![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
General usage of higher denominations today are recursive e.g. 2 lakh crores (2 followed by 12 zeros).
Would 1014 be refered to as "1 crore crores"?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nik42 ( talk • contribs) 20:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Basically
It should be Taken in account, how the numbering system was built and can used effectively.
1 | Single Digit {One} | [Ekam] |
10 | Two Digits {Ten} | [Dasham] |
100 | Three Digits {Hundred} | [Shatak] |
Now onwards the trick begins | ||
1,000 | Four Digits {Thousand} | [Shahastra] |
10,000 | Five Digits {Ten Thousand} | [Dasha Shahastra] |
1,00,000 | Six Digits {Hundred thousand} | [Laksh/lack] |
10,00,000 | Seven Digits {Milion} | [Dasha Laksh/lack] |
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.134.248.184 ( talk • contribs) 20:30, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
I converted lakh and crore to redirect here, but this was reverted. The redirect still makes more sense to me to avoid duplication, but I don't feel strongly enough about it to do it again. However, the text I moved in here from the other articles was left in place. Someone might like to remove it, to avoid further duplication. Or restore the redirects. 207.176.159.90 23:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't see any need to describe the numbering system as challenging. What makes it so? The only thing that has confused me is why the first grouping is 1000, then each term is 100 of the last. If anybody knows why that is (my family doesn't) that would make a good addition. Rahulchandra 15:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Anybody has an explanation on what follows?
The 28th Canto of ‘Yudha Kanda’ of the Valmiki Ramayana has one of Ravana’s spies — Suka — describing to him the size of Rama’s army. Before he tells the size of Rama’s army, the spy goes on to illustrate the nomenclature of the number system. Note that decimal numeracy is taken for granted. Here is what the spy says:
* 100,00,000 is one crore (10**7) * 100,000 crore is one shankh (10**12) * 100,000 shankh is one mahashankh (10**17) * 100,000 mahashankh is one vrinda (10**22) * 100,000 vrinda is one mahavrinda (10**27) * 100,000 mahavrinda is one padma (10**32) * 100,000 padma is one mahapadma (10**37) * 100,000 mahapadma is one kharb (10**42) * 100,000 kharb is one mahakharb (10**47) * 100,000 mahakharb is one samudra (10**52) * 100,000 samudra is one ogh (10**57) * 100,000 ogh is one mahaough (10**62)
Higher numbers idea is interesting, and especially new figures (vrinda, samudra, ogh) but "reuse" of kharb, padma,... is puzzling. Disdero 09:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
“A hundred thousand Shankus are said to be one Maha Shanku. A hundred thousand Maha Shankus are called one Vrindam here. A hundred thousand Vrindas are said to be one Maha vrindam. A hundred thousand Mahavrindas are called one Padmam here. A hundred thousand padmas are said to be one Mahapadmam. A hundred thousand Mahapadmas are called one Kharvam here. A hundred thousand kharvas are said to be one Mahakharvam. A hundred thousand Mahakharvas are called one Samundram. A hundred thousand Samudras are said to be one ogha here. A hundred thousand oghas are acclaimed a one Mahaugha.”
The source text can be found here http://www.valmikiramayan.net/yuddha/sarga28/yuddhaitrans28.htm Disdero 09:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
It says they are grouped in two's, but the examples are grouped in three's first, the subsequently n two's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.180.217.90 ( talk) 19:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I was showing this page to several India colleagues and all agreed that the Hindi word listed for "Padma" says "Padm" in Hindi, so is perhaps the English or the Hindi incorrect? I do not know enough obviously to correct this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oneliketadow ( talk • contribs) 18:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
It would be helpful for those of us not accustomed to this system to explain what happens to even powered numbers. E.g., 104 and so forth. Tloc ( talk) 06:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Adant singhar is shown as "100,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,000" (note the initial "100" without a comma). However, I believe the correct representation is "1,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,000". Can someone more knowledgeable than I confirm? Afalls ( talk) 23:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
The list of languages needed to view this article is not complete. As far as I can tell there is at least Burmese (which I don't have on my computer, because it's weird arabic and a few more (see the Usage in different languages section) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.48.57.36 ( talk) 13:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
The introductory text of the article says
"1 billion (100 crore) is written as 1,00,00,00,000"
but the large numbers table show it as 100,00,00,000. These can't both be right. I think the table is correct, but not sure enough to want to edit the page. Michealt ( talk) 16:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
This is from the tables in English, Italian and Spanish wiki articles, and from the comment of -59.95.35.182 (
talk)
12:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
This is what I understand :
"one hundred crore" = 1 arab = 100,00,00,000 = 1,00,00,00,000
"one thousand crore" = ten arab = 1,000,00,00,000 = 10,00,00,00,000
Please confirm to me, and if it is true, then it would make sense to have 2 columns for the Indian system
As of today, articles from English wiki, Italian, Spanish and others are conflicting --
Emmanuel JARRI (
talk)
21:53, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
However, the first one is the traditional academic/formal usage as well as the part of the system being described. The second one is a unsystematic, but accepted common verbiage. - Mukt ( talk) 23:07, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
The title of this article should be "Indian Numbering System" or "Indian Sub Continent numbering system". Reason: At present Wikipedia is redirecting "Indian numbering system" to "South Asian numbering system". In this context "Indian" refers to the Indian Subcontinent. Using the term South Asia by various definition includes more countries/territories than the defined Indian Subcontinent. As such not all South Asian countries follow this numbering system. The numbering system and its details provided in the article itself points to this fact. As such, this type of numbering system cannot be generalized for South Asia. It is very specific to the Indian (or Indian Sub Continent) numbering system. As a reference to why using the term South Asia in this context is disputed, please refer the article mentioned in the sources. Source: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_numerals; [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_subcontinent; [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Asia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logbookmark ( talk • contribs) 18:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
While I was able to access this Article (and hence this Talk Page) in Safari, Firefox crashes every time I click on this Article. Furthermore, this is the only Article that makes Firefox crash. All other Articles are just fine in Firefox. This leads me to believe there is a virus on this page to which Safari 5 is immune while Firefox 16 is not. I have restarted my computer several times, and there is still the same problem with only this particular Wikipedia Article.
Therefore, my suggestion to improve the Article is: A skilled Admin should clear the server file behind this Article of any and all viruses, bugs, or errors it may presently contain.
Signed,
The Mysterious El Willstro ( talk) 05:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I propose that this article to be merge into the Indian numerals article. This article is basically about the treatment of large numbers in the Indian system, and the current article name, "Indian Numbering System", has the same meaning as "Indian numerals". For example, the Chinese numerals article has a section for large numbers as used in the Chinese system.-- Joshua Say "hi" to me! What I've done? 11:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Basic aspect of a encyc article seems missing? Turkeyphan t 13:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
As lakh and crore were used in the traditional Indian numerical system, why are they also still used in Indian English? Royalcourtier ( talk) 05:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Fascinating! What linguistic or cultural traditions led to the use of commas separating the last three digits, but then every two digits above them? Contrast with the history of the metric system etc. ★NealMcB★ ( talk) 16:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
The article would benefit from a section or example of how grouping works with fractions. Is it "0.123456789", "0.123,45,67,89", "0.12,34,56,78,9" or something else? jodastephen ( talk) 15:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I think it would be useful for this article to cover abbreviations used for crore, lahk, arab etc.
The articles on Crore and Lahk mention that these are abbreviated to L and cr respectively, but I've been able to find no information on what arab, lahk crore, crore crore, padm etc are abbreviated to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimTim ( talk • contribs) 08:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
mahaugha — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.114.197.127 ( talk) 06:21, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
I was told Indian numbers to be as follows when I was child
Elam is one Daham is ten or 10 Shatam is hundred or 100 Sahastra is thousand or 1,000 Dashsahastra is ten thousand or 10,000 Laksh is one hundred thousand or 100,000 Dashlaksh is ten Laksh or 10,00,000 Koti or Crore is ten Dashlaksh Dashkoti is ten Koti Abja is ten Dashkoti Kharv is ten Abja Nikharv is ten Kharv Mahapadm is ten Nikharv Shankhu is ten Mahapadm Jaladhi is ten Shankhu Antya is ten Jaladhi Madhya is ten Antya And ten Madhya is Parardh
Does anyone know these numbers? Thus one parardh would mean ten rest to 17 or 100,000,000,000,000,000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamalakarpendse ( talk • contribs) 12:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
On several pages related to India (or the subcontinent) it is found that the western numbering system is used, especially with currency. Being an Indian, I find it difficult to identify with the magnitude of a value such as ₹150 million. Yes, I can convert it in my mind but that isn't the point. A template that does the conversion of say ₹150 million to ₹15 cr. would, in my opinion, increase the readability of an article. Abhijeetviswa ( talk) 07:45, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
The article suggests that digits are grouped in groups of 2 except for the last 3, but these two anonymous edits claim that after the second group of 2 there's another group of 3. This is not supported by the reference cited near the edit either; it seems that it was made up by that user. It must be deleted or properly cited and the rest of the text changed accordingly. — Cousteau ( talk) 00:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I recently PRODded Lakh; @ Imaginatorium: does not seem to agree with that, but he does agree that the article is not very good. More to the point: the topic of Lakh is really the Indian numbering system, which basically amounts to the use of two different multipliers, Lakh and Crore. So I think anything useful on those pages should be merged into this article, and both lakh and crore should redirect to that. Any opinions? ωικιωαrrιor ᑫᑫ1ᑫ 16:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
I recently PRODded Lakh; @ Imaginatorium: does not seem to agree with that, but he does agree that the article is not very good. More to the point: the topic of Lakh is really the Indian numbering system, which basically amounts to the use of two different multipliers, Lakh and Crore. So I think anything useful on those pages should be merged into this article, and both lakh and crore should redirect to that. Any opinions? ωικιωαrrιor ᑫᑫ1ᑫ 16:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
a merge of something that important into a tagged article is not a great idea. Getsnoopy ( talk) 08:11, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
For all the written information about the grouping, it states "which group the digits into powers of one hundred in the Indian system (except for the first thousand)". This is reflected in the first table under Use of separators with the third number being "17,00,00,00,000" (?-2-2-2-3). But the fourth number is formatted as "67,89,000,00,00,000" (?-2-3-2-2-3). But in the table under Names of numbers, it's consistently expanding into the format of "10,000,00,00,000,00,00,000" (?-3-2-2-3-2-2-3).
The pattern seems to be a repeating of ",00,00,000" (-2-2-3), and it's not just the first thousand being in a group.
Looking further into the table, it seems to be determined by how you would say the number.
2-2-3 repeated | ...2-2-2-2-2-3 expanding | ||
---|---|---|---|
1,00,000 | one lakh | 1,00,000 | one lakh |
10,00,000 | ten lakh | 10,00,000 | ten lakh |
1,00,00,000 | one crore | 1,00,00,000 | one crore |
10,00,00,000 | ten crore | 10,00,00,000 | ten crore |
100,00,00,000 | hundred crore | 1,00,00,00,000 | one arab |
1,000,00,00,000 | thousand crore | 10,00,00,00,000 | ten arab |
10,000,00,00,000 | ten thousand crore | 1,00,00,00,00,000 | one kharab |
1,00,000,00,00,000 | one lakh crore | 10,00,00,00,00,000 | ten kharab |
10,00,000,00,00,000 | ten lakh crore | 1,00,00,00,00,00,000 | one nil |
1,00,00,000,00,00,000 | one crore crore | 10,00,00,00,00,00,000 | ten nil |
10,00,00,000,00,00,000 | ten crore crore | 1,00,00,00,00,00,00,000 | one padma |
100,00,00,000,00,00,000 | hundred crore crore | 10,00,00,00,00,00,00,000 | ten padma |
1,000,00,00,000,00,00,000 | thousand crore crore | 1,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,000 | one shankh |
10,000,00,00,000,00,00,000 | ten thousand crore crore | 10,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,000 | ten shankh |
Differences in the first grouping is that it counts up to a crore, then it repeats. It's an indefinite method which I can see being preferred for that reason. The second grouping requires a new term for every 100 multiple. – Where the table ends, the following numbers of the first group are: "one lakh crore crore", "ten lakh crore crore", "one crore crore crore", "ten crore crore crore", ... and for the second group it's indeterminate, as the names aren't given.
In the table under Names of numbers, there's also the mention of "hundred arab", "thousand arab", "ten thousand arab", before ending. By the looks of it, it looks to behave like the 2-2-3 repeating / crore crore system, but instead being 2-2-2-3 repeating / arab arab system. One crore crore crore "1,00,00,000,00,00,000,00,00,000" would therefore be thousand arab arab "1,000,00,00,00,000,00,00,00,000".
So this might be something that should be researched and included in the article.
Liggliluff ( talk) 10:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
After reverting [1] I've had a quick glance to confirm the content is generally supported by the sources and broadly speaking it is (I open to comments there may have been a slight extrapolation of the sources). There was a failure to bring from the article that the system would be more tenable and suitable if the proper names for the lesser used units were used rather than a form of slang hybrid. If would be good to see additional sources here, and possibly a re-write of re-phrase might be helpful. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 09:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Some editors are inserting unreferenced units like "neha", "vikrant" etc. in the tables. They might have been used somewhere, but cannot be mixed with another system. Even ayuta and niyuta have confusing meanings. So, Iremoved them. Let us stick to just one system for reference. There is no need to be over-specific, as these sysytems are not used today. I have updated links to the most recent Valmiki Ramayan website (one of the authorised sites approved by renowned scholars), and the table is linked to these six verses only (translation):
http://valmikiramayan.pcriot.com/utf8/yuddha/sarga28/yuddha_28_frame.htm
"Wise men call a hundred lakhs as a crore. A hundred thousand crores is reckoned as a Shanku." (Verse 33)
"A hundred thousand Shankus are said to be one Maha Shanku. A hundred thousand Maha Shankus are called one Vrindam here. A hundred thousand Vrindas are said to be one Maha vrindam. A hundred thousand Mahavrindas are called one Padmam here. A hundred thousand padmas are said to be one Mahapadmam. A hundred thousand Mahapadmas are called one Kharvam here. A hundred thousand kharvas are said to be one Mahakharvam. A hundred thousand Mahakharvas are called one Samu(n)dram. A hundred thousand Samudras are said to be one ogha here. A hundred thousand oghas are acclaimed a one Mahaugha." (Verses 34 - 38).
- Polytope4D ( talk) 07:33, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
The section titled "The Indian System" seems to have multiple formatting errors. The first paragraph ends with a comma and an extra blank line; not sure what's intended. In the third paragraph, the word "arab" does not appear where it should; in place of "arab" enclosed in double apostrophes, the source contains three apostrophes. This triple apostrophe messes up apostrophe pairing in the following text, so that all subsequent parenthetical material is in italics (not sure if this is intended) including also the digit "1" just before the next term (definitely wrong). Finally, the last piece ends with "1 repeats for larger numbers...", again with "1" italicized, rather than explaining exactly what it is that repeats.
Not correcting these myself since I don't know the intent and would probably mess it up further!
Larrydberg ( talk) 05:57, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Do we really need to reference milliards and billiards in the table? While I appreciate this nomenclature is likely to be useful to visitors from the 19th century, the bulk of our readership exists in the 21st century and have never once seen these terms used in the wild. I suspect this is due to considerate Americans editing under the impression that these terms are still occasionally used in the UK, which I've seen written elsewhere. If so, please accept my assurance they definitely aren't! The last thing a page designed to clarify and illuminate an unfamiliar numbering system is to confuse people further with an entirely different unfamiliar numbering system - particularly one that nobody has used in at least half a century. Dybeck ( talk) 03:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
The pronunciation section mentions the word “hazar” but it isn’t explained in the article. What does it mean? I assume “thousands” but of course I might be wrong. 95.114.106.50 ( talk) 09:01, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
The article is titled “Indian numbering system” but the first sentence starts, “The Indic numbering system”. This is the only occurrence of the word “Indic” in the whole text. Should this be changed to “Indian”? SeL ( talk) 19:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
General usage of higher denominations today are recursive e.g. 2 lakh crores (2 followed by 12 zeros).
Would 1014 be refered to as "1 crore crores"?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nik42 ( talk • contribs) 20:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Basically
It should be Taken in account, how the numbering system was built and can used effectively.
1 | Single Digit {One} | [Ekam] |
10 | Two Digits {Ten} | [Dasham] |
100 | Three Digits {Hundred} | [Shatak] |
Now onwards the trick begins | ||
1,000 | Four Digits {Thousand} | [Shahastra] |
10,000 | Five Digits {Ten Thousand} | [Dasha Shahastra] |
1,00,000 | Six Digits {Hundred thousand} | [Laksh/lack] |
10,00,000 | Seven Digits {Milion} | [Dasha Laksh/lack] |
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.134.248.184 ( talk • contribs) 20:30, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
I converted lakh and crore to redirect here, but this was reverted. The redirect still makes more sense to me to avoid duplication, but I don't feel strongly enough about it to do it again. However, the text I moved in here from the other articles was left in place. Someone might like to remove it, to avoid further duplication. Or restore the redirects. 207.176.159.90 23:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't see any need to describe the numbering system as challenging. What makes it so? The only thing that has confused me is why the first grouping is 1000, then each term is 100 of the last. If anybody knows why that is (my family doesn't) that would make a good addition. Rahulchandra 15:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Anybody has an explanation on what follows?
The 28th Canto of ‘Yudha Kanda’ of the Valmiki Ramayana has one of Ravana’s spies — Suka — describing to him the size of Rama’s army. Before he tells the size of Rama’s army, the spy goes on to illustrate the nomenclature of the number system. Note that decimal numeracy is taken for granted. Here is what the spy says:
* 100,00,000 is one crore (10**7) * 100,000 crore is one shankh (10**12) * 100,000 shankh is one mahashankh (10**17) * 100,000 mahashankh is one vrinda (10**22) * 100,000 vrinda is one mahavrinda (10**27) * 100,000 mahavrinda is one padma (10**32) * 100,000 padma is one mahapadma (10**37) * 100,000 mahapadma is one kharb (10**42) * 100,000 kharb is one mahakharb (10**47) * 100,000 mahakharb is one samudra (10**52) * 100,000 samudra is one ogh (10**57) * 100,000 ogh is one mahaough (10**62)
Higher numbers idea is interesting, and especially new figures (vrinda, samudra, ogh) but "reuse" of kharb, padma,... is puzzling. Disdero 09:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
“A hundred thousand Shankus are said to be one Maha Shanku. A hundred thousand Maha Shankus are called one Vrindam here. A hundred thousand Vrindas are said to be one Maha vrindam. A hundred thousand Mahavrindas are called one Padmam here. A hundred thousand padmas are said to be one Mahapadmam. A hundred thousand Mahapadmas are called one Kharvam here. A hundred thousand kharvas are said to be one Mahakharvam. A hundred thousand Mahakharvas are called one Samundram. A hundred thousand Samudras are said to be one ogha here. A hundred thousand oghas are acclaimed a one Mahaugha.”
The source text can be found here http://www.valmikiramayan.net/yuddha/sarga28/yuddhaitrans28.htm Disdero 09:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
It says they are grouped in two's, but the examples are grouped in three's first, the subsequently n two's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.180.217.90 ( talk) 19:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I was showing this page to several India colleagues and all agreed that the Hindi word listed for "Padma" says "Padm" in Hindi, so is perhaps the English or the Hindi incorrect? I do not know enough obviously to correct this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oneliketadow ( talk • contribs) 18:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
It would be helpful for those of us not accustomed to this system to explain what happens to even powered numbers. E.g., 104 and so forth. Tloc ( talk) 06:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Adant singhar is shown as "100,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,000" (note the initial "100" without a comma). However, I believe the correct representation is "1,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,000". Can someone more knowledgeable than I confirm? Afalls ( talk) 23:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
The list of languages needed to view this article is not complete. As far as I can tell there is at least Burmese (which I don't have on my computer, because it's weird arabic and a few more (see the Usage in different languages section) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.48.57.36 ( talk) 13:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
The introductory text of the article says
"1 billion (100 crore) is written as 1,00,00,00,000"
but the large numbers table show it as 100,00,00,000. These can't both be right. I think the table is correct, but not sure enough to want to edit the page. Michealt ( talk) 16:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
This is from the tables in English, Italian and Spanish wiki articles, and from the comment of -59.95.35.182 (
talk)
12:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
This is what I understand :
"one hundred crore" = 1 arab = 100,00,00,000 = 1,00,00,00,000
"one thousand crore" = ten arab = 1,000,00,00,000 = 10,00,00,00,000
Please confirm to me, and if it is true, then it would make sense to have 2 columns for the Indian system
As of today, articles from English wiki, Italian, Spanish and others are conflicting --
Emmanuel JARRI (
talk)
21:53, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
However, the first one is the traditional academic/formal usage as well as the part of the system being described. The second one is a unsystematic, but accepted common verbiage. - Mukt ( talk) 23:07, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
The title of this article should be "Indian Numbering System" or "Indian Sub Continent numbering system". Reason: At present Wikipedia is redirecting "Indian numbering system" to "South Asian numbering system". In this context "Indian" refers to the Indian Subcontinent. Using the term South Asia by various definition includes more countries/territories than the defined Indian Subcontinent. As such not all South Asian countries follow this numbering system. The numbering system and its details provided in the article itself points to this fact. As such, this type of numbering system cannot be generalized for South Asia. It is very specific to the Indian (or Indian Sub Continent) numbering system. As a reference to why using the term South Asia in this context is disputed, please refer the article mentioned in the sources. Source: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_numerals; [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_subcontinent; [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Asia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logbookmark ( talk • contribs) 18:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
While I was able to access this Article (and hence this Talk Page) in Safari, Firefox crashes every time I click on this Article. Furthermore, this is the only Article that makes Firefox crash. All other Articles are just fine in Firefox. This leads me to believe there is a virus on this page to which Safari 5 is immune while Firefox 16 is not. I have restarted my computer several times, and there is still the same problem with only this particular Wikipedia Article.
Therefore, my suggestion to improve the Article is: A skilled Admin should clear the server file behind this Article of any and all viruses, bugs, or errors it may presently contain.
Signed,
The Mysterious El Willstro ( talk) 05:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I propose that this article to be merge into the Indian numerals article. This article is basically about the treatment of large numbers in the Indian system, and the current article name, "Indian Numbering System", has the same meaning as "Indian numerals". For example, the Chinese numerals article has a section for large numbers as used in the Chinese system.-- Joshua Say "hi" to me! What I've done? 11:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Basic aspect of a encyc article seems missing? Turkeyphan t 13:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
As lakh and crore were used in the traditional Indian numerical system, why are they also still used in Indian English? Royalcourtier ( talk) 05:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Fascinating! What linguistic or cultural traditions led to the use of commas separating the last three digits, but then every two digits above them? Contrast with the history of the metric system etc. ★NealMcB★ ( talk) 16:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
The article would benefit from a section or example of how grouping works with fractions. Is it "0.123456789", "0.123,45,67,89", "0.12,34,56,78,9" or something else? jodastephen ( talk) 15:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I think it would be useful for this article to cover abbreviations used for crore, lahk, arab etc.
The articles on Crore and Lahk mention that these are abbreviated to L and cr respectively, but I've been able to find no information on what arab, lahk crore, crore crore, padm etc are abbreviated to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimTim ( talk • contribs) 08:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
mahaugha — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.114.197.127 ( talk) 06:21, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
I was told Indian numbers to be as follows when I was child
Elam is one Daham is ten or 10 Shatam is hundred or 100 Sahastra is thousand or 1,000 Dashsahastra is ten thousand or 10,000 Laksh is one hundred thousand or 100,000 Dashlaksh is ten Laksh or 10,00,000 Koti or Crore is ten Dashlaksh Dashkoti is ten Koti Abja is ten Dashkoti Kharv is ten Abja Nikharv is ten Kharv Mahapadm is ten Nikharv Shankhu is ten Mahapadm Jaladhi is ten Shankhu Antya is ten Jaladhi Madhya is ten Antya And ten Madhya is Parardh
Does anyone know these numbers? Thus one parardh would mean ten rest to 17 or 100,000,000,000,000,000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamalakarpendse ( talk • contribs) 12:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
On several pages related to India (or the subcontinent) it is found that the western numbering system is used, especially with currency. Being an Indian, I find it difficult to identify with the magnitude of a value such as ₹150 million. Yes, I can convert it in my mind but that isn't the point. A template that does the conversion of say ₹150 million to ₹15 cr. would, in my opinion, increase the readability of an article. Abhijeetviswa ( talk) 07:45, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
The article suggests that digits are grouped in groups of 2 except for the last 3, but these two anonymous edits claim that after the second group of 2 there's another group of 3. This is not supported by the reference cited near the edit either; it seems that it was made up by that user. It must be deleted or properly cited and the rest of the text changed accordingly. — Cousteau ( talk) 00:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I recently PRODded Lakh; @ Imaginatorium: does not seem to agree with that, but he does agree that the article is not very good. More to the point: the topic of Lakh is really the Indian numbering system, which basically amounts to the use of two different multipliers, Lakh and Crore. So I think anything useful on those pages should be merged into this article, and both lakh and crore should redirect to that. Any opinions? ωικιωαrrιor ᑫᑫ1ᑫ 16:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
I recently PRODded Lakh; @ Imaginatorium: does not seem to agree with that, but he does agree that the article is not very good. More to the point: the topic of Lakh is really the Indian numbering system, which basically amounts to the use of two different multipliers, Lakh and Crore. So I think anything useful on those pages should be merged into this article, and both lakh and crore should redirect to that. Any opinions? ωικιωαrrιor ᑫᑫ1ᑫ 16:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
a merge of something that important into a tagged article is not a great idea. Getsnoopy ( talk) 08:11, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
For all the written information about the grouping, it states "which group the digits into powers of one hundred in the Indian system (except for the first thousand)". This is reflected in the first table under Use of separators with the third number being "17,00,00,00,000" (?-2-2-2-3). But the fourth number is formatted as "67,89,000,00,00,000" (?-2-3-2-2-3). But in the table under Names of numbers, it's consistently expanding into the format of "10,000,00,00,000,00,00,000" (?-3-2-2-3-2-2-3).
The pattern seems to be a repeating of ",00,00,000" (-2-2-3), and it's not just the first thousand being in a group.
Looking further into the table, it seems to be determined by how you would say the number.
2-2-3 repeated | ...2-2-2-2-2-3 expanding | ||
---|---|---|---|
1,00,000 | one lakh | 1,00,000 | one lakh |
10,00,000 | ten lakh | 10,00,000 | ten lakh |
1,00,00,000 | one crore | 1,00,00,000 | one crore |
10,00,00,000 | ten crore | 10,00,00,000 | ten crore |
100,00,00,000 | hundred crore | 1,00,00,00,000 | one arab |
1,000,00,00,000 | thousand crore | 10,00,00,00,000 | ten arab |
10,000,00,00,000 | ten thousand crore | 1,00,00,00,00,000 | one kharab |
1,00,000,00,00,000 | one lakh crore | 10,00,00,00,00,000 | ten kharab |
10,00,000,00,00,000 | ten lakh crore | 1,00,00,00,00,00,000 | one nil |
1,00,00,000,00,00,000 | one crore crore | 10,00,00,00,00,00,000 | ten nil |
10,00,00,000,00,00,000 | ten crore crore | 1,00,00,00,00,00,00,000 | one padma |
100,00,00,000,00,00,000 | hundred crore crore | 10,00,00,00,00,00,00,000 | ten padma |
1,000,00,00,000,00,00,000 | thousand crore crore | 1,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,000 | one shankh |
10,000,00,00,000,00,00,000 | ten thousand crore crore | 10,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,000 | ten shankh |
Differences in the first grouping is that it counts up to a crore, then it repeats. It's an indefinite method which I can see being preferred for that reason. The second grouping requires a new term for every 100 multiple. – Where the table ends, the following numbers of the first group are: "one lakh crore crore", "ten lakh crore crore", "one crore crore crore", "ten crore crore crore", ... and for the second group it's indeterminate, as the names aren't given.
In the table under Names of numbers, there's also the mention of "hundred arab", "thousand arab", "ten thousand arab", before ending. By the looks of it, it looks to behave like the 2-2-3 repeating / crore crore system, but instead being 2-2-2-3 repeating / arab arab system. One crore crore crore "1,00,00,000,00,00,000,00,00,000" would therefore be thousand arab arab "1,000,00,00,00,000,00,00,00,000".
So this might be something that should be researched and included in the article.
Liggliluff ( talk) 10:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
After reverting [1] I've had a quick glance to confirm the content is generally supported by the sources and broadly speaking it is (I open to comments there may have been a slight extrapolation of the sources). There was a failure to bring from the article that the system would be more tenable and suitable if the proper names for the lesser used units were used rather than a form of slang hybrid. If would be good to see additional sources here, and possibly a re-write of re-phrase might be helpful. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 09:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Some editors are inserting unreferenced units like "neha", "vikrant" etc. in the tables. They might have been used somewhere, but cannot be mixed with another system. Even ayuta and niyuta have confusing meanings. So, Iremoved them. Let us stick to just one system for reference. There is no need to be over-specific, as these sysytems are not used today. I have updated links to the most recent Valmiki Ramayan website (one of the authorised sites approved by renowned scholars), and the table is linked to these six verses only (translation):
http://valmikiramayan.pcriot.com/utf8/yuddha/sarga28/yuddha_28_frame.htm
"Wise men call a hundred lakhs as a crore. A hundred thousand crores is reckoned as a Shanku." (Verse 33)
"A hundred thousand Shankus are said to be one Maha Shanku. A hundred thousand Maha Shankus are called one Vrindam here. A hundred thousand Vrindas are said to be one Maha vrindam. A hundred thousand Mahavrindas are called one Padmam here. A hundred thousand padmas are said to be one Mahapadmam. A hundred thousand Mahapadmas are called one Kharvam here. A hundred thousand kharvas are said to be one Mahakharvam. A hundred thousand Mahakharvas are called one Samu(n)dram. A hundred thousand Samudras are said to be one ogha here. A hundred thousand oghas are acclaimed a one Mahaugha." (Verses 34 - 38).
- Polytope4D ( talk) 07:33, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
The section titled "The Indian System" seems to have multiple formatting errors. The first paragraph ends with a comma and an extra blank line; not sure what's intended. In the third paragraph, the word "arab" does not appear where it should; in place of "arab" enclosed in double apostrophes, the source contains three apostrophes. This triple apostrophe messes up apostrophe pairing in the following text, so that all subsequent parenthetical material is in italics (not sure if this is intended) including also the digit "1" just before the next term (definitely wrong). Finally, the last piece ends with "1 repeats for larger numbers...", again with "1" italicized, rather than explaining exactly what it is that repeats.
Not correcting these myself since I don't know the intent and would probably mess it up further!
Larrydberg ( talk) 05:57, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Do we really need to reference milliards and billiards in the table? While I appreciate this nomenclature is likely to be useful to visitors from the 19th century, the bulk of our readership exists in the 21st century and have never once seen these terms used in the wild. I suspect this is due to considerate Americans editing under the impression that these terms are still occasionally used in the UK, which I've seen written elsewhere. If so, please accept my assurance they definitely aren't! The last thing a page designed to clarify and illuminate an unfamiliar numbering system is to confuse people further with an entirely different unfamiliar numbering system - particularly one that nobody has used in at least half a century. Dybeck ( talk) 03:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
The pronunciation section mentions the word “hazar” but it isn’t explained in the article. What does it mean? I assume “thousands” but of course I might be wrong. 95.114.106.50 ( talk) 09:01, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
The article is titled “Indian numbering system” but the first sentence starts, “The Indic numbering system”. This is the only occurrence of the word “Indic” in the whole text. Should this be changed to “Indian”? SeL ( talk) 19:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)