throbber
Period or Comma? DecimalStyles over Time
`and Place
`
`Amelia A Williamson
`
`In the United States, decimals are notated
`with periods (for example, 1.23), whereas
`most of Europe uses decimal commas
`(1,23). Thatis just one instance in which
`style rules in the United States clash with
`those in Europe. How did this style dif-
`ference arise? Whatissues doesit cause
`for editors? How doeditors deal with the
`difference? Knowing the answers to those
`questions can help editors to avoid mis-
`understandings while working with both
`styles of decimal separators.
`
`to Barth-
`refer
`Historians sometimes
`olomaeus Pitiscus—a German mathemati-
`cian, astronomer, and theologian—as the
`first to use the decimal point. Pitiscus did
`use decimal fractions in his writing, and
`there were dots within the numbers in his
`text. Some historians argue, however, that
`the dots were not used as decimal points
`and were merely punctuationpoints written
`before and after numbers in runningtext, as
`was common in medieval manuscripts.
`Pitiscus used three other notations for
`decimal fractions: he put a zero in front of
`the decimal numbers (for example, 0123
`for our 0.123), he used a vertical stroke as
`a decimal separator(1 | 234 for our 1.234),
`and he used the common fraction form
`(1 234/1000 for our 1.234). The dots in his
`text were used for other purposes.
`John Napier, a Scottish mathematician,
`appears to have beenthefirst to intention-
`ally use the period as a decimal separator
`in his 1617 book Rabdologia. In one part of
`the book, he explicitly says that whatever
`is written after the period is a fraction.
`Later in the book, however, he uses the
`commaas a decimal separator and shows
`a division problem that illustrates his use
`of the commaas a decimal. “Thus, Napier
`vacillated between the period and the
`comma,” Cajori stated; “mathematicians
`have been vacillating in this matter ever
`since.”
`
`strength between the commaandthe dot
`as [decimal separators],” Cajori stated.
`In the early 1700s, Gottfried Wilhelm
`Leibniz, a German polymath, proposed
`the dot as the symbol for multiplication.
`Therefore, most of Europe favored the
`commaas a decimal separator. In England
`at the time, however, the preferred symbol
`for multiplication was an “X”, so the dot
`was used more frequently as a decimal
`separator there than in the rest of Europe.
`During the 19th century in England,
`the dot continued to be used as a decimal
`separator and also came to be used as the
`symbol for multiplication. That did not
`History of the Decimal Point
`cause confusion, however, because the dots
`were placed at different heights. The dot
`The history of decimal notation and the
`used to signify multiplication was placed
`style difference dates back to the 1500s,
`when decimal fractions were first used.
`on the baseline (where the United States
`currently places decimals), and the dot
`Mathematics historian Florian Cajori
`used as a decimal separator was placed mid-
`explained the history in his 1928 book A
`History of Mathematical Notations.'
`way up (where the United States currently
`places the dot for multiplication).
`Simon Stevin, a Belgian mathemati-
`In the United States, although the
`cian in the 16th century, is credited with
`comma was used occasionally as a decimal
`establishing the use of decimal fractions.
`separator, the baseline dot has always been
`He explained their use in his pamphlet
`preferred. Historians are not sure why the
`La Thiende, published in 1585. Stevin
`use of the dot raised halfway as a decimal
`understood the nature and importance of
`separator never gained general adoption in
`decimal fractions, but his notation was
`the United States.
`awkward. Stevin notated decimal fractions
`by putting superscript circled numbers after
`For a while,
`the baseline dot had two
`meanings in the United States: a deci-
`each digit
`in the number. A superscript
`mal separator and a multiplication sign.
`circled 0 was put after the units-placedigit,
`a superscript circled 1 after the tenths-
`Around 1880, however, the need arose for
`Other Decimal Notations
`place digit, a superscript circled 2 after the
`a distinction, and the decimal notation for
`the United States was clearly established
`During the 17th century, many other nota-
`hundredths-placedigit, and so on.
`as a dot on the baseline (for example,
`tions were used besides the period and the
`Franciscus Vieta, a French mathemati-
`1.234). The dot used as a multiplication
`comma. Some mathematicians put
`the
`cian in the late 1500s, came close to the
`modern notation of decimals when he used
`sign was raised to the central position, as
`decimal part in superscript and underlined
`it is today.
`it, some used an “L” shape as a separator,
`a vertical stroke to separate the integer part
`and others used the colon or an inverted
`That decision has remained the USstan-
`of the numberfrom thefractional part.
`dard ever since. The United States writes
`and raised commaasaseparator.
`By the 18th century, the notations for
`the decimal on the baseline and England in
`decimalfractionsstarted to converge. “The
`the raised position, and the United States
`chaos in notations for decimal fractions
`writes the multiplication dot in the raised
`gradually gave way to a semblance oforder.
`position and England on the baseline.
`The situation reduced itself to trials of
`In the early 1900s,
`the American
`
`AMELIA A WILLIAMSON, a graduate student
`in science and technology journalism at Texas
`A&M University, prepared this article while
`a Science Editorintern.
`
`42 © Science Editor © March — April 2008 «
`
`Vol 31 * No 2
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2116
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, IPR2017-01622
`Page 1 of 2
`
`

`

`Period or Commacontinued
`
`Committee of Mathematicians justified
`the style decision. The committee stated
`that because the letter X is used often in
`mathematics,
`it
`is preferable to use the
`raised dot for multiplication. The commit-
`tee also stated, “Inasmuch as the period
`will continue to be used in this country
`as a decimal point,
`it
`is likely to cause
`confusion, to elementary pupils at least, to
`attempttouse it as a symbolfor multiplica-
`tion,” according to Cajori.
`
`Current Style and Issues Editors
`Face
`Currently, in European countries exceptfor
`the United Kingdom, the comma is used
`as the decimal separator. In the United
`Kingdom, the raised dot is used, and in
`the United States, the baseline dotis used.
`Australia and most Asian countries use the
`dot, South America uses the comma, and
`someparts of Africa use the dot and other
`parts, the comma.
`With regard to use of decimals in sci-
`entific writing, one would think that such
`style differences could cause some confu-
`sion. Peggy Robinson, chair of the commit-
`tee that prepared the most recent edition
`of CSE’s Scientific Style and Format, says
`that the style difference is most likely to
`cause confusion among readers who are
`not familiar with the difference in con-
`vention. An American reading a French
`article,
`for example, might misinterpret
`
`1,234 to mean one thousand, two hundred
`thirty-four instead of the decimal that was
`intended.
`Authors and editors might also find
`confusion in the style difference, Robinson
`says, and gives this advice:
`
`issues of the
`Authors: Check recent
`publication to which you are submit-
`ting your article to see what conven-
`tion is being followed and ensure that
`your submission conforms. If you are
`uncertain, check with the editorial
`office. Keep this convention in mind
`when you are checking proofs.
`
`Editors: Be alert to the possibility that
`an author from another country may
`be using a different decimal notation;
`if in doubt as to intended meaning,
`seekclarification.
`
`the
`Elise Langdon-Neuner, editor of
`European Medical Writers Association
`journal The Write Stuff, mentions another
`difficulty caused by the style difference.
`She edits reports and manuscripts written
`in English by Austrian scientists and says
`that it can be difficult to ensure thatall the
`decimal commas in the reports are changed
`to decimal points. “You can be driven mad
`by spotting the commas and changing them
`to points,” Langdon-Neunersays. “Thesoft-
`ware for the tables [the scientists] use is set
`
`. and automatic conver-
`.
`up for commas .
`sion is not possible. Therefore, comma-to-
`point changes have to be made by hand.”
`Another
`potential
`problem that
`Langdon-Neuner points out occurs when
`data files are sent
`from Europe to the
`United States. Some computer programs
`used in the United States are config-
`ured to interpret commas within numbers
`(European decimals) as thousands markers
`and will convert the decimals to thousands
`numbers. For example, some programs will
`convert 1,34 to 1,340 instead of 1.34 as was
`intended. So before sending data to the
`United States, European scientists must
`make sure thatall the decimal commasare
`changedtopoints.
`Although the style difference may be a
`bit of a nuisance sometimes,
`it does not
`appear to cause any major problems. “For
`most numbers,
`the convention can be
`discerned from the context or from other
`values in the same paper,” Robinson says.
`But authors, editors, and readers should be
`awareofthe difference. #%
`
`Reference
`1. Cajori E A history of mathematical notations.
`Chicago: The Open Court Publishing Company;
`1928. p 314-335.
`
`Science Editor © March — April 2008 * Vol 31 * No 2 © 43
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2116
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, IPR2017-01622
`Page 2 of 2
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket