has just made me curious as to what the fuck other "modifications" to math the UK has done.Xyliss said:Not quite, they are both definitions of what a billion is. Just because one of them is a lot bigger does not mean they just said "wow, that is a lot" and guessed like you're inferring. Also you saying "personally, I think..." and then saying that what you said is a fact is wrong. It is either a fact or an opinion, what you have there is an opinion but seem too narrow minded to see that the word has more than one meaningTorrasque said:Swing and a miss.Xyliss said:So I assume your American. We're not bad at maths, we just have different definitions. Not that either one is more correct (from what I can gather), it just depends who you're talking to. Personally I (begrudgingly) think the American way seems more logical and is used more than the British versionTorrasque said:Um... no?
1 Billion = 1,000,000,000
1,000 x 1,000,000 = 1,000,000,000
1,000,000 x 1,000,000 = 1,000,000,000,000
So... A better question is, why is UK bad at math?
Personally, I think a billion is 1,000,000,000, which is 1,000 x 1,000,000
No matter how you say it, you can't argue with maths.
I wanna meet the person that coined "a billion is a million millions" and slap them.
It might just be an expression, basically saying "HOLY SHIT A BILLION IS ALOT!", but it is still retarded.
Like saying:
"The UK version is a hundred hundreds is a thousand"
"The US version is ten hundreds is a thousand"
(if you are unclear by this definition, it is the exact same as this thread's original post, it is just reduced)
The difference between those two is simple.
One can be seen as an expression, meaning "wow, that is a lot", or just retarded pseudo-math
The other can be seen as the definition of what that number is.
Becuase a million million is a trillion.Palademon said:I prefer Billion to be a million million because after all, that's a stupid thing to say, so it needs a word, wheres with the other, why can't I just say a thousand million the same way as if I were to say a hundred million?
Yeah but for that system to work you're missing "ab". Basically both sides have their arguments.Verlander said:Or, if you use letters, it comes out like this a, b, c, ac, bc, d, ad, bd, cd, e, ae, be, ce, de, f, etc, the beautiful symmetry of which is sadly missing in the American version
I guess you could use 1 as being a, and ab would also be c, but you're right. I think it works out that mathematically the UK one is better, but linguistically the US one is betterDaveman said:Yeah but for that system to work you're missing "ab". Basically both sides have their arguments.Verlander said:Or, if you use letters, it comes out like this a, b, c, ac, bc, d, ad, bd, cd, e, ae, be, ce, de, f, etc, the beautiful symmetry of which is sadly missing in the American version