Decimal point or decimal comma

So what do they use to separate multiples of a thousand when writing figures? How can you tell the difference between 1,234.567 and

Chris

Well, if the comma is the general practice in the EU then that's good enough for me - keep the decimal point.

Rob Graham

In relation to decimal currency systems, there is surely some point in using the decimal point.

However, what reasons made 'excellent sense'?

Toom

Can you give us any of these reasons?

"Chris Blunt" wrote

They use a point! [No kidding!!]

"Chris Blunt" wrote

They'd write it as 1.234,567 (instead of 1,234.567).

It's not too difficult to see what the number is when there are both comma(s) and a point (thousand separators always precede a decimal separator). But what if you saw 1.234 or 1,234? Is it just over one, or just over a thousand?

IIRC the French did not abandon the point as they never used it - I've a vague memory of reading of it being already in use for summat else when that new fangled business of printing with moveable type came along

IIRC a (the main?) reason for eschewing the point (not the "stop" - the point is the dot in the middle of the line) was that it was in use for maths to signify multiplication

yep - which I think is why the use of any separator other than the decimal one is deprecated

You say "cling to the decimal point" as if we were resisting some pressure to change. And "still the practice" as if there was a likelihood of it ending. Can you back those implications up, or are you imagining them?

Most European countries did, but not all of them.

Go on then, tell us.

In fact neither are correct, the dot should be in the middle. The full stop has no place in mathematics, only in punctuation. Use of the full stop as a decimal place only arose as there is no decimal point on the keyboard. But here's a real one as it should be written! 1234?567

The change to using a comma to indicate the decimal position occurred as a result of a lawsuit in Germany concerning a substantial will. The document was handwritten on thick paper. It was claimed that a sum had a decimal point which would have given a certain sum to an heir. The will was carefully examined and it was found that the 'dot' was actually an artifact of the paper.

Thus the reason for changing to a comma in place of a dot was based on the fact that a 'comma' with just the right orientation was very unlikely to appear on a paper whereas a dot could occur fairly readily. It seems this case was persuasive for many countries. A dot was reserved for separating thousands: thus a sum of, say,

LAzF

point -

It has always been the convention when writing amounts of money in important documents to express the figure in words as well as numbers. For example, cheques are written like that to avoid any ambiguity. If the German lawyer who drafted that person's will had any professionalism he would have done the same.

Chris

Thanks. Could you oblige us further with a reference? I'd be interested to see the actual number involved.

I don't know about "always", especially in other countries. Anyway, "amount in words" is the obvious answer to the problem as you say, and it would have been easier and more effective than locally changing the dot convention to a comma convention.

Actually in Germany it would presumably be "amount in (one very long) word", which might not fit within the width of the page. Then we could debate hyphens instead. :-)

A square zero! ?

In message of Wed, 22 Oct 2008, David Floyd writes

Funny!!?

When I looked at the original post and also my reply (before sending) the character between 4 and 5 was a square - now it shows a zero and 567 missing :-(

David

Hopefully more sense than your post.

What was your point? ;-)

Most other people seem to have been quite happy with it!

Rob Graham

Ambiguities which can occur in handwriting on thick paper hardly constitute 'reasons which make excellent sense' in a modern context