Dave
Administrator
HWI Admin
Posts: 7,700
|
Post by Dave on Jan 23, 2008 14:36:45 GMT
Hi Jon, There are plenty of odd ways of writing amounts in all Countries, I think. Including the UK, where you have the following: One thousand one hundred and twenty five pounds twenty five; or: One thousand one hundred and twenty five pounds and twenty five pence; but not: Eleven hundred... etc. In figures, that would be: £1,125.25. Look, a missing "and" or two; missing "pence" and "p" (the abbreviation for pence) too. I bet some Brits do it differently, too. Confused? Well I am and I hate trying to explain this kind of thing but must needs needs must!  Cheers, Dave |
|
|
|
Post by grant on Jan 23, 2008 14:59:02 GMT
Here is another question about numbers. Is the correct way to say 1400 "one thousand four hundred" or "fourteen hundred"? I have heard it often both ways. When speaking, the latter expression is more efficient because it has two fewer syllables. Hi Jon I don't think either are correct or incorrect. I would generally say 'fourteen hundred', though perhaps saying 'one thousand four hundred' is more precise and less likely to be misheard when addressing a group for example. If the number was, say, 1465, I would most likely say it as 'fourteen sixty-five' without the 'hundred and', or even 'one-four-six-five' although again, pronouncing each syllable would be less likely to be misheard. Best wishes Grant |
|
|
|
Post by grant on Jan 23, 2008 15:15:23 GMT
OK Richard! I concede - I didn't spot that!  Best wishes Grant |
|
|
|
Post by stevemacdonald on Jan 23, 2008 18:52:07 GMT
Other ways to express this year:
Two Thousand (and) Eight
MMVIII
Two Ought Ought Eight
Two double-O Eight
'08
The Eighth Year of the Second Millennium in the Era of Our Lord
0b11111011000
(on early January draughts) 07 08
|
|
|
|
Post by stevemacdonald on Feb 12, 2008 20:15:47 GMT
Can anyone come up with a rational explanation as to why the number 46 showed up so often around Hayley?
|
|
|
|
Post by gra7890 on Feb 12, 2008 23:29:39 GMT
Can anyone come up with a rational explanation as to why the number 46 showed up so often around Hayley? Well 46 is a rational number ! Graham |
|
|
|
Post by Richard on Feb 13, 2008 8:36:36 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Nordly on Feb 18, 2008 17:55:50 GMT
before I made this post I had 666 posts
|
|
Joe
Administrator
Supporting Hayley since 2003!
Posts: 6,715 
|
Post by Joe on Feb 18, 2008 18:16:13 GMT
before I made this post I had 666 posts Hey NL, But it's the 13th hour of the day   Joe |
|
|
|
Post by stevemacdonald on Feb 20, 2008 14:45:19 GMT
So you want "fun with numbers"? I'll give you fun with numbers:
The Space Shuttle Atlantis landed this morning.
Its "wheel-lock" time -- the moment it came to a full stop on the landing strip -- was logged as 08:08:08 a.m. (Mission Control time), this during the 8th week of '08 !!!!!!!!
And by the way, the next launch of Atlantis is scheduled for 08/08/08 (on NZ's calendar).
|
|
|
|
Post by Nordly on Feb 21, 2008 1:02:24 GMT
and on another forum I have (or had) 66 posts then
|
|
|
|
Post by milewalker on Feb 21, 2008 2:15:45 GMT
Hats off to the Pythagoreans for this one (the same fine people who brought us "the music of the spheres", and also accidentally came up with an important concept or two amidst all the numerology)
The sum of any consecutive string of odd numbers beginning with 1 is a square.
For example, 1+3 =4 (22)
1+3+5+7+9 = 25 (52)
|
|
|
|
Post by stevemacdonald on Feb 21, 2008 18:51:43 GMT
Boeing uses palindromic primes to designate some of its aircraft: 727, 757, 787. There is no "fun with numbers" reason for this, except that it possibly sends the subliminal message that your trip aboard one of their birds will be primarily smooth, both coming and going.
|
|
|
|
Post by grant on Feb 21, 2008 19:12:55 GMT
Boeing uses palindromic primes to designate some of its aircraft: 727, 757, 787. There is no "fun with numbers" reason for this, except that it possibly sends the subliminal message that your trip aboard one of their birds will be primarily smooth, both coming and going. Hi Steve ... but this has not always been the case. It actually began with the 707 in 1954 which started out in life as the 367-80 or "Dash 80". This stemmed from the fact that it was initially a development of the C97/KC97 'Stratofreighter/Stratotanker' - which was designated 367 by Boeing. I have always wondered how it eventually became the '707'  Best wishes Grant |
|
|
|
Post by stevemacdonald on Feb 21, 2008 19:27:20 GMT
Grant, if you invert "707" it reads LOL, thus sending the subliminal message that the very thought of one of their jets turning upside-down and crashing is laughable. These Boeing folks are smart .... very smart.  |
|
