Is this still the case or has the
world aligned itself to the American
way?
At least Britain seems to have largely aligned itself that way. Quoting Wikipedia, which has an excellent entry on the topic (Long and short scales):
[In the UK,] "billion" has meant 109 in most
sectors of official published writing
for many years now. The UK government,
the BBC, and most other broadcast or
published mass media, have used the
short scale in all contexts since the
mid-1970s.
Before the
widespread use of "billion" for 109,
UK usage generally referred to
thousand million rather than
milliard. The long scale term
"milliard", for 109, is obsolete in
British English, though its
derivative, "yard", is still used as
slang in the London money, foreign
exchange and bond markets.
I wouldn't say that the world has done so, however, as the list of long-scale countries is rather long. For example, in Finnish the only word we use for 109 is miljardi, while 1012 is biljoona.
But you could well say that about the English-speaking world which now almost universally uses "billion" for 109, according to that Wikipedia article.
In the English-speaking world, it is common to use commas every three decimal places in numbers of four or more digits, counting right to left.
When you do use a comma for a thousands-separator, do please make sure to write the digits flush against the comma — that is, without a space to either side of the comma: 10,000, unlike in your own example.
The only common exception to this common practice of using commas for a thousands separator is in 4-digit years, like “in 1776 ᴀᴅ” or “around 1500 ʙᴄ”. But if you are using more digits, even years take them, as in “around 15,000 ʙᴘ” (before present). The lack of a comma in a 4-digit figure is one way of indicating that it is meant to be read out in hundreds not thousands; for example, “around fifteen hundred”.
This makes them easier to read, and is even more important in a font like Georgia with proportional-width digits (the font you are presumably currently reading this posting in):
- The constant c is 299792458 => 299,792,458 (meters/second)
- The constant c is 670616626.969746072 => 670,616,626.969746072 (miles/hour)
- The constant c is 1802617493294.67744153600 => 1,802,617,493,294.677441536 (furlongs/fortnight)
You don’t ever see commas to the right of the decimal point, but you might see thin spaces, this time going left to right instead:
- The constant c is 299792458 => 299,792,458 (meters/second)
- The constant c is 670616626.969746072 => 670,616,626.969 746 072 (miles/hour)
- The constant c is 1802617493294.67744153600 => 1,802,617,493,294.677 441 536 (furlongs/fortnight)
And indeed some people, including Bringhurst himself (albeit this depends on whether you’re using titling figures or not), recommend the use of thin spaces instead of commas:
- The constant c is 299792458 => 299 792 458 (meters/second)
- The constant c is 670616626.969746072 => 670 616 626.969 746 072 (miles/hour)
- The constant c is 1802617493294.677441536 => 1 802 617 493 294.677 441 536 (furlongs/fortnight)
In computer programming, you really cannot get by with either a comma or a thin space. Coding typically uses an underscore to represent a space (like between words in identifiers), and some languages such as Perl and Java indeed permit the underscore in numbers:
- The constant c is 299792458 =>
299_792_458 (meters/second)
- The constant c is 670616626.969746072 =>
670_616_626.969_746_072 (miles/hour)
- The constant c is 1802617493294.677441536 =>
1_802_617_493_294.677_441_536 (furlongs/fortnight)
See how much easier those are to read?
Of course, you can also use scientific notation, such as Avogadro’s famous number of 6.02 (well, 6.022 141 29) × 10²³ in “scientific” notation, or 6.02e23 in programmer notation.
That would lead to a figure of 1.802 617 × 10¹² or 1.802617e+12 for the last figure, which helps in some regards and hurts in others. Heck, unless high precision is needed, just say ~1.8 trillion and be done with it.
See also this question.
Best Answer
"One hundred and thirty-five" is perfectly correct, although the "and" tends to be removed in American English. It makes sense mathematically, since "and" is synonymous with "plus" — two apples and three apples makes five apples. One hundred, and thirty-five, makes 135.
The "and" is particularly useful when articulating a series of numbers. "One hundred one, one hundred two" could easily be misheard as "one hundred, one, one hundred, two" whereas using "one hundred and one, one hundred and two" removes that ambiguity.
Ultimately though it depends on location and culture. In the UK the "and" is always used; in the US there are a mixture of usages.
Looking at this ngram, it seems that skipping the "and" has only gained popularity over the last hundred years or so but using the "and" is still far more prevalent: