Naming Large Numbers
Date: 06/05/2002 at 18:46:40 From: Joey Subject: large number naming If 100 is hecto-, then would 110 be hectodeca-? In short, is this the correct way of putting them together? 100,000 - hectochilia- 1,000,000 - hectomyria- 10,000,000 - decahectomyria- 100,000,000 - decachiliamyria- and then from Russ Rowlett's page: 1,000,000,000 = gillion. Is the prefix "giga" Greek or Latin? In Rowlett's site, he says trillion (American) = tetrillion (Greek) But tetra is 4. And trillion is 3. So, he's saying, 3 = 4. Same for quadrillion, which in Greek, is pentillion. Why doesn't he just call quadrillion, tetrillion? It's like for every American number, he bumps the prefix up one number in the Greek-based names, ya know? Why?
Date: 06/05/2002 at 22:59:04 From: Doctor Peterson Subject: Re: large number naming Hi, Joey. I suppose you should be asking Mr. Rowlett himself; I can only guess how he would expand on his ideas. But I think I understand what he is doing well enough. You are referring to http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/large.html In your discussion of hecto- and so on, it is not clear what your context is; you are building either Greek-based prefixes such as would be used for polygons (see our FAQ page on that), or pseudo- metric prefixes, neither of which would be done quite as you suggest, and neither of which is related to building names for numbers. Gillion isn't a prefix; and Rowlett doesn't use metric prefixes in his proposed system. The metric prefixes come from various sources; "giga-" is from Greek, as in "gigantic" -- not strictly a number prefix, but just one of a series of names that mean "huge" or "tiny". See this page for details: http://www.math.umn.edu/~riordan/prefixes.html This is the only metric prefix Rowlett uses, and it is used only to avoid having to use "billion" for the American billion and confuse Europeans. It's a compromise that doesn't quite fit his scheme. Rowlett's scheme for naming numbers is intended to deal with the problems of both the American and the European systems. The latter has the advantage of being proportional: a billion has twice as many zeros as a million, and so on, so the number of zeros is proportional to the number prefix, which is not true of the American system. But it has the disadvantage of a large granularity: only powers of a million get special names, so there is no easy way to say 1,000,000,000, which is called "thousand million". Rowlett's scheme is a proportional naming system, but is based on thousands rather than millions, so it differs from the American scheme only in being proportional, and from the European in its granularity. After thousand, million, and gillion, which have 1, 2, and 3 groups of three zeros and do not have numeric prefixes, the numeric prefix corresponds exactly to the number of groups. That is why the numbering is off by one compared to the American numbers: the American sytem is off by one, and he is fixing that. If he just translated Latin to Greek, what would be the point? Incidentally, 10^300 would be a hectillion in his system. - Doctor Peterson, The Math Forum http://mathforum.org/dr.math/
Search the Dr. Math Library:
Ask Dr. MathTM
© 1994-2015 The Math Forum