I expressed some views at USMA 24414 wherein I suggested that *using multiples in 10^5 instead of 10^3 could prove more benificial to *bridge the large and small count* in prefixes and suffuxes among American, European and Asian regions and to integrate the progress in IEEE/ASTM SI-10 document leaving a space for 'seperation' for very large *number or quantity* shall go a long way. Use of comma at 10^3 had been considered sufficient when computing was in its infancy.
The need, I feel, has now arisen to cater for large 'quantities'and to my mind 10^5 using the OLD name could go along now.
Regards,
Brij Bhushan Vij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Aa Nau Bhadra Kritvo Yantu Vishwatah -Rg Veda.
*****The New Calendar Rhyme*****
Thirty days in July, September:
April, June, November, December;
All the rest have thirty-one; accepting February alone:
Which hath but twenty-nine, to be (in) fine;
Till leap year gives the whole week READY:
Is it not time to MODIFY or change to make it perennial, Oh Daddy!And make the calendar work with Leap Week Rule! ***** ***** ***** *****
From: "Bill Potts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [USMA:25215] RE: Commas vs. spaces Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:25:29 -0800
The IEEE/ASTM SI-10 document says the following:
"Outside the United States, the comma is widely used as the decimal marker.
In some applications, therefore, the common practice in the United States of
using the comma to separate digits into groups of three (as in 23,478) may
cause ambiguity. To avoid this potential source of confusion, recommended
international practice calls for separating the digits into groups of three,
counting from the decimal marker toward the left and the right, and using a
thin, fixed space to separate the groups. In numbers of four digits either
side of the decimal marker, the space is usually not necessary, except for
uniformity in tables."
As this list server has an international group of participants, we use the
spaces, as recommended. Thin, fixed spaces are not, of course, quite as easy
to do in email as in word processor and desktop publishing documents. The
ideal is, of course, thin, fixed, non-breaking spaces. In documents intended
only for printing, I find the easiest approach is to use an invisible period
(e.g., a white period, where the background or the medium [white paper, for
example] is white). I avoid that approach for web-based documents with other
than a white background, as people with vision problems will have their
browser suppress the background color.
Bill Potts, CMS Roseville, CA http://metric1.org [SI Navigator]
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Behalf Of Carl Sorenson
>Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 19:56
>To: U.S. Metric Association
>Subject: [USMA:25214] Commas vs. spaces
>
>
>>Ok now. This is getting silly.
>>What's up with the "96 % of 5 000 444" stuff.
>>Whatever happened to 96% of 5,000,444 stuff?
>
>It isn't really silly. It is just a common way to write numbers for an
>international audience or a technical audience. France uses the comma for
>the decimal marker, for example, so using commas for the digit separator
>would look odd to them. I don't generally write numbers with
>spaces since I
>usually write for an American audience, and here it is quite
>standard to use
>the commas. Using the spaces can look strange to many Americans, but it is
>actually a pretty accepted practice for many circles. Some on this list
>might say it is the "correct" way to write numbers, which I would disagree
>with. I don't believe that there is such a thing as correct/incorrect for
>many stylistic questions (just like "color" vs. "colour").
>
>Carl
_________________________________________________________________
Fun on the mobile with http://www.msn.co.in/mobile/ ringtones, graphics, logos etc.
