 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Greg M. Johnson <"gregj56590[:-0]"@aol.com> wrote:
:> term "thousands of millions" instead. I don't know how good it sounds, but
:> I don't care; I don't want to cause confusion.
: Is that 10^9?
If you take a million one thousand times, how much do you get?-)
--
#macro N(D,I)#if(I<6)cylinder{M()#local D[I]=div(D[I],104);M().5,2pigment{
rgb M()}}N(D,(D[I]>99?I:I+1))#end#end#macro M()<mod(D[I],13)-6,mod(div(D[I
],13),8)-3,10>#end blob{N(array[6]{11117333955,
7382340,3358,3900569407,970,4254934330},0)}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Mael" <mae### [at] hotmail com> wrote in message news:3bc43f4f@news.povray.org...
> isn t it strange to get a roundoff error for only 10 additions ? i thought
> pov was more precise :(
>
On that subject, a recent faq wot I wrote (corrections and/or criticisms happily
accepted - and please note the very long url)
http://www.ccl.com/cgi-bin/protonfaq.cgi?faq=itemconfigwhydowetalkofaccuracynots
izeforfloatingpointnumbers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
10^9, unless outside the territorial United States, ha mon?
Warp wrote:
> If you take a million one thousand times, how much do you get?-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Greg M. Johnson <"gregj56590[:-0]"@aol.com> wrote:
: 10^9, unless outside the territorial United States, ha mon?
Where "a thousand millions" is not 10^9?
--
#macro N(D,I)#if(I<6)cylinder{M()#local D[I]=div(D[I],104);M().5,2pigment{
rgb M()}}N(D,(D[I]>99?I:I+1))#end#end#macro M()<mod(D[I],13)-6,mod(div(D[I
],13),8)-3,10>#end blob{N(array[6]{11117333955,
7382340,3358,3900569407,970,4254934330},0)}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Greg M. Johnson <"gregj56590[:-0]"@aol.com> wrote:
> : 10^9, unless outside the territorial United States, ha mon?
>
> Where "a thousand millions" is not 10^9?
The vagueness of your reply in my attempt to nail down its meaning merely
underscores the barrier to technical communication in international audiences
from the use of either the terms "thousand" or "million". Americans won't
know what a non-American really means; I'm afraid I'll never know what you
mean...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> The vagueness of your reply in my attempt to nail down its meaning merely
> underscores the barrier to technical communication in international
audiences
> from the use of either the terms "thousand" or "million". Americans won't
> know what a non-American really means; I'm afraid I'll never know what you
> mean...
FYI, my dictionary gives two definitions of "billion" (the American 10^9 and
the British 10^12) but only one definition for "million" (10^6) and one
definition for "thousand" (10^3). So IMHO there can be no ambiguity in
saying thousand million.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
This is correct. 10^n is 10^n no matter where you are, it is a (as far as
we know) universal constant. The problem comes with terminology. A
"thousand" is the same in US/UK (10^3), so is a "million" (10^6) and,
therefore, so would a "thousand million" (10^3 x 10^6 = 10^9), but in the
US a "thousand million" is also known as a "billion" but not so in the UK,
it is still a "thousand million" (Or also a "milliard"). The UK reserve the
word "billion" to describe a "million million" (which is known as "trillion"
in the US). Also, a UK "trillion" is a "million million million" (quite
the mouthful) or 10^18 ("million"^3, "quadrillion" = "million"^4, etc.). All
in all, it is always better to use scientific notation so as to keep
confusion about such large numbers to a minimum when talking to an
international audience.
-tgq
"Anders K." <and### [at] f2scom> wrote in message
news:3bcae9df$1@news.povray.org...
> > The vagueness of your reply in my attempt to nail down its meaning
merely
> > underscores the barrier to technical communication in international
> audiences
> > from the use of either the terms "thousand" or "million". Americans
won't
> > know what a non-American really means; I'm afraid I'll never know what
you
> > mean...
>
> FYI, my dictionary gives two definitions of "billion" (the American 10^9
and
> the British 10^12) but only one definition for "million" (10^6) and one
> definition for "thousand" (10^3). So IMHO there can be no ambiguity in
> saying thousand million.
>
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> This is correct. 10^n is 10^n no matter where you are, it is a (as far as
> we know) universal constant. The problem comes with terminology. [...]
What Warp said was "several thousands of millions". While Americans may have
another name for it, one thousand million is still 10^9. There is no other
way it can be interpreted.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Yes, that's right, but I think Greg's original point was that Americans tend
not to use the phrase "thousands of millions" but rather "billions" and
maybe wonder why Warp specified thousands of millions rather than just
saying billions even though they mean the same in American terms.
-tgq
"Anders K." <and### [at] f2scom> wrote in message
news:3bcaf586$1@news.povray.org...
> > This is correct. 10^n is 10^n no matter where you are, it is a (as far
as
> > we know) universal constant. The problem comes with terminology. [...]
>
> What Warp said was "several thousands of millions". While Americans may
have
> another name for it, one thousand million is still 10^9. There is no other
> way it can be interpreted.
>
>
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Trevor Quayle wrote:
>
> This is correct. 10^n is 10^n no matter where you are, it is a (as far as
> we know) universal constant.
Well, this is true as long as everyone is working in the same base.
10^n (base 13) is not the same as 10^n (base 10), so 10^n may not be the
same everywhere. ;-)
Mike Andrews.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
