tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Sep 16 07:31:45 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: big numbers
- From: Terrence Donnelly <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: big numbers
- Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 09:30:22 -0500
At 08:48 PM 9/15/97 -0700, SuStel wrote:
>[email protected] on behalf of Marc Paige wrote:
>> This leads me to believe that the answer to the original question must
>> be <wejmaH'uy'> for 30,000,000 and not <wejmaH wa''uy'>.
>
>I believe the answer is of one of two forms (or even both). (1) There are
>other number-forming elements we're not familiar with yet, (2) Klingons have
>some sort of scientific notation just as we do, and we don't know how to use
>it.
>
>There's a third possibility, of course. (3) Higher Klingon numbers are even
>stranger than this, and they don't follow any known numeric conventions at
>all.
>
The existence of separate "place-marking" elements for ten thousand and one
hundred thousand lead me to think that the first possibility is most
likely. On the other hand, the numbering system might easily get weird
in the higher, less often used, numbers.
-- ter'eS
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/2711