|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757
Carpal Tunnel
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757 |
If you spell out all the offically recognised names for numbers in English (eg, 'one', 'two', 'three', 'fifty-eight thousand', 'million', but not rubbish like 'gazillion')...
what letters of the standard alphabet would remain unused?
Clue: there are two broad methods to help establish this, one of which involves repetitive tasks, whilst the other is based on etymological logic.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 444
addict
|
addict
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 444 |
I'd approach this 'logically' - all numbers are going to be compilations of a small subset of number words - one to twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, hundred, thousand, million, billion. I've eliminated the 'tens' that just have a y on the end, I don't need to worry about 'and' in large compound numbers as it's covered in 'thousand', but I don't know whether you are counting 'zero' as valid. (And if I thought about 0 too long, I could probably come up with a list of 'recognised names' to ask that question about...) Now all I have to do is check each of the 26 letters of the English alphabet to see which are not used in my shortlist. Since I have decided unilaterally that zero is in the list (which makes your 'gazillion' a furphy, Mav ), I end up with the following unused letters: cjkpq Let me know how close I am. (And BTW yes, I have realised now I could have missed out half the teens from my shortlist as well!)
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526
veteran
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526 |
I considered gazillion to be a joke, but not all the -illions.
cjkpq
Octillion Quintillion sePtillion
... leaving J and K.
k
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757
Carpal Tunnel
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757 |
You're doing well guys! Before I comment further let me add that I unilaterally eliminate zero ;)
So does anyone have a more etymological approach, or can they find the clues in the above stages towards a solution...?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
So does anyone have a more etymological approach
Well, you are a devil, aren't you, Maverick. ;
You're going to have my head all aclutter with this and I have a busy day ahead of me.
So what are you up to with this "etymological" angle?
Every one of the letters in "etymological" [all different except for "o" and "l"] are included. That's 10 with a remainder of 16. That does reduce the field of investigation a bit.
As for Bridget's "cjkpq" all I can think of is:
Cat Jumps Kitten Prances Qutely. :) [A handy acronym, perhaps, if Bridget has the right answer. Hey, I'm rooting for you Bridget. Your logic is very impressive -- as always.]
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,055
old hand
|
old hand
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,055 |
> So does anyone have a more etymological approach
Well, our numbers are Latin when worded and not Greek, so 'k' seems like a good candidate as the Romans are not big on it. And 'j' was a pretty late addition to the alphabet, I think.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757
Carpal Tunnel
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757 |
Bravo belli, that's getting there. So the final list of letters not found in the Latin-rooted names is...
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 273
enthusiast
|
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 273 |
In reply to:
If you spell out all the offically recognised names for numbers in English
VS.
In reply to:
let me add that I unilaterally eliminate zero ;)
Kindly make a choice between these two incompatible options, good sir. Either you want all, or you don't.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
Is Skewes number not officially recognized?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757
Carpal Tunnel
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757 |
nope, that'ud skew the results.
sheesh Vern, you gonna make me dig out my source material now?!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
And the problem at looking at it from an etymological viewpoint, you eliminate the J alright, but there's no particular reason to eliminate the K from words of English origin.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,055
old hand
|
old hand
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,055 |
> but there's no particular reason to eliminate the K from words of English origin.
Well no, but there's a rationlisation for eliminating them in the this case, right? Our numbers aren't really very native - as symbols, written or otherwise. As for leaving out zero/zilch/cipher an' what not... [shrug]
So the final list you want is .... J, K, & Z? Or wot, Mav?
- zero patience
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757
Carpal Tunnel
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757 |
> J, K, & Z
Looks a good answer to me, BY.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
J, K, & Z
JKooZ - easy to remember, Maverick. :)
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 444
addict
|
addict
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 444 |
Sorry for delay, guys, I've been offline for a while... FF, I for one am going to admit I had never heard of any of your 'illions' before this. Hence their non-inclusion in my process. I went away and looked them up in my Shorter Oxford (1969, inherited from grandparents) Octillion eighth power of a million, denoted by 1 followed by 48 ciphers. (in US, following later French usage, the ninth power of a thousand, denoted by one and 27 ciphers) quintillion a) in Britain, the fifth power of a million (1 followed by thirty ciphers) b) in US (as in France) the cube of a million (1 followed by 18 ciphers) septillion the seventh power of a million, denoted by one followed by 32 ciphers. In American (following the later French use) the eighth power of a thousand, denoted by 1 followed by 24 ciphers. This leads me to the following thoughts: - just what is the logic behind the US/French way of assigning values to these words??? - in modern 'international' English, do these words have one standard accepted definition? Are they in fact used? - (insert desperately-justifying-own-lack-of-knowledge-and-hence-not-using-them-in-proof emoticon here ) given obscurity/dual definitions, do they really qualify as 'officially recognised'? - how bizarrely different the wording is of entries in the same dictionary for such closely related words!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 444
addict
|
addict
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 444 |
Bravo belli, that's getting there. So the final list of letters not found in the [bold]Latin-rooted[/bold] names is...Um, can I quote 'twenty' and 'hundred' as deriving from Old English rather than Latin? Let alone four, five, ten, eleven, twelve... I'm pretty sure that in my 6 (?) years of Latin at school I never came across a word that included a 'w', yet on the basis of 'twenty' it needs to be eliminated. Mav, I am really enjoying this mental exercise, but I think you should define your set of numbers!!!! 'Officially recognised' (whatever that may mean) or 'Latin-rooted'?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526
veteran
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526 |
"just what is the logic behind the US/French way of assigning values to these words???" I don't know that there is a logic. I first learned that there was a difference in high school, though I did not know which one had prior usage. Could be that we just plagiarized the French usage. I can guess that they figure that it was just logical to say that after a billion should come a trillion, quadrillion, and so on.
"- in modern 'international' English, do these words have one standard accepted definition? Are they in fact used?" I heard them used a few times in high school and maybe middle school. For those of us who actually use numbers that big - and I have used numbers of that size and vastly larger for real problems - with a few exceptions, it is more common to use scientific notation, keeping only a few digits of precision. For example to express the constant known as the permittivity of free space, we would write 8.852 e-12, pronounced either as "eight point eight five two EE minus twelve" or as "eight point eight five two times ten to the minus twelve." The speed of light in a vacuum would be 3e8 m/s, or "three EE eight meters per second."
"- (insert desperately-justifying-own-lack-of-knowledge-and-hence-not-using-them-in-proof emoticon here ) given obscurity/dual definitions, do they really qualify as 'officially recognised'?" I never thought about it.
"- how bizarrely different the wording is of entries in the same dictionary for such closely related words!"
indeed!
k
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 10,545 Likes: 1
Carpal Tunnel
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 10,545 Likes: 1 |
just what is the logic behind the US/French way of assigning values to these words???I was taught that the US way is to increase the name by one rank for every three zeros and the British way is for every six zeros. Thus 1,000 is one thousand US vs one thousand British 1,000,000 is one million vs one million 1,000,000,000 is one billion vs one thousand million (or "one milliard") 1,000,000,000,000 is one trillion vs one billion (or "one million million") 10E15 is one quadrillion vs one thousand billion 10E18 is one quintillion vs one trillion 10E21 is one sextillion vs one thousand trillion 10E24 is one septillion vs one quadrillion etc. Does this sound familiar to anyone?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,154
Pooh-Bah
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,154 |
I'll never earn that much so I never looked past the thousand level. [sigh]
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757
Carpal Tunnel
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757 |
> Old English rather than Latin?
Another bloody troublemaker! These Australians, really.... ;)
I'll stand by my original question - yes, I reckon the *illions are officailly recognised (personally I'd say the US verzion now rules), yes I know the lower numbers have the OE roots, but then to work it out one needed to either iterate almost endlessly or figure the fact that larger numbers came from Latin and so would not contain...
and yes, wofa, you've got what I was taught too.
hah, think I'll go and lie down now :)
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 444
addict
|
addict
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 444 |
Oi, who you calling Australian?!? It's bad enough being abused as a Pom here (and having to justify our sports teams) without being shopped by the home country too... But now that I have debunked your 'etymological logic' to my own satisfaction at least, can I just confirm that your final answer is J K and Z?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
answer is J K and Z
If you accept his silly notion that zero doesn't count. And the annoying fact that, although the K is eliminated on Latin grounds it is not eliminated on English grounds. Just because there is no K in any of the English roots does not mean that it could not, in theory, be there.
And as far as eliminating J for etymological reasons, if J is eliminated because it is a recent variation of I, then U is eliminated because it is a recent variation of V, so eliminating J on etymological grounds is invalid.
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,339
Members9,182
|
Most Online3,341 Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
1 members (wofahulicodoc),
637
guests, and
2
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|