[math-fun] How to speak long numbers -- now I'm really curious (-:
I have found some folks over on math-fun who have encountered "and" when spelling out (or I guess speaking) names of numbers over 1000. Also a lot of disagreement to my claim that commas should be written in the same places where the comma would appear in the digits version. But no-one is giving specific rules (yet :-) and I've spent a while looking but haven't found any rules myself. (Just isolated examples without explanation) So here are some questions for our colleagues who speak the word "and" as part of a number name -- and regarding the comma, consider how you would write it out in words: * Do you ever or always use "and" after a power of 1000 if something else follows? ("one million and thirty thousand") * Do you ever or always use "and" in places where there would be a comma in the digits? ("five thousand three hundred forty seven" but "twelve thousand and three hundred forty seven") * Or instead of "and" would you put a comma in the words? ("twelve thousand, three hundred forty seven") * Do you use "and" wherever there are 0s between digits? ("one hundred and seven") * Do you do two or more of the above? ("five thousand and one hundred and one" or maybe "five thousand, one hundred and one") * Do you put "and" anywhere else? ("three hundred and forty seven") * Does it matter how many syllables the part after "and" has? ("one thousand and twelve" but "one thousand seventy-seven") * Other rules? * If you consider it proper usage in only part of the English speaking world (like the UK, Australia, Canada, U.S. etc.) let me know that too. It would be nice to formalize this, because it is used a lot, and almost everything else in OEIS never uses "and", and is mute on commas. I found 7 OEIS sequences where it is clear if they use "and" or not, there might be more... A005589 includes a PARI program which gives A005589(1000)=11 and A005589(1001)=14. A052360 has the same program. A052363 agrees with A005589 and A052360 because it includes 1103 but not 1077. A058230 specifically claims "not to put the word 'and' in the names of numbers" A092320 agrees because it contains 1005. A134629 uses Noll's program. [1] *but* A126259 uses "and" in its spelling of 108 - Robert Munafo [1] http://isthe.com/cgi-bin/number.cgi On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 13:33, Victor Miller <victorsmiller@gmail.com>wrote:
On the program cartalk last week, there was a puzzle of the following form: A list of numbers was given, and one was asked what they had in common (I give the actual puzzler at the end). The answer was that each of these numbers was divisible by the number of letters (excluding spaces) in the standard spelling out of the number in words. This got me to thinking of the following modification: [...] (there followed speculation about A092320 vs. A126259)
-- Robert Munafo -- mrob.com Follow me at: gplus.to/mrob - fb.com/mrob27 - twitter.com/mrob_27 - mrob27.wordpress.com - youtube.com/user/mrob143 - rilybot.blogspot.com
I think that the rule is to separate a number into the form: abc [...] abc abc abc and use the word 'and' before every non-zero 'bc' component. Examples: 1024: One thousand and twenty-four. 1729: One thousand, seven hundred and twenty-nine. 3600: Three thousand, six hundred. 1000001: One million and one. Sincerely, Adam P. Goucher ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Munafo" <mrob27@gmail.com> To: "math-fun" <math-fun@mailman.xmission.com>; "Sequence Fanatics Discussion list" <seqfan@list.seqfan.eu> Cc: "Maximilian Hasler" <maximilian.hasler@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 10:10 PM Subject: [math-fun] How to speak long numbers -- now I'm really curious (-:
I have found some folks over on math-fun who have encountered "and" when spelling out (or I guess speaking) names of numbers over 1000. Also a lot of disagreement to my claim that commas should be written in the same places where the comma would appear in the digits version.
But no-one is giving specific rules (yet :-) and I've spent a while looking but haven't found any rules myself. (Just isolated examples without explanation)
So here are some questions for our colleagues who speak the word "and" as part of a number name -- and regarding the comma, consider how you would write it out in words:
* Do you ever or always use "and" after a power of 1000 if something else follows? ("one million and thirty thousand")
* Do you ever or always use "and" in places where there would be a comma in the digits? ("five thousand three hundred forty seven" but "twelve thousand and three hundred forty seven")
* Or instead of "and" would you put a comma in the words? ("twelve thousand, three hundred forty seven")
* Do you use "and" wherever there are 0s between digits? ("one hundred and seven")
* Do you do two or more of the above? ("five thousand and one hundred and one" or maybe "five thousand, one hundred and one")
* Do you put "and" anywhere else? ("three hundred and forty seven")
* Does it matter how many syllables the part after "and" has? ("one thousand and twelve" but "one thousand seventy-seven")
* Other rules?
* If you consider it proper usage in only part of the English speaking world (like the UK, Australia, Canada, U.S. etc.) let me know that too.
It would be nice to formalize this, because it is used a lot, and almost everything else in OEIS never uses "and", and is mute on commas.
I found 7 OEIS sequences where it is clear if they use "and" or not, there might be more...
A005589 includes a PARI program which gives A005589(1000)=11 and A005589(1001)=14. A052360 has the same program. A052363 agrees with A005589 and A052360 because it includes 1103 but not 1077. A058230 specifically claims "not to put the word 'and' in the names of numbers" A092320 agrees because it contains 1005. A134629 uses Noll's program. [1]
*but* A126259 uses "and" in its spelling of 108
- Robert Munafo
[1] http://isthe.com/cgi-bin/number.cgi
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 13:33, Victor Miller <victorsmiller@gmail.com>wrote:
On the program cartalk last week, there was a puzzle of the following form: A list of numbers was given, and one was asked what they had in common (I give the actual puzzler at the end). The answer was that each of these numbers was divisible by the number of letters (excluding spaces) in the standard spelling out of the number in words. This got me to thinking of the following modification: [...] (there followed speculation about A092320 vs. A126259)
-- Robert Munafo -- mrob.com Follow me at: gplus.to/mrob - fb.com/mrob27 - twitter.com/mrob_27 - mrob27.wordpress.com - youtube.com/user/mrob143 - rilybot.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
Wow. I would have said there's only ever a single "and" in a number, and it separates the last two chunks if it is there at all. So 1,729,729 would be one million, seven hundred twenty-nine thousand, seven hundred and twenty-nine. You always reserve the "and" for the fractional part (on a check) which always appears, so one million and 00/100ths. But I'm not sure when to omit the "and" and when to include it: 1,100,000 = one million and one hundred thousand (not sure here). 1,000,200 = one million two hundred (sounds right to me). On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 2:17 PM, Adam P. Goucher <apgoucher@gmx.com> wrote:
I think that the rule is to separate a number into the form:
abc [...] abc abc abc
and use the word 'and' before every non-zero 'bc' component.
Examples:
1024: One thousand and twenty-four. 1729: One thousand, seven hundred and twenty-nine. 3600: Three thousand, six hundred. 1000001: One million and one.
Sincerely,
Adam P. Goucher
----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Munafo" <mrob27@gmail.com> To: "math-fun" <math-fun@mailman.xmission.com>; "Sequence Fanatics Discussion list" <seqfan@list.seqfan.eu> Cc: "Maximilian Hasler" <maximilian.hasler@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 10:10 PM Subject: [math-fun] How to speak long numbers -- now I'm really curious (-:
I have found some folks over on math-fun who have encountered "and" when spelling out (or I guess speaking) names of numbers over 1000. Also a lot of disagreement to my claim that commas should be written in the same places where the comma would appear in the digits version.
But no-one is giving specific rules (yet :-) and I've spent a while looking but haven't found any rules myself. (Just isolated examples without explanation)
So here are some questions for our colleagues who speak the word "and" as part of a number name -- and regarding the comma, consider how you would write it out in words:
* Do you ever or always use "and" after a power of 1000 if something else follows? ("one million and thirty thousand")
* Do you ever or always use "and" in places where there would be a comma in the digits? ("five thousand three hundred forty seven" but "twelve thousand and three hundred forty seven")
* Or instead of "and" would you put a comma in the words? ("twelve thousand, three hundred forty seven")
* Do you use "and" wherever there are 0s between digits? ("one hundred and seven")
* Do you do two or more of the above? ("five thousand and one hundred and one" or maybe "five thousand, one hundred and one")
* Do you put "and" anywhere else? ("three hundred and forty seven")
* Does it matter how many syllables the part after "and" has? ("one thousand and twelve" but "one thousand seventy-seven")
* Other rules?
* If you consider it proper usage in only part of the English speaking world (like the UK, Australia, Canada, U.S. etc.) let me know that too.
It would be nice to formalize this, because it is used a lot, and almost everything else in OEIS never uses "and", and is mute on commas.
I found 7 OEIS sequences where it is clear if they use "and" or not, there might be more...
A005589 includes a PARI program which gives A005589(1000)=11 and A005589(1001)=14. A052360 has the same program. A052363 agrees with A005589 and A052360 because it includes 1103 but not 1077. A058230 specifically claims "not to put the word 'and' in the names of numbers" A092320 agrees because it contains 1005. A134629 uses Noll's program. [1]
*but* A126259 uses "and" in its spelling of 108
- Robert Munafo
[1] http://isthe.com/cgi-bin/number.cgi
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 13:33, Victor Miller <victorsmiller@gmail.com>wrote:
On the program cartalk last week, there was a puzzle of the following form: A list of numbers was given, and one was asked what they had in common (I give the actual puzzler at the end). The answer was that each of these numbers was divisible by the number of letters (excluding spaces) in the standard spelling out of the number in words. This got me to thinking of the following modification: [...] (there followed speculation about A092320 vs. A126259)
-- Robert Munafo -- mrob.com Follow me at: gplus.to/mrob - fb.com/mrob27 - twitter.com/mrob_27 - mrob27.wordpress.com - youtube.com/user/mrob143 - rilybot.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
-- -- http://cube20.org/ -- http://golly.sf.net/ --
So 1,729,729 would be one million, seven hundred twenty-nine thousand, seven hundred and twenty-nine.
I would pronounce it the same, but with an 'and' before each instance of 'twenty-nine'.
1,100,000 = one million and one hundred thousand (not sure here).
No 'and' here. The 'bc' components are both '00', so it's simply pronounced 'one million one hundred thousand'. (At least, that's how I pronounce it.)
1,000,200 = one million two hundred (sounds right to me).
Agreed. On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 2:17 PM, Adam P. Goucher <apgoucher@gmx.com> wrote:
I think that the rule is to separate a number into the form:
abc [...] abc abc abc
and use the word 'and' before every non-zero 'bc' component.
Examples:
1024: One thousand and twenty-four. 1729: One thousand, seven hundred and twenty-nine. 3600: Three thousand, six hundred. 1000001: One million and one.
Sincerely,
Adam P. Goucher
----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Munafo" <mrob27@gmail.com> To: "math-fun" <math-fun@mailman.xmission.com>; "Sequence Fanatics Discussion list" <seqfan@list.seqfan.eu> Cc: "Maximilian Hasler" <maximilian.hasler@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 10:10 PM Subject: [math-fun] How to speak long numbers -- now I'm really curious (-:
I have found some folks over on math-fun who have encountered "and" when spelling out (or I guess speaking) names of numbers over 1000. Also a lot of disagreement to my claim that commas should be written in the same places where the comma would appear in the digits version.
But no-one is giving specific rules (yet :-) and I've spent a while looking but haven't found any rules myself. (Just isolated examples without explanation)
So here are some questions for our colleagues who speak the word "and" as part of a number name -- and regarding the comma, consider how you would write it out in words:
* Do you ever or always use "and" after a power of 1000 if something else follows? ("one million and thirty thousand")
* Do you ever or always use "and" in places where there would be a comma in the digits? ("five thousand three hundred forty seven" but "twelve thousand and three hundred forty seven")
* Or instead of "and" would you put a comma in the words? ("twelve thousand, three hundred forty seven")
* Do you use "and" wherever there are 0s between digits? ("one hundred and seven")
* Do you do two or more of the above? ("five thousand and one hundred and one" or maybe "five thousand, one hundred and one")
* Do you put "and" anywhere else? ("three hundred and forty seven")
* Does it matter how many syllables the part after "and" has? ("one thousand and twelve" but "one thousand seventy-seven")
* Other rules?
* If you consider it proper usage in only part of the English speaking world (like the UK, Australia, Canada, U.S. etc.) let me know that too.
It would be nice to formalize this, because it is used a lot, and almost everything else in OEIS never uses "and", and is mute on commas.
I found 7 OEIS sequences where it is clear if they use "and" or not, there might be more...
A005589 includes a PARI program which gives A005589(1000)=11 and A005589(1001)=14. A052360 has the same program. A052363 agrees with A005589 and A052360 because it includes 1103 but not 1077. A058230 specifically claims "not to put the word 'and' in the names of numbers" A092320 agrees because it contains 1005. A134629 uses Noll's program. [1]
*but* A126259 uses "and" in its spelling of 108
- Robert Munafo
[1] http://isthe.com/cgi-bin/number.cgi
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 13:33, Victor Miller <victorsmiller@gmail.com>wrote:
On the program cartalk last week, there was a puzzle of the following form: A list of numbers was given, and one was asked what they had in common (I give the actual puzzler at the end). The answer was that each of these numbers was divisible by the number of letters (excluding spaces) in the standard spelling out of the number in words. This got me to thinking of the following modification: [...] (there followed speculation about A092320 vs. A126259)
-- Robert Munafo -- mrob.com Follow me at: gplus.to/mrob - fb.com/mrob27 - twitter.com/mrob_27 - mrob27.wordpress.com - youtube.com/user/mrob143 - rilybot.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
-- -- http://cube20.org/ -- http://golly.sf.net/ -- _______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
I was taught not to use "and" in the integer portion of a number when spelling it out, nor to use commas. A quick web check confirmed you should not use "and" for American spelling, but that you should use it for the hundreds portion in British spelling. Example: "seven hundred twenty-seven" (American) vs. "seven hundred and twenty-seven" (British). Here's a reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_English_differences#Number... Tom
So 1,729,729 would be one million, seven hundred twenty-nine thousand, seven hundred and twenty-nine.
I would pronounce it the same, but with an 'and' before each instance of 'twenty-nine'.
1,100,000 = one million and one hundred thousand (not sure here).
No 'and' here. The 'bc' components are both '00', so it's simply pronounced 'one million one hundred thousand'. (At least, that's how I pronounce it.)
1,000,200 = one million two hundred (sounds right to me).
Agreed.
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 2:17 PM, Adam P. Goucher <apgoucher@gmx.com> wrote:
I think that the rule is to separate a number into the form:
abc [...] abc abc abc
and use the word 'and' before every non-zero 'bc' component.
Examples:
1024: One thousand and twenty-four. 1729: One thousand, seven hundred and twenty-nine. 3600: Three thousand, six hundred. 1000001: One million and one.
Sincerely,
Adam P. Goucher
----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Munafo" <mrob27@gmail.com> To: "math-fun" <math-fun@mailman.xmission.com>; "Sequence Fanatics Discussion list" <seqfan@list.seqfan.eu> Cc: "Maximilian Hasler" <maximilian.hasler@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 10:10 PM Subject: [math-fun] How to speak long numbers -- now I'm really curious (-:
I have found some folks over on math-fun who have encountered "and" when spelling out (or I guess speaking) names of numbers over 1000. Also a lot of disagreement to my claim that commas should be written in the same places where the comma would appear in the digits version.
But no-one is giving specific rules (yet :-) and I've spent a while looking but haven't found any rules myself. (Just isolated examples without explanation)
So here are some questions for our colleagues who speak the word "and" as part of a number name -- and regarding the comma, consider how you would write it out in words:
* Do you ever or always use "and" after a power of 1000 if something else follows? ("one million and thirty thousand")
* Do you ever or always use "and" in places where there would be a comma in the digits? ("five thousand three hundred forty seven" but "twelve thousand and three hundred forty seven")
* Or instead of "and" would you put a comma in the words? ("twelve thousand, three hundred forty seven")
* Do you use "and" wherever there are 0s between digits? ("one hundred and seven")
* Do you do two or more of the above? ("five thousand and one hundred and one" or maybe "five thousand, one hundred and one")
* Do you put "and" anywhere else? ("three hundred and forty seven")
* Does it matter how many syllables the part after "and" has? ("one thousand and twelve" but "one thousand seventy-seven")
* Other rules?
* If you consider it proper usage in only part of the English speaking world (like the UK, Australia, Canada, U.S. etc.) let me know that too.
It would be nice to formalize this, because it is used a lot, and almost everything else in OEIS never uses "and", and is mute on commas.
I found 7 OEIS sequences where it is clear if they use "and" or not, there might be more...
A005589 includes a PARI program which gives A005589(1000)=11 and A005589(1001)=14. A052360 has the same program. A052363 agrees with A005589 and A052360 because it includes 1103 but not 1077. A058230 specifically claims "not to put the word 'and' in the names of numbers" A092320 agrees because it contains 1005. A134629 uses Noll's program. [1]
*but* A126259 uses "and" in its spelling of 108
- Robert Munafo
[1] http://isthe.com/cgi-bin/number.cgi
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 13:33, Victor Miller <victorsmiller@gmail.com>wrote:
On the program cartalk last week, there was a puzzle of the following form: A list of numbers was given, and one was asked what they had in common (I give the actual puzzler at the end). The answer was that each of these numbers was divisible by the number of letters (excluding spaces) in the standard spelling out of the number in words. This got me to thinking of the following modification: [...] (there followed speculation about A092320 vs. A126259)
-- Robert Munafo -- mrob.com Follow me at: gplus.to/mrob - fb.com/mrob27 - twitter.com/mrob_27 - mrob27.wordpress.com - youtube.com/user/mrob143 - rilybot.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
-- -- http://cube20.org/ -- http://golly.sf.net/ --
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
In colonial times, of course, British and American conventions would have coincided, and would have included "and". Somewhere around the turn of the 20th century, American schools started teaching the "andless" number as a written convention, which has been adopted in speech to varying degrees, but "anded" numbers have never been completely suppressed in the American vernacular. Seriously, "One Hundred One Dalmatians"? Or "A Thousand One Arabian Nights"? I have only heard the "and" used in two places: - Within any 3-digit block, "and" may be inserted between a positive hundreds digit and a positive remainder. For example "three hundred *and *twelve" or "seven hundred *and *fifty-six thousand two hundred *and *four". - If there are more than two blocks in a number, if the final block is the "ones" block, and the final block has no hundreds and a positive remainder, "and" can precede the final block. Examples are "one thousand *and *one", "one hundred and seven million *and* twenty-three", but not "five million *and *sixty-seven thousand" (since the last block is not the "ones" block), nor "six thousand *and *three hundred and twenty" (since the last block has positive hundreds). I have heard the andless version spoken, as well as various hybrids between andless and anded versions. Completely andless numbers are almost always in formal speech, for example, reading from a manuscript, while the vernacular almost always includes "and" to some extent. On 9/26/2011 10:15 PM, Tom Karzes wrote:
I was taught not to use "and" in the integer portion of a number when spelling it out, nor to use commas. A quick web check confirmed you should not use "and" for American spelling, but that you should use it for the hundreds portion in British spelling. Example: "seven hundred twenty-seven" (American) vs. "seven hundred and twenty-seven" (British).
Here's a reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_English_differences#Number...
Tom
* ed pegg <ed@mathpuzzle.com> [Sep 27. 2011 21:22]:
http://news.yahoo.com/photos/washington-monument-inspected-for-damage-131714...
--Ed
How much effort is it to open a new thread for a new topic? Hitting "reply" on a random email saves you about 1 second while making things annoying for everybody using a decent MUA (mine is mutt, just for the record). It also would also be nice if you could invest your precious time to, at the very least, give one line of text apart from a bare URL. Would that be OK?
Personally, I consider Ed's post just find. The subject line said enough and the picture was as interesting to me as counting letters in a number word. BTW, under chrome it did show up as a new thread, and I couldn't see why the headers would suggest otherwise to other mail readers. --Jim On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Joerg Arndt <arndt@jjj.de> wrote:
* ed pegg <ed@mathpuzzle.com> [Sep 27. 2011 21:22]:
http://news.yahoo.com/photos/washington-monument-inspected-for-damage-131714...
--Ed
How much effort is it to open a new thread for a new topic?
Hitting "reply" on a random email saves you about 1 second while making things annoying for everybody using a decent MUA (mine is mutt, just for the record).
It also would also be nice if you could invest your precious time to, at the very least, give one line of text apart from a bare URL.
Would that be OK?
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
On Tuesday 27 September 2011 22:41:10 James Buddenhagen wrote:
Personally, I consider Ed's post just find. The subject line said enough and the picture was as interesting to me as counting letters in a number word. BTW, under chrome it did show up as a new thread, and I couldn't see why the headers would suggest otherwise to other mail readers.
I'd have been grateful for a few words of explanation. In my mail client, Ed's message doesn't start a new thread. The headers include an In-Reply-To header referencing an earlier message (about something entirely different) and my mail client uses that for threading. It's debatable what a mail client should do about threading when a message has an In-Reply-To referring to another message with an entirely different subject, but threading them together is very common behaviour. So I'm largely with Joerg on this, though I'd have preferred his comments to be phrased more diplomatically. -- g
* Joerg Arndt <arndt@jjj.de> [Sep 28. 2011 09:28]:
* ed pegg <ed@mathpuzzle.com> [Sep 27. 2011 21:22]:
http://news.yahoo.com/photos/washington-monument-inspected-for-damage-131714...
--Ed
How much effort is it to open a new thread for a new topic?
Hitting "reply" on a random email saves you about 1 second while making things annoying for everybody using a decent MUA (mine is mutt, just for the record).
It also would also be nice if you could invest your precious time to, at the very least, give one line of text apart from a bare URL.
Would that be OK?
Explanation: "Thread-hijacking" means to use the reply-function of your MUA instead of creating a new mail for starting a new thread. To display threads properly the "In-Reply-To:" line of the mail header is used. A frequent hack is to also (or even solely) use the "Subject:" line for determining which mail is part of which thread. This causes nasty problems as soon as a nontrivial amount of emails are in the folder, such as a new mail being put into a very old thread, causing one to miss it altogether, or the mail ending up in an ignored thread. The term thread-hijacking is sometimes used for wandering off with the topic, this is _not_ what I meant. (cf. http://www.etiquettehell.com/smf/index.php?topic=24041.0 ) Funny enough, the corresponding page of the English Wikipedia has been deleted (the entry "Netiquette" mentions thread-hijacking in passing without explanation). A web-page I used to point to seems to have disappeared as well, but this one comes reasonable close: http://www.tweakmyblogger.com/2010/08/thread-hijacking.html Regards, jj P.S.: I also notice that some messages that should be in some thread come without the proper "In-Reply-To:" line, causing the thread to break. I have no idea what could cause this (is there any MUA _not_ putting the "In-Reply-To:" line with replying to an email?).
8,018,018,851 is the first prime number in alphabetical order (in english) (eight billion eighteen million eighteen thousand eight hundred fifty one) the last prime in alphabetical order is 2,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,002,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,002,000,000,002,293 (two vigintillion two undecillion two trillion two thousand two hundred ninety-three) see: http://www.primepuzzles.net/puzzles/puzz_143.htm
From: Robert Baillie <rjbaillie@frii.com>
To: math-fun <math-fun@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 4:24 PM Subject: [math-fun] somewhat related to "words for really long numbers"
8,018,018,851 is the first prime number in alphabetical order (in english) (eight billion eighteen million eighteen thousand eight hundred fifty one)
the last prime in alphabetical order is 2,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,002,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,002,000,000,002,293 (two vigintillion two undecillion two trillion two thousand two hundred ninety-three)
see: http://www.primepuzzles.net/puzzles/puzz_143.htm _______________________________________________
In order to justify the claim for the last prime, it seems necessary to have a naming algorithm that accepts all integers. Does such exist? -- Gene
well, i think the "trick" is that only numbers up to about 10^63 have names. bob --- Eugene Salamin wrote:
From: Robert Baillie <rjbaillie@frii.com>
To: math-fun <math-fun@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 4:24 PM Subject: [math-fun] somewhat related to "words for really long numbers"
8,018,018,851 is the first prime number in alphabetical order (in english) (eight billion eighteen million eighteen thousand eight hundred fifty one)
the last prime in alphabetical order is 2,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,002,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,002,000,000,002,293 (two vigintillion two undecillion two trillion two thousand two hundred ninety-three)
see: http://www.primepuzzles.net/puzzles/puzz_143.htm _______________________________________________
In order to justify the claim for the last prime, it seems necessary to have a naming algorithm that accepts all integers. Does such exist?
-- Gene _______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
participants (11)
-
Adam P. Goucher -
David Wilson -
ed pegg -
Eugene Salamin -
Gareth McCaughan -
James Buddenhagen -
Joerg Arndt -
Robert Baillie -
Robert Munafo -
Tom Karzes -
Tom Rokicki