cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/21049862

The only numbers I will ever spell are one and zero, and only when using them as a pronoun, or for emphasis, respectively.

Is there ever a reason to not to use symbols when dealing with numbers? Why would “fourteen whatevers” ever be preferable to “14 whatevers”. It’s just so much easier to read numbers as symbols, not spelled out.

(Caveat, not including multipliers, like “273 billion”).

  • Eiri@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    55
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    What kills me is when people will mix the two in a single context.

    “Between eight and 13 percent”

    NO. If you’re writing one number in digits, you need to write them all the same way.

    • KoalaUnknown@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Sometimes it’s actually better to mix them.

      Example from Purdue Owl:

      Unclear: The club celebrated the birthdays of 6 90-year-olds who were born in the city.

      Clearer: The club celebrated the birthdays of six 90-year-olds who were born in the city.

    • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      This kills me, but its not as bad as the habit of new articles/print authors to switch between first and last names of the same person within a few sentences.

      They will introduce Jeff Snoms, and then refer to them has “Jeff” and “Snoms” interchangeably for no discernable reason. It gets really maddening when they are doing it with 3 or 4 people, so suddenly the story has 2x as many characters involved.

      • i_love_FFT@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        Wait till you read russian novels, where everyone’s got 3 names and 2 official nickname everyone is expected to know…

    • subtext@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      In general, use numerals to express numbers 10 and above, and use words to express numbers zero through nine.

      Example given:

      students were in the third, sixth, eighth, 10th, and 12th grades

      Your example does not follow the style guide and is an example of when to use digits

      Percentages 50% 75%–80%

      If you’re a professional writer, you should be following the style guide and this is explicitly spelled out by the APA.

      https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/numbers/numerals

      • barsoap@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        The German standard is to write out everything up to 12 and as English also doesn’t say one-teen and two-teen that’s how I always did it. (why not tenty-one btw? be consistent your numbers are all weird)

    • Rhaedas@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      This is how I approach it. If there’s only a few numbers mentioned and they’re small, write them out. If there’s many numbers mentioned, then they should all be numbers. And I catch myself messing it up all the time and going back to edit the one number I put in there because it just looks wrong. Context is everything, really.

  • tiramichu@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    53
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Context is everything, IMO.

    In engineering work, numbers should always be digits. In prose, numbers should be spelled out.

    Breakfast at the Thompson’s was a busy affair; 12 eggs and 6 rounds of toast for their 3 sets of boistrous twins.

    Compared to

    Breakfast at the Thompson’s was a busy affair; twelve eggs and six rounds of toast for their three sets of boistrous twins.

    To me it’s pretty clear which of those reads better and more naturally as prose; digits really ‘jump out’ on the page, and while that is great for engineering texts, it is incongruent and distracting for prose.

    • lengau@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      2 months ago

      Somewhat relevant to your example, recipes should have numbers in digits too. (But then again recipes are basically an engineering text.)

      • exasperation@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        recipes are basically an engineering text

        I would love to see more systematic recipe formats.

        Around 15-20 years ago there was a website called “Cooking for Engineers” that used a table format for recipes that was pretty clever, and a very useful diagram for how to visualize the steps (at least for someone like me). I don’t think he ever updated the site to be mobile friendly but you can see it here:

        Cheesecake
        Dirty Rice

        He describes the recipe in a descriptive way, but down at the bottom it lists ingredients and how they go together in a chart that shows what amounts to use, what ingredients go into a particular step, what that step is, and how the product of that step feeds into the next step.

        • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Oh damn that’s a sensical format. I love it and may put my recipes in it once I start writing them properly

        • barsoap@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          1/2 pound (225 g)

          What kind of insanity is this a pound is 500g.

          2 cups (390 g) rice

          Your cups weigh 195g a piece? Reasonable for stoneware, I guess. But why are you telling me and what does it have to do with the mass of rice?

    • MisterFrog@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      Yeah that’s fair. I personally prefer the first one, but I can see how it makes sense to not use digits there.

      +1 ∆ for you (change my view points, a thing from r/changemyview)

    • Sc00ter@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      In your example tho, you want those numbers to stand out. The reason the affair was busy, was because of the numbers. You want the numbers to jump out, because that’s the important detail.

      • tiramichu@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        I appreciate your point, but I still believe spelled-out numbers work better.

        In prose, especially fiction writing, the ideal case is that the words themselves slide neatly out of the way and become invisible, leaving only a picture in the reader’s mind. Generally speaking, anything distracting is therefore counter-productive for fiction. Strange fonts and strange typesetting, while interesting, take the reader out of the prose. There’s a reason almost every fiction book you pick up from the shelf uses Garamond.

        In an engineering context, remembering exactly “12 eggs, 6 toast” is probably the most important thing, and numeric digits assist in that. In fiction however it doesn’t matter if, by the next page, the reader has forgotten exactly how many eggs there were; the important aspect is to convey the sense of a large and chaotic family, and the overall impression is more important than the detail.

        Thats why although the numbers are important for setting the scene, we really don’t want them to jump out and steal attention. We don’t want anything at all to have undue prominence, because the reader needs to process the paragraph as a cohesive whole, and see the scene, not the specific numbers.

    • hglman@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      yeah the first, we don’t need letters when we have numbers

  • BodePlotHole@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    2 months ago

    Engineer here.

    Typically when I type out professional emails or documents that contain numerical values, I write out the number followed by the digits in brackets if it is ten [10] or below for cases of amount, unless I am listing out the counts of items, then I only use digits.

    “The updated electrical design will require three [3] new, pad-mount 500kVA transformers to replace the three [3] existing 225kVA transformers,each located on floors four, five, and six.”

    • MisterFrog@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      Can I ask why, though? I’m also an engineer and I just never spell it out, if I can avoid it (so far, luckily, haven’t had push back since I’m on delivery and not proposals or anything like that.)

      To me, it’s just more annoying to read it as words, and no matter what you do, mistakes can still happen, including when it’s spelled out.

      Just my 2 cents.

      • BodePlotHole@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 months ago

        I work in MEP and our emails are always considered legal documents as they can be used as evidence if ever we are taken to court. So we always treat them very technical and try to over explain everything so clients/plan reviewers/contractors can’t misinterpret. It’s kind of an old school thing, but the head of our department is an old school guy.

    • biovoid@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      I’ll write out a count without a digit if it’s immediately next to a value. Like without other qualifiers: “three 500 kVA transformers”, versus “3 500 kVA transformers” (horrible), or even “three [3] 500 kVA transformers” (acceptable, but perhaps cluttered)

      (Also note the space between value and unit—technically required but I’m not consistent about it)

  • brown567@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Three and four hundred fifteen quintillion five hundred ninety two quadrillion six hundred fifty three trillion five hundred eighty nine billion seven hundred ninety three million two hundred thirty eight thousand four hundred sixty three sextillionths

    Is less than ten

    • MisterFrog@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      I’ll allow billion, but personally my preference is using powers of 10 or unit prefixes.

      Just I’m not gonna be mad about the newspaper writing 3.5 billion dollars.

      • marcos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Unless that number means something different from US$ 3.5e9.

        If you are one of those people that think your country uses the other “billion”, just don’t.

        • MisterFrog@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Touche, yeah, I’d totally be on board if everyone just uses $3.5*10⁹ or $3.5e9. Good luck getting it catch on outside eng/science circles though haha

  • NeatNit@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    2 months ago

    There are exceptions to every rule. Sometimes it ends up being “between five and 15” which is psychotic.

  • YeetPics@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    “One and eight hundred and fifty two thousandths”.

    Or

    “1.852”

    You get to decide what’s efficient to communicate a specific value based on the criticality of precision and the format of communication.

    Like it or not, but peak-compatibility IS peak-efficiency when it comes to language.

    • LANIK2000@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      I especially hate what we the Czechs do. We mostly read numbers the same (21 = twenty one), but then once every blue moon some dimwit says 21 like “one and twenty” like he’s fucking German or something. German is bad enough, but why do we have to mix it???

        • LANIK2000@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          French is even more special.

          Tho like I said before, it’s not perfectly accurate. In Czech 90 + 2 is the official way, but many people around Prague and closer to Germany do in fact occasionally say 2 + 90.

  • Eheran@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    2 months ago

    Any number that I write down is a number. I am not writing novels, the numbers I write down are supposed to be easy you find. You look through the document to find numbers, that is easy to do.

    • MisterFrog@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Yeah I’m with you on this. I’m not sure if this was clear in the meme (I am an engineer), but I think the style guides can go shove it. I’m always going to write the symbols, not spell it out.

  • Thisiswritteningerman@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    2 months ago

    For manufacturing I’ve taken to using spelled out numbers when quantities and names both use numbers. Four 4s rather than 4 4s. Makes it harder for someone to speed through an email and get the completey wrong information.

  • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    Next you’re gonna ask me to use actual scientific notation instead of to the most relevant 3 decimal points. I will not use your bullshit centimeters, that’s just 10 mms

    • MisterFrog@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Absolutely, mm > cm all the way. Other than you putting s at the end of mm, we don’t take the Lord’s (metric) name in vain around here.

      I do feel kind of sorry for East Asia though, since their languages seperate at intervals of 10⁴, rather than 10³. The giga and mega prefixes just make no sense there. 1 GW = 10,0000,0000 W and 1 MW = 100,0000.

      Language strikes again

      Not sure, but perhaps they would prefer a prefix of 10-4 rather than mm (10-3).

        • MisterFrog@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          It’s not cursed, it’s just a different way of grouping. Nothing about grouping in multiples of 10³ is a more natural grouping, were just more used to it.

          And I’m pointing out how metric prefixes are actually euro-centric, and that’s annoying for them. But there’s nothing fundamentally worse about breaking digits in groups of 4, rather than 3

          1,000,000,000,000 = 1,0000,0000,0000 (1012) [Meme of black and white muscular arms embracing.]

          Look up the indian system, now that’s actually cursed.

          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_numbering_system