Talk:4294967297 (number)

4294967296 and 4294967297 are deemed important enough to merit their own articles. If anyone wants to create an article on 4294967295 or 4294967298 they should discuss it with the members of WikiProject Numbers. PrimeFan 21:14, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There's something wrong with the sub /sub markup on this article, but I can't figure out what it is. Any help? DavidWBrooks 16:03, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Number name
Any way to remove the ambiguous "billion" from the number name. Because this number is not a round number, I suggest the best way to read this number in practice to avoid ambiguity is simply to read the digits: "four two nine four nine six seven two nine seven". Any comments?? 66.245.118.214 22:33, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't think the "billion" is sufficiently ambiguous to be a problem, since the digit version is printed out right here: it's not like somebody is going to mistakely put an extra 000 into it because they're thinking of the long-form "billion" ... (for more on this issue, see billion.) Reading out the digits, however, is a solution worse than the problem: Nobody on Earth has ever pronounced a large number that way. - DavidWBrooks 01:46, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)