Consider 3,124,203,346 (or ↗643,302,421,3). Suppose we don’t just care about the rough magnitude, but about its exact value. In our current system, you have to count the number of digits in a large number – reading to the right – and then jump back to the beginning of the number in order to read off its exact value. For example, you only know to say “3 billion” because you count the number of digits (or perhaps the number of comma-separated groups). You read to the end and then jump back to read it again – an extra eye movement.
This (and the rest of the article) bears no resemblence to my perception of written numerals. I doubt it applies to any other fluent reader. I immediately see a number of 3-and-a-bit billion. There is no scanning backwards and forwards. There is no counting of digits, at least up to numbers of this size. I see a single digit and three triples. Written text is not perceived one character at a time in serial order.
Surely the author’s proposal would make things worse, since then you’d have to scan to the end of each number to realize that they’re 3-and-a-bit billion.
This (and the rest of the article) bears no resemblence to my perception of written numerals. I doubt it applies to any other fluent reader. I immediately see a number of 3-and-a-bit billion. There is no scanning backwards and forwards. There is no counting of digits, at least up to numbers of this size. I see a single digit and three triples. Written text is not perceived one character at a time in serial order.
Surely the author’s proposal would make things worse, since then you’d have to scan to the end of each number to realize that they’re 3-and-a-bit billion.