Evolution of Number Names in the Base 10 System

  • Thread starter Thread starter Im_not_asian
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    History
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the evolution of number names in the base 10 system, highlighting how new names are assigned as numbers increase. It notes that significant milestones occur at multiples of 10, such as transitioning from units to tens, and from tens to hundreds, but a lack of new names arises after 1,000. The conversation suggests historical reasons for this naming convention, indicating that earlier societies may not have needed to express numbers beyond 1,000. Additionally, it points out variations in naming conventions across different languages and cultures, particularly in how they handle large numbers. The overall inquiry emphasizes the complexities and inconsistencies in the naming of large numbers in the base 10 system.
Im_not_asian
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
My first post here, so please humor me. I have found no one in my life who can explain this to me:

My question is about the base 10 number system. It arises from the rate at which new NAMES are attributed to numbers as they increase. To illustrate, please consider -

10 x 1 unit = 10. - This is significant as this is the point at which a new NAME is attributed to subsequent numbers (ie from units to tens)

10 x 10 = 100. (moving from tens to hundreds)

10 x 100 = 1000 (hundreds to thousands) - noting new names thus far have been attributed in accordance with multiples of 10

10 x 1000 = 10 000. - No new name..

Why this lack of continuity?
Why are new names given in accordance with multiples of 10 prior to reaching 1000, (or 10 000), and not after?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
I think there is some sort of historical reason, these names being given in a time when there was no urgency to express numbers greater than, say, 1 000 (though actually, Archimedes had invented a scheme for writing down very large numbers, for a very specific purpose). Besides, it gets kind of complicated to speak about tentens, tententens, etc.

I think in general we prefer not to have names like thousand-x:
100: "tenten" is given a name: hundred
110, ...: can be expressed as hundred + ten
1000: could be called "tenhundred" but is for obscure reasons called thousand
1100, ...: can be expressed as thousand + hundred, although some languages (like Dutch :-p) also say "elevenhundred, twelvehundred, ..." instead of "one thousand one hundred, - two hundred, ..."
10 000: ten thousand
100 000: hundred thousand
1 000 000: thousand thousand -- eek, let's make a new name (million)
1 100 000: one million one thousand - that's fine
10 000 000: ten million, fine
100 000 000: hundred million, ok
1 000 000 000: thousand million, but we prefer milliard (or billion)
10 000 000 000: ten milliard/billion
100 000 000 000: hundred milliard / billion
1 000 000 000 000: thousand ... - no, let's give it a new name: billion (or trillion)
etc.

Note that some countries prefer to increment the "Latin" counter every 1 000 (million, billion, trillion, quadrillion, ...) while some do it every 1 000 000 (million, milliard; billion, billiard; trillion, ...)
 
agree
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top