text:
Talk:Large numbers

Old Comments
OK, this is a first stab at getting all the large number topics together, please feel free to kick this into shape. The Anome

Can I suggest that we include only pure numbers in this article, not distances and other measurements? Would anyone object if I deleted the astronomical distances, since they are only large numbers when expressed in small units? I suppose I should go further and say that Avogradro's number is also just an arbitrary unit, but I shan't, because I feel I'm on a slippery slope towards excluding everything! -- Heron

 * Then why do people call large numbers "astronomical", as the article informs us? Perhaps it's because astronomical distances are large when expressed in any human-sized scale. I think the concept of "largeness" needs to be explained. The whole article is subjective anyway -- I wouldn't call 1010 large, I deal with those sorts of numbers every day. $$10^{10^{10}}$$ is more like it. -- Tim Starling 09:26 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * I agree with you about 1010. I wouldn't call the number of bits on a hard disk particularly large, either.  It is certainly subjective.  My point was that measurements of distance etc. are different from pure numbers.  Measurements are, by definition, relative, whereas at least pure numbers are absolute.  Largeness is another thing.  Perhaps one definition would be "a number considered as large at a particular time by a particular culture".  For example, I seem to remember that the Old Testament uses the number 40 as a generic large number in several places (e.g. "40 days and 40 nights").  -- Heron

 * Let me put this another way. I think the present article should be, as it mostly is, about the mathematics of large numbers.  Other large quantities, such as astronomical distances, already have a place on the orders of magnitude pages (1e10 m etc.)  Perhaps we should just link to them.  -- Heron

 * Yes, you're quite right. Well, about most things. I could argue that physically distance is dimensionless but that would just be arrogant pedantry. The page title is "large number" not just "large", and the order of magnitude pages are pretty good for comparing distances. BTW did you see my reply for you on Reference desk? -- Tim Starling 13:53 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

World Almanac
What's special about the World Almanac year 2000?? Do any of you Wikipedians have an edition of the World Almanac year 2004?? Try it. 66.32.95.180 01:52, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

 * There's nothing at all special about it. It's a pretty lousy source, actually. But it's a source. But it was the only source I happened to have at hand for quattuordecillion, etc. If they're in the 2000 edition they're probably in the 2004 edition, too, but I didn't think it was appropriate to say "World Almanac" without identifying which edition, and I certainly didn't think it was appropriate to reference an edition I hadn't consulted.

 * I think these are in the Merriam-Webster Third and probably lots of other places. I may get around to making a trip to the library this weekend and finding out. Hopefully someone else will do it first. Dpbsmith 14:29, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Examples

 * $$10^{\,\!100^{10}} < 10^{10^{20}}$$
 * $$100^{\,\!10^{10}} < 10^{10^{10.3}}$$

Also compare:
 * $$1.1^{\,\!1.1^{1.1^{1000}}} > 10^{10^{1.02*10^{40}}}$$

I'm reverting the changes that were made to these equations, the discussion surrounding the equations clearly delineates the purpose of each and each is construed to show a certain aspect of "power towers", the revision is completely misleading when reading the text (besides making the equations wrong).

$$10^{\,\!100^{10}}=10^{10^{11}} << 10^{10^{20}} $$

$$ 100^{10^{\,\!10}} = 100^{10000000000}$$

$$ 10^{10^{\,\!10.3}} \approx\ 10^{19952623149} = 100^{19952623149} $$ not even close

In the 1.1 problem, I simplified the last exponent, thus:

$$ 1.1^{\!1.1^{\,\!2.4699*10^{41}}} ? 10^{10^{1.02*10^{40}}} $$

$$ 1.1^{24} \approx\ 10 $$     $$  1.1^{1.1^{22}} \approx\ 10 $$

thus:

$$ 10^{\!10^{\,\!2.4699*10^{41}}} > 10^{10^{1.02*10^{40}}} $$

note that $$ 2.4699*10^{41} $$ is not larger than $$2.4699*10^{41} - 46 $$ by enough to change the outcome of the main problem. Dusty78 03:38, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Dusty, I think you need to bone up on your high school algebra. (a^b)^c = a^(b*c) In particular,

 * $$10^{\,\!100^{10}}=10^{10^{11}}$$

 * is wrong. 100^10 is not equal to 10^11, it's equal to 10^20.

 * Revolver 04:05, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

 * oops, right I've gone nuts spent too much time working out the rest to bother with checking all my work, still, the example doesn't really fit with the explination... oh well, I'm quitting while I'm behind Actually, I think I'll be reworking the probs untill I'm sure I'm right on the others..Dusty78 04:14, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Ahh... Pride goeth before a fall... and screwy math before a bad post.... don't know what I was smoking ;) I'm just going to revert back to when it was actually right and correct the text 2nd example is wrong for same reason as first, 3rd is wrong but it took some actual number crunching to evaluate.Dusty78 04:25, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry, I wasn't thinking for a second about the relative errors of really large numbers. Hopefully the current explanation explains it well. Revolver 05:23, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

New Comment
I don't see any reference to the enormous numbers you get when you calculate permutations and combinations? How many permutations are there in a googolplex? (I hope that's grammatically correct.) {roger} 29 June 2005

 * You're on the right track! Check out the article on Combinatorics referenced at the beginning of the "even larger numbers" section, or better yet the Permutations and combinations article. Then you'll know to ask "How many permutations are there of 1 googolplex objects without replacement?", and that the the answer is googolplex factorial (written "googolplex!"). Lunkwill 29 June 2005 06:33 (UTC)

Accumulated Error In Binary vs Decimal Exponents
The examples in the 'rule of thumb for converting between scientific notation and powers of two' section are misleading I think. The small error inherent in $$2^{10} \approx 10^3$$ is magnified immensely at these scales, not to mention the horrible single step of $$100 \approx 128$$. The former is covered in Binary Prefix but it bears noting here as well if this section is to remain. The examples indicates that $$10^{47} \approx 2^{157}$$ and $$2^{101} \approx 2 \times 10^{30}$$, which have errors of 82.7% and 26.76% respectively. $$\approx$$ might be appropriate with a 27% error, but 83% is very far outside the acceptable bounds of 'approximately equal to' imho. rules of thumb like that are what can put a crater instead of a lander on mars

 * Good point. I've added a disclaimer/correction for larger exponents. Feel free to reword it. Owen× ☎  17:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Changed your example. I hope you'll be OK with it and find it more instructive. 75.4.107.1 06:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

 * what's wrong with logarithms?

 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.82.193.47 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 2 April 2006

 * Indeed. From a logarithmic point of view, not unreasonable considering the size of the numbers we're dealing with, an error of 82.7% may still be small. Yes, the difference between 10^999 and 10^1000 is huge from a strict percentage point of view, but it's obviously a tiny difference, from a logarithmic point of view, compared to the difference between 10^500 and 10^1500. The article actually goes at length into meaning of "accuracy" in large numbers under the section heading that is titled, appropriately, "Accuracy." —Lowellian (reply) 19:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

About The Universe Computer Analogy...
How many possible characters are there to be chosen from? one human language? all human languages? ascii? ansi? the entire argument is invalid if we don't know how many individual characters there are to choose from. not trying to be mean, just a friendly request for clarification :)

Robby Shadowrunner340 02:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

 * It's explained in the article: we're assuming each character is one byte, so 2^8 = 256 possible characters. —Lowellian (reply) 19:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

From article page

 * The heading "Uncomputably large numbers" is misleading, as no integer is uncomputably large (every value of a busy beaver function is an integer). It's a busy beaver function that's noncomputable, not the values in its range. Also, although Rado's sequences might have been the first ones, it's very easy to produce noncomputable functions that grow faster than every computable function. --r.e.s. 04:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Tom Harrison Talk 13:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for moving my comment (above) from the article page to here, where it belongs. Sorry for the mix-up.--r.e.s. 19:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Citations?
Many sections of this article, e.g. Systematically creating ever faster increasing sequences; Standardized system of writing very large numbers, have no citations. Although they are very interesting, it appears they are original research which is not allowed by Wikipedia policy. True? Mytg8 20:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Systematically creating ever faster increasing sequences

 * Moved from page (original research):

Let a strictly increasing integer sequence $$f_0(n)$$ (n≥1) be given (written as a function for conveniently writing the functional powers), with $$f_0(1)>1$$. Then a sequence of sequences can be found by $$f_k(n)=f_{k-1}^n(1)$$, from which we can select the "cross-sequence" $$f_0(10), f_1(10),..$$

Together this is a process of creating a new sequence from a given one. This can be repeated (i.e., we can apply recursion), and again we can select from the matrix of numbers a single sequence, by taking the 10th element of each. We can apply the same whole process again and again.

Starting from $$f_0(n)=10^n=(10 \to n)$$ this process corresponds to adding an element 10 in the Conway chain before the variable n, which is at the end of the chain: we get $$f_k(n)=f_{k-1}^n(1)=10 \uparrow^{k+1} n=(10 \to n \to (k+1))$$, and the new sequence selected from the matrix is that of which the kth element is $$f_{k-1}(10)=f_k^{10}(1)=10 \uparrow^k 10=(10 \to 10 \to k)=(10 \to 10 \to k \to 1)$$. (See also Knuth's up-arrow notation and Conway chained arrow notation).

Repeating this process we get $$(10 \to 10 \to k \to n)$$ for successive values of n, and selecting k=10 we get a single sequence $$(10 \to 10 \to 10 \to n)$$.

Repeating this whole process we get ever longer chains. Selecting n=10 we get the sequence of (10→10), (10→10→10), (10→10→10→10),... This can be used as starting sequence to apply the process again, etc. Even the value $$f_1(2)$$ for this sequence is already a Conway chain of length 10 billion plus one.

Each sequence in this whole process can be identified by its order type in the process:
 * (10→n→k) is the sequence with index n with order type k - 1
 * (10→10→n→k) is the sequence with index n with order type ω + k - 1
 * (10→10→10→n→k) is the sequence with index n with order type 2ω + k - 1
 * (10→10), (10→10→10), (10→10→10→10),... is the sequence with order type ω²

In a similar way this can be continued, and we get a set of sequences, well-ordered by the procedure of construction.

 * zero case: $$f_0(n)=10^n$$
 * successor ordinal: $$f_{x+1}(n)=f_x^n(1)$$
 * for limit ordinals: $$f_{a}(n)=f_{a_{n-1}}(10)$$ for a suitable sequence of ordinals $$a_{n-1}$$ tending to a.

Thus we have transfinite recursion as far as we define for each limit ordinal a suitable sequence of ordinals tending to it.

Consider the Cantor normal form $$\omega^{\beta_1} c_1 + \omega^{\beta_2}c_2 + \cdots + \omega^{\beta_k}c_k$$, where k is a natural number, $$c_1, c_2, \ldots, c_k$$ are positive integers, and $$\beta_1 > \beta_2 > \ldots > \beta_k$$ are ordinal numbers. The limit ordinals cover the case $$\beta_k>0$$. For order types less than ε0 (epsilon nought) $$\beta_k$$ is less than the ordinal itself. The following rules provide for each limit ordinal a suitable sequence of ordinals:

If $$a=(\omega\uparrow)^p (u+v)$$ where p ≥ 0, u ≥ v, and v is a limit ordinal, we take $$a_n=(\omega\uparrow)^p (u+v_n)$$ for a suitable sequence of ordinals $$v_n$$ tending to v.

For $$(\omega\uparrow)^p v$$ where p ≥ 0, and v is a limit ordinal, we take the sequence $$(\omega\uparrow)^pv_n$$ for a suitable sequence of ordinals $$v_n$$ tending to v.

For $$(\omega\uparrow)^{p+1} (a+1)$$ where p ≥ 0 and a ≥ 0, we take the sequence $$(\omega\uparrow)^p (\omega^a n)$$.

For example, this procedure defines for the order type $$\omega^{\omega^{\omega6+42}\cdot1729+\omega^9+88}\cdot3+\omega^{\omega^\omega}\cdot5+578$$ a particular, very rapidly increasing, sequence of integers, and to specify a particular large integer, we can refer e.g. to the 37th element in this sequence. The sequence is defined in 578 steps from the sequence with order type $$\omega^{\omega^{\omega6+42}\cdot1729+\omega^9+88}\cdot3+\omega^{\omega^\omega}\cdot5$$, which in turn is defined from the sequences with order types $$\omega^{\omega^{\omega6+42}\cdot1729+\omega^9+88}\cdot3+\omega^{\omega^\omega}\cdot4+\omega^{\omega^n}$$. The twelfth element in this sequence is defined from the sequences with order types $$\omega^{\omega^{\omega6+42}\cdot1729+\omega^9+88}\cdot3+\omega^{\omega^\omega}\cdot4+\omega^{\omega^{11}n}$$, etc.

For ε0 we can take the sequence $$\omega\uparrow\uparrow n$$, and for ε0(k+1) the sequence ε0k + $$\omega\uparrow\uparrow n$$, etc. We cannot reach omega-one (ω1), the set of all countable ordinal numbers, and the smallest uncountable ordinal number: no sequence of ordinal numbers below ω1 has that ordinal as limit. It is also clear from the fact that we define sequences of which each element is defined in a finite number of steps, so making use of only a finite number of auxiliary sequences. Therefore for any of our sequences the set of auxiliary sequences is countable.

We have $$f_{a}(n)" for n = 2, 3.

Tag for eventual archiving. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:53, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Improving this article
I would like to see this page become an A-class mathematics article. Might I suggest that one of the changes that would improve this article is to split it up into Large numbers and Notation of large numbers? AJRobbins (talk) 02:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

 * You need a notation to talk about things. There is only a need for a separate page if there is enough to say about alternative notations which is not needed for talking about the numbers themselves.--Patrick (talk) 12:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Ok, this is what I see. This article is huge. The section "Systematically creating ever faster increasing sequences" was taken out because it was original research, but someone put it back in for some reason; this section can be taken out. The following sections are all about representations, and not numbers themselves: "Using Scientific notation", "Standardized system of writing very large numbers", "Comparison of base values", "Accuracy", and "Notations". Either A) these should be moved to Notation of large numbers, or B) they should stay and all other sections be moved to List of large numbers (not just a redirect) because these are the only two kinds of sections in this article. Since all sections fit nicely into either the "Examples" topic or the "Representation" topic, I think that they should be in separate articles. I would actually prefer B, as this follows Wikipedia's "List of" convention, and have this article talk about representation only. If this is going to be a "Large number" portal, then it only makes sense to cover the notation here, and leave examples, history, and so on to other pages. AJRobbins (talk) 07:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Only the second part of "Systematically creating ever faster increasing sequences" was taken out, and is has not been put back.
 * Examples clarify notation, so perhaps they can better be put together.
 * Patrick (talk) 23:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Graham's number?
I noticed that the page said that Graham's number is between $$10 \rightarrow 10 \rightarrow 64 \rightarrow 2$$ and $$10 \rightarrow 10 \rightarrow 65 \rightarrow 2$$. Shouldn't the 10's be 3's? And if that's true, where does it go? ZtObOr 22:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

 * That's covered in footnote 4, where it is explained "regarding the comparison with the previous value: $$10\uparrow ^n 10 < 3 \uparrow ^{n+1} 3$$, so starting the 64 steps with 1 instead of 4 more than compensates for replacing the numbers 3 by 10".

Also related to Graham's Number, I'd like to keep it in "See Also" as was recently added -- even though it's linked by the article text -- either that or, perhaps we can diminish that long list of example numbers. If we keep 10 → 5 → 2 and 10 → 9 → 2, can't we remove the ones in between? (etc.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrob27 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Re:[], yes, 3 → 3 → 65 → 2 is larger than 10 → 10 → 64 → 2, but AIUI, Graham's Number is somewhere between 3 → 3 → 64 → 2 and 3 → 3 → 65 → 2. It is still no proof whether GN is larger than 10 → 10 → 64 → 2, is it? Chasrob (talk) 23:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

 * Footnote 4 in the article gives the basic intuition as to why 10 → 10 → 64 → 2 < Graham's number, but of course it's not a proof. To sketch how a proof could go, define the functions h(n) = 10↑n10 and f(n) = 3↑n3, and note that h64(1) = 10 → 10 → 64 → 2 and f64(4) = Graham's number. Then h64(1) < f64(4) can be proved by repeatedly applying the fact that h(n) < f(n+1) - 1 (which fact can be proved by induction):
 * h(1) < f(2) - 1
 * h(h(1)) < h(f(2) - 1) < f(f(2)) - 1
 * h(h(h(1))) < h(f(f(2))) - 1) < f(f(f(2))) - 1
 * h64(1) < h(f63(2) - 1)< f64(2) - 1 < f64(4) ■ — r.e.s. (talk) 05:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So, h(h(1)) < h(f(2) - 1) < f(f(2)) - 1. Thanks. Chasrob (talk) 16:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You're quite welcome; however, I don't see why you're mentioning that particular step in the proof-sketch. In any case, here's a link to an induction proof of a change-of-base inequality that easily establishes h(n) < f(n+1) - 1, which is driving the proof-sketch. In terms of Knuth arrows, the change-of-base inequality is b↑kn < 2↑k((b-1)n), giving h(k) = 10↑k10 < 2↑k90 < 3↑k90 < 3↑k + 13 - 1 = f(k+1) - 1 for k ≥ 2 (for k = 1, the result may be verified directly). — r.e.s. (talk)  18:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You're quite welcome; however, I don't see why you're mentioning that particular step in the proof-sketch. In any case, here's a link to an induction proof of a change-of-base inequality that easily establishes h(n) < f(n+1) - 1, which is driving the proof-sketch. In terms of Knuth arrows, the change-of-base inequality is b↑kn < 2↑k((b-1)n), giving h(k) = 10↑k10 < 2↑k90 < 3↑k90 < 3↑k + 13 - 1 = f(k+1) - 1 for k ≥ 2 (for k = 1, the result may be verified directly). — r.e.s. (talk)  18:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

This article
I cannot deal with this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.238.3 (talk) 21:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge to accompanying article of Leviathan number
Leviathan number is a long-standing stub on a number apparently invented by one author for the sole purpose of having a sexy example of a large number, and never used for any non-pedagogical purpose, but only as a curiosity or a guaranteed stumper for anyone who has not made a point to pay attention to useless information. Barring evidence that the British Pickover is an employee or owner of the US-based Mathematica, it does seem to have found slight recognition so i'm not inclined to AfD. But i think it would be more valuable as a section in the accompanying article (with a section lk from its current title) than standing alone. --Jerzy•t 22:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Computational Complexity
THe section on computational complexity (the part that talks about "what if the universe could be one big computer" seems to include some original research or conclusions drawn by inference from the cited paper. Particularly where cryptology is concerned.  I would recommend using additonal sourcing for this section. HappyJake (talk) 18:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This section is much too long and to 95% out of subject, (doubtful) "explanations" on quantum computers etc belong elsewhere. It should be condensed to a dozen of lines giving the numbers and what they refer to, conveniently linked to the article featuring further reading. (as a side note, i don't know anybody using 40 character passwords exhausting the full range of 8 bits. 8 characters ranging from ascii 32 to 97 is much more realistic, and considering the number of printable characters in the latin-n char sets should put us definitely on the safe side) — MFH:Talk 15:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Order type of sequences
From the article:

Each sequence in this whole process can be identified by its order type in the process:
 * (10→n→k) is the sequence with index n with order type k - 1
 * (10→10→n→k) is the sequence with index n with order type ω + k - 1
 * (10→10→10→n→k) is the sequence with index n with order type ω2 + k - 1
 * (10→10), (10→10→10), (10→10→10→10),... is the sequence with order type ω²

Don't all increasing sequences have order type ω? For example, all sets with order type k < ω have exactly k elements, but the sequence an = (10→n→k) is an infinite sequence.

What is the statement supposed to mean? Something about the complexity of the algorithm used to compute the numbers??? — sligocki (talk) 02:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Locating chained arrows in the fast-growing hierarchy
The section "Systematically creating ever faster increasing sequences" was recently revised (improved, imo) to focus exclusively on the fast-growing hierarchy. In the last group of examples now given there, concerning Conway chained arrow notation, the final one is the following:
 * fω2(n) = fωn(n) cannot be expressed finitely with Conway arrows.

This is misleading, I think, because for any fixed n > 1, fω2(n) < n → n → ... → n → n for a sufficiently large finite number of n's in the chain. On the other hand, the following result would be consistent with the other examples:
 * fω2(n) = fωn(n) > n → n → ... → n → n (Chain of n+2 n's).

Although these examples otherwise seem correct, it would be excellent if a "citable" source could be given. Lack of such a source is what prevented me from inserting similar examples in the article on Conway chained arrow notation, as mentioned in talk-page comments at Locating n-arrow chains in the fast-growing hierarchy.) — r.e.s. (talk) 16:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

 * Sorry about the hand-waving and uncited statements. What I mean by fω2(n) cannot be expressed finitely with Conway arrows is actually that it cannot be expressed by a fixed notation in conway arrows as a function of n. Alternatively that there is not bounded Conway arrow notation as n → ∞. I believe this is pretty straightforward, but I could be wrong. Sorry to include original research here, but I felt that it was better than the OR that was already present and at least more based in more commonly studied notations. Cheers, — sligocki (talk) 05:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

 * (BTW, it looks like you've omitted an apostrophe in writing fω2, inadvertently italicising the remainder of your paragraph.)
 * Oy, wiki syntax makes me crazy, thanks.
 * (1) It seems likely that "cannot be expressed" is weaker than what you intend to say, because "most" positive integers cannot be expressed by a Conway chain except by using the number itself in the chain (as the first element); e.g., the number 2 can be expressed only by using 2 itself as an element (i.e., 2, or 2→1, or 2→1→X). In this sense, only perfect powers (4, 8, 9, 16, 25, ...) are nontrivially expressible. Thus, any function whose range includes a number that's not a perfect power cannot be expressed nontrivially in Conway notation.
 * Hm, I don't mean to say anything about a number not being able to be represented with arrows without using that number.
 * (2) You seem to be saying that, as a function of n, no chain of the form n → n → ... → n → n (with a fixed number of 'n's) is an upper bound on the function fω2. Although that's true, it's a much weaker statement than the second bulleted statement above (which follows from the inequalities you posted — but see (3) below), in which the number of 'n's varies with n.  (If the number of 'n's in the chain is given by a function g(n), then for g(n) = n + 2 we have the bulleted statement, but obviously there exist functions g such that the resulting "chain function" is an upper bound on fω2.)
 * Fair enough, I thought it was notable to point out the limitations of chain arrows, because they seemed to be used in this article as the example of large number notation, where-as I think that they are unnecessarily complicated to compare and annoying to deal with.
 * (3) Looking more-closely at the inequalities you posted, some are evidently too strong. (Also, you seem to have mistakenly treated p → q → r as p ↑q r. For example, 2 ↑n - 1 n = 2 → n → n-1 ≠ 2 → n-1 → n.) Note that a counterexample to
 * fωk(n) > n → n → ... → n → n (Chain of k+2 n's)
 * is obtained with k = 1, n = 3. On the other hand, if I'm not mistaken, a valid inequality has one less n in the chain:
 * fωk(n) > n → n → ... → n → n (Chain of k+1 n's).
 * This leads to the following slightly weaker version of the second bulleted inequality in my opening comment above:
 * fω2(n) > n → n → ... → n → n (Chain of n+1 n's).
 * I know this isn't the place to discuss OR, but I think this is worth the brief mention. — r.e.s. (talk) 18:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops, that's what I get for being to hand-wavey. I'll look into it. Thanks, — sligocki (talk) 02:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

A Billion, Anyone?
The article seems to use two different conventions for the meaning of a "billion" in a single sentence: 13.7 billion years (4.3 × 10^17 seconds) old, ... and contains about 5 × 1022 stars, organized into around 125 billion (1.25 × 10^11) galaxies".  Tkuvho (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

 * The same, 10^9.--Patrick (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

 * OK, thanks. I missed the "seconds".   Tkuvho (talk) 01:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Accuracy section
The statement "This seems like extremely poor accuracy, but for such a large number it may be considered fair (a large error in a large number may be 'relatively small' and therefore acceptable)" in the context of its previous statement is incorrect. The error in the exponent implies the error is already "relative". Thus, even though the number is large, the "relative error" is also very large. Subh83 (talk) 08:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Delete BOX_M~
Pending some discussion here, I recommend deleting $$BOX_{-}\widetilde{M}$$ from the examples of large numbers — it was edited into the article by its inventor, and is apparently only self-published online. The author defines this number in terms of a hodgepodge of functions, claiming it to be an "upper limit for ... the set of all integers that have been written/used/imagined by man to date" ("limite superiore per ... l’insieme di tutti gli interi che sono stati scritti/utilizzati/immaginati dall’essere umano fino ad oggi"). Whatever that might mean, it may be worth noting that $$f_{\omega^2 + 1}(2) \ll BOX_{-}\widetilde{M} \ll f_{\omega^2 + 2}(3)$$ with reference to the fast-growing hierarchy. — r.e.s. (talk) 01:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I have no interest into adding bad informations to Wiki, so I'll try to explain/translate better the meaning of $$BOX_{-}\widetilde{M}$$ and, if that number is not good for the page, it will be ok to delete it for me too. BOX_M is based on a numbers-philosophy related issue, concerning the relation between "human problems" and natural (plus real) numbers. This is a quite thin point and you (R.E.S.) have forgotten to take a look at the other condition stated into the article: the set of "human problems" which BOX_M is concerning about (at the date of the article) doesn't include the "find a bigger number problems" (i.e. busy beaver, Turing Oracle, etc). In short, it represents an upper limit for real world/mind related problems with an immaginable link to external world reconnected into human eyes. It could be useful for upper limits of that kind, due to it constructions too (you can find "small" upper limits for large solutions using the right piece of the number definition at the right step).

No objection about the inequality on the pure math based "fast-growing hierarchy" stated above. The point is that $$f_{\omega^2 + 2}(3)$$ hasn't been appliyed to a specific problem outside the "find a bigger number than... problem" before the date of the BOX_M article and no one gave a "first name" to the specific inputs of the funtion ---> no one gave a specific name to the result/number of it.

 * If this kind of mental constructions is "outside the BOX", IMHO it's not a problem to delete BOX_M, but I haven't ever stated that it's the biggest number ever thought by a human being, I've stated that it was the biggest one at the moment of the article publication concerning human problems, related to thinkable problems concerning human dimension, excluding the "find a big number ones". I only claimed to be the first one to find this empty space into that kind of speculations... I have not the intention to create a big number only.

 * The first part of the article is inspired from a published book of mine with an ISBN number etc...

 * The best, Marcokrt (talk) 01:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

 * I'm removing BOX_M according to r.e.s.'s comment and WP:SPS. Your book, like your website, appears to be self-published and does not meet the standards of reliability for a WP source. — ChalkboardCowboy[T] 12:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Googology
Regardless of whether Googology should exist and redirect here, it's a very rare term. A more common use seems to be the study of Google. I've nominated the redirect for deletion, but, even if the redirect should exist, the statement here requires a source, and there doesn't seem to be a source for the claim that it's used, just (rare) use. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, I know it's not a popular "field", but it is definitely used in quite a few places. Nathan!! 12:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

 * Since it is a redirect to this page, it is a useless link and so I have removed it. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 17:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 02:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Attribution
Text and references copied from Everett Dirksen to Large numbers. See former article's history for a list of contributors. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Text and references copied from Carl Sagan to Large numbers. See former article's history for a list of contributors.  7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

relative error
Please, could somebody add a brief explanation of what "relative error" means? --Backinstadiums (talk) 16:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I wikilinked the first occurrence of relative error. —[ Alan M 1 (talk) ]— 19:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Googology?
This article is a little meandering, but seeing as "Googology" redirects here, perhaps that topic should be expanded to include discussions of limits of BB computability, nonstandard integers, perhaps the history of the field, etc. Would that be considered on topic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kotlopou (talk • contribs) 21:37, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Not a sentence
In the introduction this apparent sentence "To indicate the correct integer of a count and to provide a valid context for the correct indication of a unit of volume that has been validated according to international principles." is not a sentence and I can't see how to fix it. It's not clear why a unit of volume is introduced here. I hope someone else can fix the text. JRGp (talk) 10:13, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Abdukaarim Aliiyyii amd
095 267 5888 197.156.107.184 (talk) 18:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Large numbers


text:
Mustard seed

Mustard seeds are the small round seeds of various mustard plants. The seeds are usually about 1 to 2 mm in diameter and may be colored from yellowish white to black. They are an important spice in many regional foods and may come from one of three different plants: black mustard (Brassica nigra), brown mustard (B. juncea), or white mustard (Sinapis alba).

Grinding and mixing the seeds with water, vinegar or other liquids creates the yellow condiment known as mustard.

Cultivation
Mustard seeds generally take eight to ten days to germinate if placed under the proper conditions, which include a cold atmosphere and relatively moist soil. Mature mustard plants grow into shrubs.

Yellow mustard has a plant maturity of 85 to 90 days; whereas, brown and oriental mustard have a plant maturity of 90 to 95 days. If the temperature conditions are conducive to growth, a mustard plant will begin to bud five weeks after the seedlings have appeared. The plant will reach full bloom 7 to 10 days later. Black, brown or oriental varieties of mustard tend to have higher yields compared to yellow mustard. Seed yield is also related to the bloom period. In other words, the longer the bloom period, the greater the seed yield.

Mustard grows well in temperate regions. Major producers of mustard seeds include India, Pakistan, Canada, Nepal, Hungary, Great Britain and the United States.

In Pakistan, rapeseed-mustard is the second most important source of oil, after cotton. It is cultivated over an area of 307,000 hectares with an annual production of 233,000 tonnes and contributes about 17% to the domestic production of edible oil.

Mustard seeds are a rich source of oil and protein. The seed has oil as high as 46-48%, and the whole seed meal has 43.6% protein.

Production
In 2021, Nepal ranked the highest in mustard seed production, followed by Russia and Canada.

In North America, mustard is produced as a specialty crop. The majority of production is found in the upper Midwest United States and Canada. In 2020, the total production of mustard in the United States was 81.8 e6lb.

Diseases
Mustard seeds carry seed-borne pathogens which affect germination rate, as any other seed. Latif et al., 2006 isolate Alternaria, Aspergillus, Chaetomium, Curvularia, Fusarium, Penicillium, and Rhizopus in Bangladesh.

Uses
Grinding and mixing the seeds with water, vinegar or other liquids creates the yellow condiment known as prepared mustard.

Mustard seeds are used as a spice in South Asia. The seeds are usually fried until they pop. The leaves are also stir-fried and eaten as a vegetable. Mustard oil is used for body massage during extreme winters, as it is thought to keep the body warm. In South Asian cuisine mustard oil or shorsher tel is the predominant cooking medium. Mustard seeds are also essential ingredients in spicy fish dishes like jhaal and paturi. A variety of pickles consisting mainly of mangoes, red chili powder, and powdered mustard seed preserved in mustard oil are popular.

In North America, mustard seeds are used in spices and condiments. Yellow mustard is popular in the United States and is often used as a condiment in sandwiches and other dishes. Mustard seeds are first ground into a powder and then mixed with other ingredients to create this condiment. Roughly 1,000 seeds are used in manufacturing just 8 oz of mustard.

Other uses
Ground mustard seed meal is used as a natural soil amendment for soil-borne disease management in other crops.

In culture
The mustard seed is frequently referenced in world literature, including in religious texts, as a metaphor for something small or insignificant.

In the Bible, Jesus tells the Parable of the Mustard Seed referring to faith and the Kingdom of God. There, Jesus says, “The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which is the smallest of all seeds on earth. Yet when planted, it grows and becomes the largest of all garden plants, with such big branches that the birds can perch in its shade''."

There are references to mustard seeds in India from a story of Gautama Buddha in the fifth century BC. Gautama Buddha told the story of the grieving mother (Kisa Gotami) and the mustard seed. When a mother loses her only son, she takes his body to the Buddha to find a cure. The Buddha asks her to bring a handful of mustard seeds from a family that has never lost a child, husband, parent, or friend. When the mother is unable to find such a house in her village, she realizes death is common to all, and she cannot be selfish in her grief.

Jewish texts compare the knowable universe to the size of a mustard seed to demonstrate the world's insignificance and to teach humility.

The mustard seed is mentioned in the Quran: "And We place the scales of justice for the Day of Resurrection, so no soul will be treated unjustly at all. And if there is [even] the weight of a mustard seed, We will bring it forth. And sufficient are We as accountant (21:47)", and according to the Hadith, Muhammad said that he who has in his heart the weight of a mustard seed of pride would not enter Paradise.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Mustard seed


text:
571 BC

The year 571 BC was a year of the pre-Julian Roman calendar. In the Roman Empire, it was known as year 183 Ab urbe condita. The denomination 571 BC for this year has been used since the early medieval period, when the Anno Domini calendar era became the prevalent method in Europe for naming years.

Events

 * November 25—Servius Tullius, king of Rome, celebrates his victory over the Etruscans with a Roman triumph.
 * Zhou ling wang replaces King Jian of Zhou as king of the Chinese Zhou Dynasty.

title: 571 BC


text:
572 BC

The year 572 BC was a year of the pre-Julian Roman calendar. In the Roman Empire, it was known as year 182 Ab urbe condita. The denomination 572 BC for this year has been used since the early medieval period, when the Anno Domini calendar era became the prevalent method in Europe for naming years.

Deaths

 * Jian, Chinese king of the Zhou Dynasty

title: 572 BC


text:
Talk:List of United States Navy ships

Talk
The link to the list of Japanese ships seems kind of irrelevant (Japan was not the only adversary of the US navy). It would make more sense to link it from the non-yet-existent article on the Japanese navy. Stan Shebs 13:54 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

It is irrelevant but it is convinient only for those interested in other navy's ship list. Remember see also exists only for convinience. -- Taku 15:52 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

Some sort of marker should be given to ships that are currently in active service. Kingturtle 05:48 Apr 7, 2003 (UTC)

 * Yes. Bolding the hull number would be easy, though a common symbol shared by all the different lists would be better I think. Stan 06:12 Apr 7, 2003 (UTC)

Some possibilities (probably ought to be double-checked that they are real):
 * USS Estes
 * USS LST-325 (late WWII)
 * USS Glacier
 * USS Eldorado (late 50s)
 * USS LST 173 (late WWII)

Mare Island links
There are now actual, separate articles for Mare Island, California and Mare Island Naval Shipyard. I put a note on Cleanup about someone needing to go through all those links and making sure they point to the correct place (many just link to "Mare Island", which is now a redirect to Mare Island, CA). Thanks! Have a grand old time. :-)  ...  Elf | Talk 21:30, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

When multiple ships exist, and there are no hull numbers to distinquish the ships, recommend using the year the ship was first commissioned into Naval service rather than the type of ship. For example, USS Neversail (1807) where 1807 is the year in which the ship was first commissioned. Recommend commissioning year since many early ships were built or launched years before acceptance into the Navy.

 * In general, I've been using launch dates rather than commissioning dates for ships built specifically for the Navy, because there is little doubt about when a ship has been physically launched, while commissioning dates are uncertain for the earliest, and there may not have been an actual commissioning. Year of acquisition for purchased ships seems good - look at WikiProject Ships and sneak it in there somewhere. Stan 19:15, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

List of completed letters in DANFS
This is a list of letters of the alphabet that have been completed in the list from the source book series Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. It is an aide memoire to keep track of what needs to be done to the rest of the page. The following letters have been completed:

 * A - B
 * D - H (DANFS & NVR)
 * Q
 * X
 * Z

David Newton 14:47, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No " - " in ship name
In official government documents there is no " - " in the ship classification name, (LPD 17, not LPD-17), though it seems to be common everywhere else. I think that the name should be changed to reflect the Navy's naming convention

 * Wikipedia is not the Navy. We're not even the United States. Why should we follow a convention that even the USN isn't consistent on? More justification for this will be needed before I'm convinced such a large scale and meaningless change is undertaken. Jinian 23:36, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

 * It seems to be a recent change, 1990s perhaps, so the generic "most common" rule will favor hyphens for another couple decades. :-) I've always wondered about the rationale for the change, seems unusually pointless. Stan the cynical ex-defense-contractor suspects that somebody made a mistake in database software programming, and it was cheaper to declare a change of convention than to fix the software... Stan 23:43, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Revert edit by 143.250.2.102
I removed your edit where you inserted the USS Wyoming (1859) link on the main page. This front page of this list consists of all current ships arranged by letter. When there is no current ships by a particular letter we have show historical ones. Please see List_of_all_ships_of_the_United_States_Navy%2C_W for Wyoming and all other ships of the USN. Malo 16:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

rv edits by 143.250.2.101 On 9/28/2005
I reverted your recent page edits because the USS Zephyr no longer belongs to the US Navy. Instead, as of October 2004, it was transferred unto the USCG. Hence the reason it is not active in the Navy. Check out it's Navsource page if you need references. Malo 17:53, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Coast Guard ships
Malo brings up a point in his previous comment. Do we want to include Coast Guard ships in the list of US Navy ships? During wartime, including WW II, administrative control of the Coast Guard was transferred to the Navy. So, in essence, Coast Guard ships were Navy ships at this time, even though they maintained their prefix USCGC rather than having USS. In the alphabetical listings, there are several Coast Guard ships listed that are not Navy ships. There are also ships with Navy hull numbers that were manned by the Coast Guard during the war, including frigates and transports, that are listed.

Should we have another page listing Coast Guard ships? In the column on the right (with the Don't Tread On Me flag at the top), do we want to have another entry for Coast Guard ships? If not, where can we list the Coast Guard ships? 147.240.236.9 21:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

 * The belated answer to this in case others are wondering is that List of United States Coast Guard cutters is covering Coast Guard ships. The issue at hand in what list a ship belongs to is in what service owned the ship. The Coast Guard still owned their ships during WWII despite being under control of the US Navy. Likewise, a US Navy ship operated by a Coast Guard crew was still owned by the US Navy. Further to this issue is Military Sealift Command which operates ships owned by the US Navy therefore are also listed as US Navy ships. One project I've been working on since December 2007 is to go through all of the lists of US Navy ships and fix the list integrity. As of now, I've completed through G. --Brad (talk) 02:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

US Navy ships only / list integrity.
In the cases were a US Navy ship was later renamed, sold to another country, lend-lease, canceled, or what have you, please use the redirect option rather than changing the names on this list or by piping the links to another ship. I've made about 35 changes to the A list alone, and while most of them were updates to reflect new DANFS information, about 10 - 15 were to correct links to HMS xxx and others. --Brad (talk) 05:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Naming Standards
I heard this long ago and I'm not sure if it is true or not: The navy names their ships according to a standard. According to this standard, Battleships are named after States, Aircraft Carriers after Presidents, etc. The rest I forget, it was something like minesweepers=volcanos, rivers=something else, big cities = something else, etc.

Does anyone know if this is true? if so what is the logic for naming ships???

205.160.23.2 (talk) 21:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * United States ship naming conventions might help. --Brad (talk) 05:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Can someone explain why the individual lists are constructed the way they are constructed?
Recently, while I was in Seattle, I took a picture of a tugboat from the Seattle-Bremerton Ferry. Today I looked up that tug on Wikipedia which search took me to List of United States Navy ships: D–F §De. There I found the entry for the tugboat:

 * USS Defiant (USS Defiant (YT-804))

Since YT-804 is a red link I clicked on the USS Defiant blue link and much to my surprise, ended up on a page about the fictional starship USS Defiant (NX-74205) from Star Trek: Deep Space Nine et al.

That caused me to look at the List's underlying construction. Under the hood, the USS Defiant (YT-804) entry looks like this:

It looks like the intent was to have a link to a shiplist, disambiguation, or redirect page followed by links to individual ship pages identified by their hull number or launch-year disambiguators. That works as long as there is a shiplist page, disambiguation page, or a redirect page. Doesn't work in this case.

The quick and dirty fix (remembering that the quick is now, the dirty is forever) for this entry is:

or

Frankly, I like the latter since I can think of no reason why this list (or any of the other list should be linking to redirect pages. And the look would be similar:

As it is now:
 * USS Defiance (USS Defiance (SP-1015), USS Defiance (ID-3327), USS Defiance (AMc-73), USS Defiance (PGM-95)/USS Defiance (PG-95))
 * USS Defiant (USS Defiant (YT-804))
 * USS Deft (USS Deft (AM-216)/USS Deft (MSF-216))

As it might be:
 * USS Defiance (USS Defiance (SP-1015), USS Defiance (ID-3327), USS Defiance (AMc-73), USS Defiance (PGM-95)/USS Defiance (PG-95))
 * USS Defiant (YT-804)
 * USS Deft (USS Deft (AM-216)/USS Deft (MSF-216))

For consistency, this implies that all names in the list that refer to only one ship, must be changed—delete link to redirect, delete extraneous parentheses, edit the template.

Not forgetting the main question: Can someone explain why the individual lists are constructed the way they are constructed?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * These lists are approaching 10 years in age so whatever the original purpose of the layout might have been is unknown. But it still works well so I don't see any reasons to make any major changes. In the case of USS Defiant the page was hijacked by star trek fans and should be reclaimed by the ships project. The star trek ship article should be renamed appropriately to something like USS Defiant (starship) or similar. Then all will be ok for making USS Defiant a dab page showing the real ship and the fictional ship. Brad (talk) 21:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of United States Navy ships. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120118095120/http://www.nvr.navy.mil/oldclass.htm to http://www.nvr.navy.mil/oldclass.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of United States Navy ships. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070630220303/http://www.nvr.navy.mil/quick/INDEX.HTM to http://www.nvr.navy.mil/quick/INDEX.HTM
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040810082250/http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/lists/homeport.html to http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/lists/homeport.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:46, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of current ships of the United States Navy which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:List of United States Navy ships


text:
Human scale

Human scale is the set of physical qualities, and quantities of information, characterizing the human body, its motor, sensory, or mental capabilities, and human social institutions.

Science vs. human scale
Many of the objects of scientific interest in the universe are much larger than human scale (stars, galaxies) or much smaller than human scale (molecules, atoms, subatomic particles).

Similarly, many time periods studied in science involve time scales much greater than human timescales (geological and cosmological time scales) or much shorter than human timescales (atomic and subatomic events).

Mathematicians and scientists use very large and small numbers to describe physical quantities, and have created even larger and smaller numbers for theoretical purposes.

Human scale measurements, however, are more in the order of:

 * Distance: one to two metres (3 to 6 ft – human arm's reach, stride, height)
 * Attention span: seconds to hours
 * Life span: 75 years (mean life expectancy at birth)
 * Mass: kilograms – most typically, for newborns from about 3 - 4 kg for a human adult their weight range is about 50 - 100 kg
 * Force: newtons (e.g. the weight of a human on Earth, on the order of several hundred newtons, or about 100–200 lbf)
 * Pressure: one standard atmosphere (average pressure on Earth at sea level, approximately 100 kPa)
 * Temperature: around 300 K (room temperature); 250 to 320 K (normal range of temperatures in most inhabited regions of Earth)
 * Energy: typical adult human energy intake is around 10 MJ per day

Human scale in architecture
Humans interact with their environments based on their physical dimensions, capabilities and limits. The field of anthropometrics (human measurement) has unanswered questions, but it's still true that human physical characteristics are fairly predictable and objectively measurable. Buildings scaled to human physical capabilities have steps, doorways, railings, work surfaces, seating, shelves, fixtures, walking distances, and other features that fit well to the average person.

Humans also interact with their environments based on their sensory capabilities. The fields of human perception systems, like perceptual psychology and cognitive psychology, are not exact sciences, because human information processing is not a purely physical act, and because perception is affected by cultural factors, personal preferences, experiences, and expectations. So human scale in architecture can also describe buildings with sightlines, acoustic properties, task lighting, ambient lighting, and spatial grammar that fit well with human senses. However, one important caveat is that human perceptions are always going to be less predictable and less measurable than physical dimensions.

Human scale in architecture is deliberately violated:

 * for monumental effect. Buildings, statues, and memorials are constructed in a scale larger than life as a social/cultural signal that the subject matter is also larger than life. One example is the Rodina (Motherland) statue in Volgograd.
 * for aesthetic effect. Many architects, particularly in the Modernist movement, design buildings that prioritize structural purity and clarity of form over concessions to human scale. This became the dominant American architectural style for decades. Some notable examples among many are Henry Cobb's John Hancock Tower in Boston, much of I. M. Pei's work including the Dallas City Hall, and Mies van der Rohe's Neue Nationalgalerie in Berlin.
 * to serve automotive scale. Commercial buildings that are designed to be legible from roadways assume a radically different shape. The human eye can distinguish about 3 objects or features per second. A pedestrian steadily walking along a 30 m length of department store can perceive about 68 features; a driver passing the same frontage at 50 km/h can perceive about six or seven features. Auto-scale buildings tend to be smooth and shallow, readable at a glance, simplified, presented outward, and with signage with bigger letters and fewer words. This urban form is traceable back to the innovations of developer A. W. Ross along Wilshire Boulevard in Los Angeles in 1920.

Common sense and human scale
"Common sense" ideas tend to relate to events within human experience, and thus commensurate with these scales. There is thus no commonsense intuition of, for example, interstellar distances or speeds approaching the speed of light.

Weights and measures tend to reflect human scale, and many older systems of measurement featured units based directly on the dimensions of the body, such as the foot and the cubit. The metric system, which is based on precisely reproducible and measurable physical quantities such as the speed of light, still attempts to keep its base units within the range of human experience. Systems of natural units (such as Planck units) are useful in theoretical physics, but are not suitable for everyday purposes; because the SI units are defined in terms of constants of nature they can be thought of as natural units rescaled to human proportions.

title: Human scale


text:
Egyptian Museum

The Museum of Egyptian Antiquities, commonly known as the Egyptian Museum (المتحف المصري, Egyptian Arabic: el-Matḥaf el-Maṣri ) (also called the Cairo Museum), located in Cairo, Egypt, houses the largest collection of Egyptian antiquities in the world. It houses over 120,000 items, with a representative amount on display. Located in Tahrir Square in a building built in 1901, it is the largest museum in Africa. Among its masterpieces are Pharaoh Tutankhamun's treasure, including its iconic gold burial mask, widely considered one of the best-known works of art in the world and a prominent symbol of ancient Egypt.

History
The Egyptian Museum of Antiquities contains many important pieces of ancient Egyptian history. It houses the world's largest collection of Pharaonic antiquities. The Egyptian government established the museum built in 1835 near the Ezbekieh Garden and later moved to the Cairo Citadel. In 1855, Archduke Maximilian of Austria was given all of the artifacts by the Egyptian government; these are now in the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna.

A new museum was established at Boulaq in 1858 in a former warehouse, following the foundation of the new Antiquities Department under the direction of Auguste Mariette. The building lay on the bank of the Nile River, and in 1878 it suffered significant damage owing to the flooding of the Nile River. In 1891, the collections were moved to a former royal palace, in the Giza district of Cairo. They remained there until 1902 when they were moved again to the current museum in Tahrir Square, built by the Italian company of Giuseppe Garozzo and Francesco Zaffrani to a design by the French architect Marcel Dourgnon.

The bigger part of the museum's garden that stretched until the Nile was taken away in 1954 to build the Cairo Municipality Building.

In 2004, the museum appointed Wafaa El Saddik as the first female director general.

During the Egyptian Revolution of 2011, the museum was broken into, and two mummies were destroyed. Several artifacts were also shown to have been damaged and around 50 objects were stolen. Since then, 25 objects have been found. Those that were restored were put on display in September 2013 in an exhibition entitled "Damaged and Restored". Among the displayed artifacts were two statues of King Tutankhamun made of cedar wood and covered with gold, a statue of King Akhenaten, ushabti statues that belonged to the Nubian kings, a mummy of a child, and a small polychrome glass vase.

The museum was reportedly used as a torture site during the 2011 Revolution, with protestors forcibly and unlawfully detained and allegedly abused, according to reports, videos and eyewitness accounts. Activists state that "men were being tortured with electric shocks, whips and wires," and "women were tied to fences and trees." Prominent singer and activist Ramy Essam was among those detained and tortured at the museum.

Sale room for antiquities
The Department of Antiquities (Service d'Antiquités Egyptien) operated a sale room (Salle de ventes) in the Egyptian Museum in Cairo from 1902 in room 56 on the ground floor, where original ancient Egyptian artworks and other original artefacts were sold. In addition, until the 1970s, dealers or collectors could bring antiquities to the Cairo Museum for inspection on Thursdays, and if museum officials had no objections, they could pack them in ready-made boxes, have them sealed and cleared for export. Many objects now held in private collections or public museums originated here. After years of debate about the strategy for selling the antiquities, the sale room was closed in November 1979.

Interior design and collections
There are two main floors in the museum, the ground floor and the first floor. On the ground floor is an extensive collection of large-scale works in stone including statues, reliefs and architectural elements. These are arranged chronologically in clockwise fashion, from the pre-dynastic to the Greco-Roman period. The first floor is dedicated to smaller works, including papyri, coins, textiles, and an enormous collection of wooden sarcophagi.

The numerous pieces of papyrus are generally small fragments, owing to their decay over the past two millennia. Several languages are found on these pieces, including Greek, Latin, Arabic, and ancient Egyptian. The coins found on this floor are made of many different metals, including gold, silver, and bronze. The coins are not only Egyptian, but also Greek, Roman, and Islamic. This has helped historians research the history of Ancient Egyptian trade.

Also on the ground floor are artifacts from the New Kingdom, the time period between 1550 and 1069 BC. These artifacts are generally larger than items created in earlier centuries. Those items include statues, tables, and coffins (sarcophagi). It contains 42 rooms; with many items on view from sarcophagi and boats to enormous statues.

On the first floor are artifacts from the final two dynasties of Egypt, including items from the tombs of the Pharaohs Thutmosis III, Thutmosis IV, Amenophis II, Hatshepsut, and the courtier Maiherpri, as well as many artifacts from the Valley of the Kings, in particular the material from the intact tombs of Tutankhamun and Psusennes I.

Until 2021, two rooms contained a number of mummies of kings and other royal family members of the New Kingdom. On April 3, 2021, twenty-two of these mummies were transferred to the National Museum of Egyptian Civilization in Fustat in a grand parade dubbed The Pharaohs' Golden Parade.

Collections are also being transferred to the not-yet-open Grand Egyptian Museum in Giza, including all the artifacts found inside Tutankhamun's tomb. "Among the reasons that the GEM itself was conceived, the Egyptian Museum in Tahrir has been criticized for being overcrowded, displaying pieces in a way that is said to make the experience cumbersome for visitors."

Memorial to famous Egyptologists
In the garden adjacent to the building of the museum, is a memorial to famous egyptologists of the world. It features a monument to Auguste Mariette, surrounded by 24 busts of the following egyptologists: François Chabas, Johannes Dümichen, Conradus Leemans, Charles Wycliffe Goodwin, Emmanuel de Rougé, Samuel Birch, Edward Hincks, Luigi Vassalli, Émile Brugsch, Karl Richard Lepsius, Théodule Devéria, Vladimir Golenishchev, Ippolito Rosellini, Labib Habachi, Sami Gabra, Selim Hassan, Ahmed Kamal, Zakaria Goneim, Jean-François Champollion, Amedeo Peyron, Willem Pleyte, Gaston Maspero, Peter le Page Renouf and Kazimierz Michałowski.

title: Egyptian Museum


text:
607 BC

The year 607 BC was a year of the pre-Julian Roman calendar. In the Roman Empire, it was known as year 147 Ab urbe condita. The denomination 607 BC for this year has been used since the early medieval period, when the Anno Domini calendar era became the prevalent method in Europe for naming years.

Events

 * Halley's Comet was visible from March 15 through March 26 and passed within 13.5 million kilometers from Earth.

Births

 * Sudharmaswami, fifth ganadhara of Mahavira (died 507 BC)
 * Pisistratus tyrant of Athens.

Deaths

 * King Kuang of Zhou, king of the Zhou Dynasty of China
 * Duke Ling of Jin, ruler of the Chinese state of Jin

title: 607 BC


text:
613 BC

The year 613 BC was a year of the pre-Julian Roman calendar. In the Roman Empire, it was known as year 141 Ab urbe condita . The denomination 613 BC for this year has been used since the early medieval period, when the Anno Domini calendar era became the prevalent method in Europe for naming years.

Events

 * King Zhuang of Chu becomes king of Chu in China.

Deaths

 * She (Qi), temporary ruler of the state of Qi
 * King Qing of Zhou, king of the Chinese Zhou Dynasty
 * Duke Zhao of Qi, ruler of Qi

title: 613 BC


text:
Talk:Human scale

(Additional dimensions)
Can we get some order-of-magnitude comparisons: Does anyone have an idea for a "human scale" of energy? The energy in a meal? Energy of running a mile? Energy spectrum of fatal injuries, using the "energy dumping" theory? The Anome —Preceding undated comment added 14:47, 24 February 2003 '''& modified w/o sig by Tarquin (talk • contribs) 14:55, Feb 24 2003 (UTC)
 * lightest touch that can be sensed vs. heaviest weight that can be lifted?
 * loudest sound that can be endured vs. softest sound that can be heard?
 * pitch that can be heard
 * wavelength of visible light
 * added a couple to the list above -- Tarquin 14:55 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

Do kilogram & newton belong?
Since when are kilograms or Netwons considered more natural "human-scale" units? I don't think there are any "official" units for force or weight that are more natural, but the force of a punch or some other human activity and the average weight of a human come to mind as rough replacements. At any rate, I think we can do better than just plain Netwons and kg, which don't seem particularly human-scale IMHO. At least "tens of Newtons" or similar would be much better. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Small is Beautiful
This 'graph:
 * The term "human scale" is also used to refer to the Small Is Beautiful school of philospophy associated with Leopold Kohr, E. F. Schumacher, John Papworth and Kirkpatrick Sale, among others.

is about a topic distinct from that stated in the lead, and (w/ rare exceptions like Nigger and Fuck) a WP article is about the concept the title names, not the titling word as a term. If the article on Small Is Beautiful is enhanced, by adding a section with encyclopedic discussion of that sense of "human scale", a HatNote Dab along the lines of

can be added to the accompanying article, using Human scale (Small Is Beautiful) as a Rdr to Small Is Beautiful. I am not going to do the research to determine whether any specific "human scales" for development projects or organizations have been enunciated by SiB advocates, but i note that even if there is diversity of opinion among the as to the numbers, info about the numbers or numerical ranges would IMO be appropriate to the accompanying article. --Jerzy•t 21:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

 * A disambiguation clause at the top of the article would be better than the wholesale removal of this passage. "Human scale" is a well established term used in that context, and so requires disambiguation precisely for the reasons that Jerzy states. Will someone with the technical knowledge assist with this? User1756 (talk) 18:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Community size
Perhaps distinct from Small is Beautiful, i recall that anthropologists believe there is an inherent human parameter, around 150, that represents the maximum size of a community in which "everybody knows everbody" is likely to be essentially true, rather than either hyperbole, a platitude, or an assumption that in practice doesn't get tested. If documented, it would IMO belong in the article. --Jerzy•t 21:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

 * You are referring to the Dunbar number I believe. User1756 (talk) 18:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

RFC:Recent reverts
My recent edits to this article were repeatedly reverted without justification by User:ProProbly. He asserted that my edits constituted "undiscussed metrification" and insisted that I should discuss the issue on the talk page. The article had previously used metric units, as WP:MOSNUM requires of articles which do not relate directly to USA or UK topics. I explained this clearly to him on my own talk page, in addition to suggesting a more constructive course of action than reverting my edits. I had added content to the article and corrected some errors, which he also removed without justification.

Diff of the relevant edits:

Archon 2488 (talk) 22:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

 * Comment ProProbly made a WP:BOLD edit, Archon 2488 reverted, and now we discuss. Further reverts without consensus are not appropriate.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 23:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

 * The article has now been reverted by a third party to its status before the dubious edits by ProProbly. Unless the latter has something to say by way of justifying their behaviour, I will be content to consider this matter closed. I would ask ProProbly not to engage in such disruptive behaviour again, as it does not contribute to the functioning of the encyclopedia, and it deters others from contributing to articles.

 * By way of explaining my own position, I would just say that the MOS gives clear guidance on what units articles are expected to use when they are not directly related to the USA or UK – metric units. Since the position I was following was the default position, there was no reason for me to start a discussion about it. Archon 2488 (talk) 11:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

No, you are incorrect. It was Archon 2488 who first made the WP:BOLD edits and me who reverted to the original uncontested text. I also explained why. Archon continued to argue without an apology or excuse for failing to describe, justify or seek consensus for completely replacing customary measurements with metric ones. Then after I again restored the original text, Atlan came along and, again with no explanation, restored Archon's bold edit. And that is how the article currently exists with Archon's contested bold edit still in place. And that goes against Wikipedia principles, pillars and all. ProProbly (talk) 18:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

 * I'll say it again, for the sake of clarity. US customary units are the primary units in articles that relate directly to the USA, and not in any other articles. This is the consensus position of the entire community as clearly expressed at WP:MOSNUM and it is not controversial. Ensuring that articles generally follow the MOS is good editorial conduct, and editors are expected to respect the MOS. Adding content to an article that has received relatively little editorial attention is not really WP:BOLD; reverting someone else's contributions is bold, and you would be expected to provide a really good reason for doing so. Your personal vendetta against metric units is not such a good reason. I would assume this is why Atlan reverted.

 * I should warn you that if you continue to disregard MOS consensus and start revert-wars you are likely to face administrative sanctions. You are acting like a WP:SPA in single-minded pursuit of an agenda which is not conducive to building an encyclopedia. Past experience shows that such conduct usually results in an indefinite ban because it is tedious, wasting the time of editors and admins and spoiling the experience of readers. Archon 2488 (talk) 20:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

 * Looks like we have three editors favoring the current version and one editor favoring ProProbly's version. We can let this run a while longer, but I expect we're done here.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 22:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I only see one contributor supplying a reasoned argument for keeping the WP:BOLD edit, and he is the editor who made it. I think the original version should be restored until we see a consensus based in policy, sources, and common sense for changing it develop. I also see you (Lesser Cartographies); first drawing mistaken conclusions about who was being bold and who was doing the reverting - thus showing that you have not followed the case, and then arrogantly declaring a consensus without a sound basis. And not having contributed materially to the discussion yourself I am not sure what your motive is. ProProbly (talk) 06:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose reverts by ProProbly. No valid reason for objecting to use of metric units. --Boson (talk) 00:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Use Both with one in parenthesis. Here's why: the argument being advanced is that the metric should be used unless the article refers to America or Britain. But the article is about Human Scale. Last I checked the Americans and British were included in that. In addition, the article itself specifically refers to American cities and American architects. Note also, in reply to, I just received the bot notice, which means others have just received theirs. So no, you're likely not done here yet. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC) Both, metric first. Dougweller (talk) 08:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, both is fine, and as I said below in my apology, I had mistakenly thought the change was from customary to just metric when I changed the article back. I accept I was wrong, so can we drop it now please and move on. Thanks. ProProbly (talk) 20:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I was mistaken
Sorry, I've wasted everyone's time here. I misread the "diffs" of Archon 2488's edits. I was exploring the diff functionality and misread the changes from "100-foot (30-meter)" to "30 m" and from "30 mph (13 m/s or 44 ft/s)" to "50 km/h" as total metrifications. I didn't realise then that the "{{convert..." command was an automatic converter. Apologies to all concerned. ProProbly (talk) 20:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:Human scale


text:
Albert of Mecklenburg

Albert of Mecklenburg Albrecht von Mecklenburg may refer to:

 * Albert I, Duke of Mecklenburg-Stargard (bef. 1377–1397)
 * Albert II, Duke of Mecklenburg (1318–1379)
 * Albert III, Duke of Mecklenburg, better known as Albert, King of Sweden (1338–1412)
 * Albert IV, Duke of Mecklenburg (bef. 1363–1388)
 * Albert V, Duke of Mecklenburg (1397–1423)
 * Albert VI, Duke of Mecklenburg (1438–bef.1483)
 * Albrecht VII, Duke of Mecklenburg (1486–1547)
 * Albert VIII, Duke of Mecklenburg, better known as Albrecht von Wallenstein (1583–1634)
 * John Albert I, Duke of Mecklenburg (1525–1576)
 * John Albert II, Duke of Mecklenburg (1590–1636)
 * Duke John Albert of Mecklenburg (1857–1920)

title: Albert of Mecklenburg


text:
Student Conservation Association

The Student Conservation Association (SCA) is a non-profit group in the United States whose mission is to build the next generation of conservation leaders and inspire lifelong stewardship of the environment and communities by engaging young people in hands-on service to the land through service opportunities, outdoor skills, and leadership training.

History
In 1955, Elizabeth Titus Putnam, a student at Vassar College, wrote her senior thesis, "A Proposed Student Conservation Corps". The idea, modeled after the federal Civilian Conservation Corps program (1933–42), was to take the burden of labor-intensive jobs such as entrance fee collecting or trail work from the National Park Service and shift to the SCC. Putnum worked with Martha Hayne Talbot to advocate for the proposal to the superintendents of Olympic, Grand Teton, Mount Rainier and Yellowstone National Parks. In 1957, the Student Conservation Program (forerunner to SCA) had two separate programs in Grand Teton National Park and Olympic National Park. In 1964, the Student Conservation Program incorporated as the Student Conservation Association. Since then, the organization has grown significantly and currently places more than 4,000 volunteers annually in public lands and urban green spaces.

Work programs
The SCA's 4,000 volunteers annually provide more than 2 million hours of conservation service, including trail construction, wildlife research, habitat restoration and GIS mapping; in parks, forests, refuges and urban green spaces in all 50 states. SCA members annually serve more than 500 natural and cultural sites in all 50 states. More than 20 million people directly benefit from SCA conservation services each year. Since 1957, SCA's 50,000+ members around the world have provided service valued at over half a billion dollars. SCA members build or maintain more than 2,500 miles of trail per year. 70% of SCA alumni remain active in conservation in their careers or communities.

Conservation crews
Every summer, the SCA places over 600 young people aged 15+ into crews of six or eight in national parks, national wilderness areas, national monuments, Bureau of Land Management-controlled lands, military ranges, and other federally controlled lands throughout the United States. The crews are divided into frontcountry and backcountry crews, with frontcountry crews being based within one mile of a road and most likely having easier access to showers, stores, and park rangers. Backcountry crews are usually more isolated.

The projects performed by the crews vary. The Conservation Crews typically do trail work, usually trail construction or erosion control, depending on the needs of the park. Other projects may include restoration of tourist-impacted areas and invasive species removal. The projects last from 21–30 days with a 4–5 day recreational trip at the end.

The program had been free to students except for the cost of transportation to the prearranged meeting location, usually a nearby airport. As of Spring 2016, students are charged a flat $500 fee, though financial aid may be available. Also, students provide most of their own necessary outdoor gear. Expenses are shared between the SCA, agency partners, and individual donors. Financial assistance is available to cover transportation costs, and SCA can provide gear to those needing it.

Once at their worksite, the students work eight hours a day, six days a week. The crews are led usually by two trained, experienced crew leaders, men and women over the age of 21. Most crew leaders are college students or teachers, though there are leaders in their 60s. The sponsoring organization such as the Park Service or Bureau of Land Management provides instruction and tools, but the crews are responsible for completing their job without supervision. On days off, they may undertake an ambitious hike or just relax around camp. At the end of their conservation project, all crews take a short recreation trip to enjoy the area, often a backpacking trip.

The SCA lists a catalog of conservation crew work sites on their website. For conservation crews, SCA begins reviewing applications in January and offers of placement are sent out beginning in April.

Conservation interns
Through partnerships with agencies such as the National Park Service, the SCA places people 18 and over into internship positions. There are two different types: short and long term internships. The short term internships last under three months, while long term internships can last from 6 to 12 months. The jobs performed by the interns varies. They can include backcountry patrol, working with visitors, and conducting ecological surveys. The interns are provided with a stipend, housing (in most cases), and an AmeriCorps Stipend. The admissions process for each internship is on a rolling basis, with each internship position having a closing date. Students can apply for as many positions as they wish.

Many short-term Conservation Internship Positions involve work such as soil and water monitoring, GIS work, naturalist work, interpretation, visitor assistance, and more. The majority of short-term conservation internship positions are during the summer season, but positions are also offered all year long.

Interns often work either on a one-to-one basis with state or federal professionals, or in groups as part of the Conservation Corps.

Community programs
The SCA offers community programs in the following cities: Houston, Stamford, Seattle, Edmonds, Oakland, Washington, D.C., Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit, Manchester, Milwaukee, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Camden, New Jersey, Anchorage, Alaska, New York City, New York, Seattle, and Pittsburgh.

The Conservation Leadership Corps (CLC) program takes place year-round in regional offices. The format of the CLC program varies from region to region. All students successfully completing the CLC program will have the opportunity to participate in a summer Conservation Crew and will have their airfare covered by their regional office. As part of the CLC, members volunteer on weekends throughout the school year in their home city, build trails, restore river and lakefront environments, conserve habitats, learn about the environment through field trips, go on weekend camping excursions, and give back to the community through service projects.

The Summer Community Crews are six to seven week crews over the summer in which students complete trail maintenance and site restoration projects in public parks, learn about the local environment through field trips led by the Crew Leader, visit local parks, learn outdoor skills, and go on a recreational camping trip.

Conservation Corps
At the Conservation Corps sites, members learn conservation skills. Corps are teams with members living and working with others who share a connection to the land and the people who live there.

Corps members spend 3–10 months of their time devoted to critical environmental issues such as wildfire management and education, trail restoration and maintenance, environmental education, and invasive species eradication.

Environmental education
The SCA emphasizes environmental education in their programming. The organization encourages students and members to engage with the natural environment with the goal that the students will become attached to the natural world, and then more likely to preserve and protect it.

Wilderness Risk Management Conference
Additionally, the SCA along with Outward Bound and NOLS, sponsor the Wilderness Risk Management Conference.

title: Student Conservation Association


text:
Steven Bochco

Steven Ronald Bochco (December 16, 1943 – April 1, 2018) was an American television writer and producer. He developed a number of television series, mostly crime dramas, including Hill Street Blues; L.A. Law; Doogie Howser, M.D.; Cop Rock; and NYPD Blue.

Early life
Bochco was born to a Jewish family in New York City, the son of Mimi, a painter, and Rudolph Bochco, a concert violinist and Polish immigrant. He was educated in Manhattan at the High School of Music and Art. His elder sister is actress Joanna Frank.

In 1961, he enrolled at Carnegie Institute of Technology (now known as Carnegie Mellon University after merging with the Mellon Institute in 1967) in Pittsburgh to study playwriting and theater. He graduated with a Bachelor of Fine Arts (BFA) in Theater in 1966, having also had an MCA Writing Fellowship.

Career
Bochco went to work for Universal Pictures as a writer and then story editor on Ironside, Columbo, McMillan & Wife, and the short-lived Lorne Greene and Ben Murphy series, Griff, as well as Delvecchio and The Invisible Man.

He wrote the story and teleplay for the Columbo episode "Murder by the Book" (1971), and the teleplays for several other episodes. He wrote the screenplay for the 1968 film The Counterfeit Killer and worked on Silent Running (1972) and Double Indemnity (1973). He left Universal in 1978 to go to MTM Enterprises where he had greater scope for producing. His first effort there was the short-lived CBS police drama Paris, notable as the first series on which James Earl Jones played a lead role.

He achieved major success for NBC with the police drama Hill Street Blues. It ran from 1981 to 1987 and Bochco was credited as co-creator along with Michael Kozoll, also writing and producing. The series also garnered considerable critical acclaim and many awards, and was nominated for a total of 98 Emmy Awards throughout its run. Bochco was fired from MTM in 1985 following the failure of Bay City Blues (1983).

Bochco moved to 20th Century Fox where he co-created and produced L.A. Law (1986–94) which aired on NBC. This series was also widely acclaimed and a regular award winner. In 1987, Bochco co-created the half-hour dramedy Hooperman which starred John Ritter but was canceled after two seasons, despite Bochco offering to take over direct day-to-day control of a third season. Hooperman was part of a lucrative deal with ABC in 1987 to create and produce ten new television series, which prompted Bochco to form Steven Bochco Productions. That year, Bochco was in final talks with an exclusive agreement with CBS or ABC, and ABC reportedly being the winning bid. From this deal came Doogie Howser, M.D. (1989–93) and Cop Rock (1990). The latter combined straight police drama with live-action Broadway singing and dancing, and was one of his highest-profile failures. In 1992, Bochco created an animated television series, Capitol Critters, along with Nat Mauldin and Michael Wagner.

After a lull, Bochco co-created NYPD Blue (1993–2005) with David Milch. Initially controversial at the time, the series was created with the express intention of changing the nature of network one-hour drama to compete with the more adult fare broadcast on cable networks. The spring 1994 television schedule on ABC presented the only run of a television series executive produced by Bochco, The Byrds of Paradise. The series showcased a plot structure that was an early forerunner in presenting a more realistic, and not idealized, representation of character development in the prime time television format, but it aired for only one season, and has yet to be re-aired on television. Although The Byrds of Paradise achieved significant critical acclaim during its initial run, and helped launch the careers of actors Seth Green and Jennifer Love Hewitt, the show has never received an official release on any home video format or streaming media platform. Other projects in this period that failed to take off include Murder One (1995–97), Brooklyn South (1997), City of Angels (2000), Philly (2001), and Over There (2005). All five shows failed to match Bochco's earlier success though Murder One and Over There garnered critical praise. In 1995, he had a contract with CBS to air the network's future programs, and had to distribute the shows worldwide. In 1999, he moved to Paramount Television where he remained until 2005. Shortly afterwards, he was moved to ABC's corporate subsidiary Touchstone Television later in 2005.

In 2005, Bochco took charge of Commander in Chief (2005–06), created by Rod Lurie, and brought in a new writing team. However, in spring 2006, he left the show because of conflicts with ABC, and shortly afterward the program was canceled. Bochco described his experience on the show as "horrible". In 2006 Bochco produced a pilot for an ABC show, Hollis & Rae, and was reported at the same time to be developing a baseball drama and another legal drama for ABC in partnership with Chris Gerolmo.

It was announced in March 2007 that Bochco had taken his first steps into internet TV with the 44-episode Cafe Confidential, each episode being 60-seconds of unscripted "confessions" by members of the public. Yet another legal drama titled Raising the Bar was produced for TNT, this time in partnership with David Feige, although it was cancelled in December 2009 during the second season.

According to an interview with Bochco published in September 2007, he was winding down his involvement with network television, feeling that his tastes and current fashions in TV drama no longer coincide. "The network executives stay the same age and I keep getting older and it creates a different kind of relationship. When I was doing my stuff at NBC with Brandon [Tartikoff] and Hill Street, we were contemporaries," says Bochco. "When I sit down [now], they're sitting in a room with someone who's old enough to be their father and I'm not sure they want to sit in a room with their fathers."

In 2008, Bochco argued that the new home for quality prime time drama is cable, where "the atmosphere is far friendlier and the creative environment more conducive to doing original work", and that "most of what's passing for primetime drama these days isn't very good".

Prior to Hill Street Blues it was rare for American straight drama series to have story arcs, i.e. several stories running over many episodes (with the exception of prime time soap operas such as Dallas). It was also rare to have a large regular cast. The structure of the modern "ensemble" television drama can be traced to Bochco, who many regard as having changed the "language" of television drama.

From 2014 to its cancellation in 2016, he wrote and executive produced Murder in the First, a series drama which he co-created with Eric Lodal.

Personal life
Bochco was married three times: to Gabrielle Levin from 1964 to their divorce in 1969, to actress Barbara Bosson from 1970 to their divorce in 1997, and to television producer and executive Dayna Kalins from 2000 until his death. Bochco had three children. His son, Jesse Bochco, with Bosson, is a producer/director who directed several episodes of his father's shows, including NYPD Blue, Philly, and Over There. As a child, son Jesse played the son of his real mother's character on one episode of Hill Street Blues.

At the time of his death, Bochco lived in the Pacific Palisades neighborhood of Los Angeles.

Health and death
Bochco was diagnosed with leukemia in 2014, requiring a bone marrow transplant later that year. He died from the disease at his home on April 1, 2018, at age 74.

Emmy Awards
34 nominations, with 10 wins:
 * 1981 Outstanding Drama Series, for Hill Street Blues
 * 1981 Outstanding Writing in a Drama Series, for Hill Street Blues, "Hill Street Station" (premiere episode)
 * 1982 Outstanding Drama Series, for Hill Street Blues
 * 1982 Outstanding Writing in a Drama Series, for Hill Street Blues, "Freedom's Last Stand"
 * 1983 Outstanding Drama Series, for Hill Street Blues
 * 1984 Outstanding Drama Series, for Hill Street Blues
 * 1987 Outstanding Drama Series, for L.A. Law
 * 1987 Outstanding Writing in a Drama Series, for L.A. Law, "The Venus Butterfly"
 * 1989 Outstanding Drama Series, for L.A. Law
 * 1995 Outstanding Drama Series, for NYPD Blue

Humanitas Prize
Four nominations, with two wins:

 * 1981 60-Minute Category, for Hill Street Blues
 * 1999 90-Minute Category, for NYPD Blue

Edgar Awards
Seven nominations, with two wins:

 * 1982 Best Episode in a TV Series Teleplay, for Hill Street Blues, "Hill Street Station"
 * 1995 Best Episode in a TV Series Teleplay, for NYPD Blue, "Simone Says"

Directors Guild of America

 * 1999 Diversity Award

Producers Guild of America Awards
One nomination/win:

In addition:
 * 1994 Outstanding Producer of Television, for NYPD Blue
 * 1999 Lifetime Achievement Award

Writers Guild of America
Thirteen nominations, with two wins:

In addition:
 * 1982 Best Writing for an Episodic Drama, for Hill Street Blues, "Hill Street Station"
 * 1985 Best Writing in for Episodic Drama, for Hill Street Blues, "Grace Under Pressure"
 * 1994 Laurel Award for TV Writing Achievement

Peabody Awards

 * 1981 for Hill Street Blues
 * 1987 for L.A. Law
 * 1996 for NYPD Blue
 * 1998 for NYPD Blue, the episode "Raging Bulls"

In addition to these awards, Bochco was inducted into the Television Hall of Fame in 1996.

Books

 * Death by Hollywood: A Novel (2003). New York: Random House. ISBN 978-1-4000-6156-3.
 * Truth is a Total Defense: My Fifty Years in Television (2016). CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. ISBN 978-1-5348-3390-6.

title: Steven Bochco


text:
Stola

The stola (pl. stolae) was the traditional garment of Roman women, corresponding to the toga that was worn by men. It was also called vestis longa in Latin literary sources, pointing to its length.

History
The stola was a staple of fashion in ancient Rome spanning from the early Roman Republic until the beginning of the 2nd century CE. The garment was first identified on statues by Margarete Bieber. The first evidence of the stola/vestis longa dates to the 3rd century BCE, but the form of the garment is common in the Mediterranean world and so it must be much older. In Republican times, it was simply part of Roman female dress practice. In Augustan times, when it was used much less, the stola was taken up by Imperial cultural policy and was turned – like the vitta (plaited headband) – into a dress insigne of married Roman women. It may even have been a legal privilege. By this time, it was worn only by women of the social elite. At the beginning of the 2nd century CE, the stola fell completely out of use. However, the term matrona stolata, referring to married women of equestrian rank, remained a technical term in inscriptions.

A well-known image of the stola is the one worn by the Statue of Liberty in New York City.

Social conventions
It has long been believed that Roman women originally did not wear stolae and that they instead wore togas like the men. However, this goes back to a scholarly lore invented in Late Antiquity. For the most part, the toga was worn exclusively by men, and Roman wives (matronae) traditionally wore the stola. In Latin literature, wearing the male toga was associated with prostitution and adultery. In Roman life, the only Roman women who wore a toga were unfree prostitutes (referred to as meretrices or ancillae) who worked in the streets and in brothels. A Roman matron convicted of adultery (moecha damnata) did not actually have to wear a toga in public from then on. She was only symbolically called a togata (a woman in toga) since she was unfit to be a matron (as epitomized by the stola). Female and male citizen children could wear a toga praetexta (a toga with purple border), but this usage should be kept apart from wearing the toga as an adult.

Description
The stola was a long, pleated, sleeveless robe that could be worn by Roman wives (matronae). It was worn as a symbol and represented a woman's marital status, and it was also worn by the Roman Vestal priestesses. There are no physical remains of any stola. The matron’s stola usually served as an intermediate garment and was worn over the undertunic (subucula) and under the cloak (pallium). It looked like a ‘peplos’ and had longitudinal folds (rugae). There are no explicit literary sources as to its upper opening, but there is archaeological evidence. This shows that, in Augustan times, the sleeveless garment was fastened by significant shoulder straps (analeptrides). It also had a visible lower border, called instita (or in non-technical language a limbus). The fabrics used for stolae were presumably linen or wool, but a wealthy woman might have also used silk.

Varieties
The matronal stola had no fixed colour. The stola of the Vestal virgins was presumably white. The border (instita) was probably usually in purple colour (similar to the purple border on an expensive toga).

title: Stola


text:
Talk:Lingua franca

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:52, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Idioma ruso.PNG

Malay/Indonesian
As I understand, Indonesian language is one of two standards of Malay language (the other being the official language of Malaysia). Now, is the "Malay" referred to here, as a l.f. across a wide area, specifically the Indonesian variety (as the present text implies), or a complex of dialects, or what? —Tamfang (talk) 22:40, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The standardized Malay variety called "Indonesian" is the national language of Indonesia and almost everybody (except for an increasingly dwindling minority of people in remote areas without access to mass media and schools) speaks it as a second or first language. Is French a "lingua franca" in France? Is English a "lingua franca" in the United Kingdom? If this strikes you as a bit off, you will feel what I feel when I read "Malay language also known as Indonesian [...] is [...] a lingua franca in Indonesia". Historically, the Vehicular Malay varieties (often called "Low Malay") served as genuine lingua francas (i.e. languages that serve as medium for inter-ethnic and international communication without necessarily being regulated or sanctioned as such) especially in Jakarta and in eastern Indonesia before Indonesian succeeded to permeate all regions in Indonesia as a daily tool of communication. In pre-independence Indonesia, there was diglossia between Vehicular Malay and regional languages; after independence, the propagation of Indonesian has produced triglossia (Indonesian – Vehicular Malay – regional language) which still exists in many areas, but language shift has often produced a new type of diglossia, viz. Indonesian vs. Vehicular Malay (as L1), or in some areas of Indonesia, Standard Indonesian vs. newly-emerging regional language-influenced varieties of Indonesian.
 * Indonesian nevertheless serves at one point as a typical lingua franca, namely in the communication between Indonesian and Timor Leste. In Timor Leste, the status of Indonesian was downgraded after independence to a "working language" (on par with English), but proficiency in Indonesian is still high and quite indispensable when doing trade with Indonesia. –Austronesier (talk) 11:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Classical Maori
Comments welcome please. An IP - '222.152.26.228' - has expanded this short subsection with further statements and Wp:CITEKILL numerous citations. There are many issues with this and I don't have time to work through that section properly. If you don't already know, as part of the Maori Renaissance in NZ, there is a widespread promotion of all things to do with Maori culture and language, a project enthusiastically adopted by certain sections of society prone to such causes. This subsection is an example of what is happening. Some general concerns that other editors with more time might want to handle, or just comment on here, are: 1/ Most of the sources are not ideal Independent-RSSs they are opinion pieces or govt published articles 2/ Maori words have been used instead of the commonly understood English words (I have put back the two islands to 'North Island' and 'South Island', for example. 3/ Classical Maori is a theoretical term with no evidence to back its existence - Maori were illiterate until European arrival in the late 18thC. It is the term used to describe the unknown form of the language during the period known as Classical period of Maori history c. (1500-1769). It is debatable if it should be in this list. 3/ WP:SYNTH is everywhere. The last sentence about an 1867 act is being used, for example, as evidence that because of that act Maori stopped being a lingua franca. This is original research and off-topic. 4/ The term L-F here refers to the period from 1769 to 1840/50. Some Europeans used Maori with varying levels of fluency to communicate with the locals, such as in barter and by Church missionaries. This is not really a lingua franca situation, and if it can be technically described as such, it goes against the spirit and intent of the term. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

the range of German

 * [German] is recognised as an official language in countries outside of Europe, specifically Namibia.

This seems to say that beyond Europe the countries where German is official are Namibia. Is Namibia the only one (in which case the sentence ought to be rewritten), the most populous, or what? —Tamfang (talk) 19:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

 * Yes, it is the only one with official status on a national level outside of Europe, see German language. It is, however, also a recognized minority language on a sub-national level in Brazil. Additionally, the Azovsky Nemetsky National District in Russia lies outside the boundaries of geographical Europe. These are the ones documented on Wikipedia, but use of German as a lingua franca is not confined to these places (it is, after all, still one of the most-spoken languages in Europe, and still has a pretty large set of L2 speakers). TucanHolmes  (talk) 10:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Lingua franca