Talk:Names of small numbers

This article was nominated for deletion on 11 March 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Left aligning physics 'Table 2' is needed - can you do it?[edit]

If so, please do. When sourced in the Planck units article, this table was already complete and inserted within double curly brackets as a completed table. Some formatting methods were tried but did not shift it left yet.

Can you do shift it left?
Do you want (optional, since noted in preface text sentence) to delete the one occurrence of a non-small number in this table, if you can access its original form? Might this require you to make a variation of the original table here on this page, or elsewhere then insert it with new code?

Pandelver : Discussion Pandelver (talk) 00:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting physics sections[edit]

The article is about the "names of small numbers", not "names of small quantities". Also, the idea that Planck units are "small" is not really true. In quantum gravity, they're sort of the "default sizes". Also, the Planck mass is a very large mass compared to, say, a molecule. Even one meter would be a very small length if we're talking about astronomy. The epochs after the big bang are small amounts of time compared to a second, but very large amounts of time compared to the Planck time. Also, it's hard to see how a reader interested in the English word for 10^-15 would also happen to be interested in when exactly the grand unification epoch was. They're completely different topics, with completely different readership, in my opinion it doesn't make sense to put them together in the same article. Therefore I deleted the physics sections. I mean no offense, it was certainly well intentioned. :-) --Steve (talk) 03:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restrict to decimal numbers[edit]

I rewrote the intro to suggest that the article's scope will be restricted to numbers in the decimal system. The subject of this article is "names of small numbers", meaning words in the English language which stand for small numbers. There are no words in the English language which stand for small numbers in the binary system or in any base except decimal. Therefore it does not make sense to discuss other bases in this article, in my opinion. :-) --Steve (talk) 03:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really? You don't think the special form half counts for 1/2? And what about the sexagesimal minute (1/60) and second (1/3600)? (I'd argue that they still retain some shades of a general meaning beyond time, and will do so as long as the sexagesimal subdivision of the degree still exist.) Double sharp (talk) 12:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Names of small numbers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:27, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ERROR[edit]

in table

10−30 1×10−30 Nonillionth Quintillionth w weco-

10−33 1×10−33 Decillionth Quintilliardth w weco-

have to be error — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.177.224.118 (talk) 10:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One one-hundredth and such[edit]

Does anyone actually say "one" twice? —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 20:31, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i've heard some people say "one one-hundredth" and such, but never something like "two one-hundredths"-- it's always "two hundredths". weird. Otesunki (talk) 12:25, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]