 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/16/2015 02:27 PM, Francois Labreque wrote:
> Le 2015-03-15 01:21, clipka a écrit :
>> Am 15.03.2015 um 03:14 schrieb Cousin Ricky:
>>> At just the right time, we Americans could catch ten digits today. The
>>> rest of the world will have to wait for the crude approximation in July.
>>> :-P
>>
>> Uh, yeah... because when it comes to date formats, the Gregorian date in
>> American notation is the pinnacle of mathematical thinking... >_<
>>
>> To get it right, wait for 2031-06-01, 19:30:59.236077... (if I got the
>> math right)
>>
> Says the guy who's native language describes 154 as "one hundred, 4 and
> fifty." ;-)
>
Hi Guys, been busy lately, so not always time to check p.o-t
The story about this as I remember it is that most of GB used to say 4
and fifty (and some still do) but that some king or queen decided that
fifty four better fitted what was written.
And that we write 54 because four and fifty was exactly what the arabs
were saying too, and they write right to left.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 27/03/2015 21:52, Andrel wrote:
> Hi Guys, been busy lately, so not always time to check p.o-t
>
That's good.
> The story about this as I remember it is that most of GB used to say 4
> and fifty (and some still do) but that some king or queen decided that
> fifty four better fitted what was written.
> And that we write 54 because four and fifty was exactly what the arabs
> were saying too, and they write right to left.
>
The King bit does not seem right to me. So I went looking. This is the
only thing I could find.
You might find it interesting. On the other hand you might find it
patronising and with the odd racist comment.
http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/lexicon_valley/2014/11/lexicon_valley_the_history_and_evolution_of_writing_out_numbers_in_the_english.html
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28-3-2015 10:23, Stephen wrote:
> On 27/03/2015 21:52, Andrel wrote:
>
>> Hi Guys, been busy lately, so not always time to check p.o-t
>>
>
> That's good.
>
>> The story about this as I remember it is that most of GB used to say 4
>> and fifty (and some still do) but that some king or queen decided that
>> fifty four better fitted what was written.
>> And that we write 54 because four and fifty was exactly what the arabs
>> were saying too, and they write right to left.
>>
>
> The King bit does not seem right to me. So I went looking. This is the
> only thing I could find.
> You might find it interesting. On the other hand you might find it
> patronising and with the odd racist comment.
>
>
>
http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/lexicon_valley/2014/11/lexicon_valley_the_history_and_evolution_of_writing_out_numbers_in_the_english.html
>
>
>
27 minutes long? No patience ;-)
I found this (short) answer:
http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/3903/19th-century-english-texts-occasionally-use-germanic-style-number-words-such-as
Not entirely satisfying though.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28/03/2015 12:23, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> 27 minutes long? No patience ;-)
27 minutes of wishing they would stop being in love with each other and
get on with it.
> I found this (short) answer:
>
http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/3903/19th-century-english-texts-occasionally-use-germanic-style-number-words-such-as
>
>
> Not entirely satisfying though.
I think I've got it and Andrel may be right. Henry V of England was a
native English speaker and was the first to use English in government.
One particular dialect, Chancery Standard, was used.
So I'll give the benefit of the doubt to Andrel. And he has 27 seconds
left on the subject of "Pi Day of the century"
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 29-3-2015 14:19, Stephen wrote:
> On 28/03/2015 12:23, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> 27 minutes long? No patience ;-)
>
> 27 minutes of wishing they would stop being in love with each other and
> get on with it.
>
>> I found this (short) answer:
>>
http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/3903/19th-century-english-texts-occasionally-use-germanic-style-number-words-such-as
>>
>>
>>
>> Not entirely satisfying though.
>
> I think I've got it and Andrel may be right. Henry V of England was a
> native English speaker and was the first to use English in government.
> One particular dialect, Chancery Standard, was used.
> So I'll give the benefit of the doubt to Andrel. And he has 27 seconds
> left on the subject of "Pi Day of the century"
>
Fascinating. I looked up Middle English and Chancery Standard. I love
languages!
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
[hmm thunderbird interface may have changed, this is the second time I
'reply' in stead of 'follow up']
On 03/28/2015 10:23 AM, Stephen wrote:
> On 27/03/2015 21:52, Andrel wrote:
>
>> Hi Guys, been busy lately, so not always time to check p.o-t
>>
>
> That's good.
>
>> The story about this as I remember it is that most of GB used to say 4
>> and fifty (and some still do) but that some king or queen decided that
>> fifty four better fitted what was written.
>> And that we write 54 because four and fifty was exactly what the arabs
>> were saying too, and they write right to left.
>>
>
> The King bit does not seem right to me. So I went looking. This is the
> only thing I could find.
> You might find it interesting. On the other hand you might find it
> patronising and with the odd racist comment.
>
>
>
http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/lexicon_valley/2014/11/lexicon_valley_the_history_and_evolution_of_writing_out_numbers_in_the_english.html
>
yes patronizing and very american in not understanding how familiarity
with something is not the same as something being more logical. (yes I
know that is patronizing)
What they missed:
- what the spoken order is for arab (and hebrew) and how that might
influence the way our numbers are written (i.e. big endian). (which I
still find an interesting point)
- that both dutch and german say three thousand two hundred four and
fifty. So an odd mix. Which also invalidates their 22 and 5000 example.
- that in multiplication the way the carry is used makes little endian
more actually 'logical' Which was IIRC one reason for the 4040, z80 etc.
to adopt that scheme. (which is irrelevant for this discussion in much
the same way as their examples)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/29/2015 02:19 PM, Stephen wrote:
> On 28/03/2015 12:23, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> 27 minutes long? No patience ;-)
>
> 27 minutes of wishing they would stop being in love with each other and
> get on with it.
>
>> I found this (short) answer:
>>
http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/3903/19th-century-english-texts-occasionally-use-germanic-style-number-words-such-as
>>
>>
>>
>> Not entirely satisfying though.
>
> I think I've got it and Andrel may be right. Henry V of England was a
> native English speaker and was the first to use English in government.
> One particular dialect, Chancery Standard, was used.
> So I'll give the benefit of the doubt to Andrel. And he has 27 seconds
> left on the subject of "Pi Day of the century"
>
Sorry was not at home for that many seconds. :(
So it may not be the whole truth but there is an element of:
the english say twenty four because the arabs say four and twenty and
they write right to left whereas the english write left to right.
At least there is confusion enough to be able to claim that when in
computer science class a teacher or a student claims that big-endian is
much more logical. That will hopefully confuse them enough to refrain
from absolute statements in the future.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 29.03.2015 um 18:46 schrieb Andrel:
> At least there is confusion enough to be able to claim that when in
> computer science class a teacher or a student claims that big-endian is
> much more logical. That will hopefully confuse them enough to refrain
> from absolute statements in the future.
Fun fact to know: Big-Endian byte ordering is also referred to as
Network Order, because that's what is used in TCP/IP and Ethernet...
... but the bit ordering within each byte on Ethernet is Little-Endian!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 29.03.2015 um 18:40 schrieb Andrel:
> - that in multiplication the way the carry is used makes little endian
> more actually 'logical' Which was IIRC one reason for the 4040, z80 etc.
> to adopt that scheme. (which is irrelevant for this discussion in much
> the same way as their examples)
That's an interesting point there.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> The story about this as I remember it is that most of GB used to say 4
> and fifty (and some still do) but that some king or queen decided that
> fifty four better fitted what was written.
Must have been nice to just be able to make changes like that. Today it
would have taken 4 years for a committee to produce a report making a
recommendation, then another 2 years for parliament to debate a spelling
mistake on page 7, another 2 years to rewrite the report, then more
debating and finally the government decides actually we won't bother.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
