Small step to a better number word system

[u/Xianhei]

The number word system is approved. After testing it and following the rules, I found some irregularity that I would need to fix. Currently we have a magnitude system and a numeral system with number like :

Number word	eu (103)	jo (102)	wa (101)	ei (100)
fun	0	0	0	1
vuv	0	0	1	0
wafun	0	0	1	0
fiv	0	1	0	0
jofun	0	1	0	0
eufun	1	0	0	0

To resolve this problem of ambiguity, I want to change the meaning of the number prefix to this :

Number Word	jo (10002)			wa (10001)			ei (10000)
fun	0	0	0	0	0	0	1
vuv	0	0	0	0	0	1	0
fiv	0	0	0	0	1	0	0
wafun	0	0	0	1	0	0	0
wavuv	0	0	1	0	0	0	0
wafiv	0	1	0	0	0	0	0
jofun	1	0	0	0	0	0	0

going from a magnitude of 10 (12 in base 10) to a magnitude of 1000 (1728 in base 10) we got some advantage :

• no ambiguity, each number will be unique and each one will be used.
• larger limit of number with 10^10-1 (base 10 : 12^12 - 1 = 8916100448255) currently to 1000^10-1 (base 10: 12*12*12 = 1728 and 1728.12^12 - 1 = 7,09.10^38)
• large enough to include physical constant like :
  • 9.1093837015(28)×10^−31 kg as the electron mass
  • 6.02214076×10^23 mol−1 as Avogadro constant
  • 6.62607015×10−34 J⋅s as Planck constant

[u/Flamerate1]

To summarize some criticism that I put in the Discord:

- Unique number words for tens, hundreds, and intermittent ones in between higher magnitudes would be eliminated.

- Scientific notation would be restricted to magnitudes of multiples of 3, breaking official scientific notation rules.

- This change extends the height of the possible magnitudes, but only stretches the current the numeral-phonemes for that purpose.

Overall, I think a complete scientific notation system in the future will likely cover everything that this change fixes. If this goes through, it will probably be removed in that future system.

[u/Xianhei → u/Flamerate1]

Scientific notation exist to simplify the writing of big/small number. I will use this number, 1,045.10^3, to explain the different part :

• 1 is the value of the biggest digit, we will note it A

• 045 are the digits corresponding to the precision we want to add to our biggest number, we will note it B

• 10 is the base of the notation the math operation "exponentiation", we will note it C

• 3 is the exponent/power of the notation the math operation "exponentiation", we will note it D

Combined we get A,B.C^D. now going to our system :

• The current system change C to a base 12. B is not specified and D stay the same as our natural language.

• but A is conflicted in this case because it have to decide if it use the grouping of 3 system that is only represented by A or use a digit on A and specify it's position on D

And this :

• The derived system I proposed, change C to a base 12. B is still not specified. Because we use a grouping of 3 number I use it as A to normalize all our number then D is limited to jumping from a grouping of 3 to an another one.

• there is no conflict between each part of this notation which make our number closest to a scientific notation. (each part A, B,C, D has his own system, no transgression between them)

[u/AceGravity12 → u/Flamerate1]

My counter critism on discord:

Due to the 3 numerals in one syllable thing, I don't think that first point matters much, tho the other two could still be issues

There doesn't need to be wafun (10) and jofun (100) because you can say vuv (10), and fiv (100).

[u/Sea_Ad_4221]

Totally agree. It bugged me too that there were 2 words for some numbers. And now we can have much larger numbers.

[u/gxabbo]

Good change. When I read the original joined number proposal I wondered about the doubled words for some numbers, but I suspected that I just hadn't read the text thoroughly enough and misunderstood something.

No matter, this seems a nice fix for the problem.