So, what3words, I think I did the maths, and they could have ditched all plurals and used combinations not permutations and still have more than enough words to cover the whole planet in English. So... why didn't they?
In English we use 40,000 words. 40,000 cubed gives 64 trillion, enough to cover the globe’s 57 trillion 3m squares. How many did you use?
-
-
Ahh, quite a lot more - you'd need 70,000 words. Presumably something like weibull distribution for word length so I wonder what length of word you'd be force to go up to to cover 70k, esp if you remove plurals and homonyms.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Interesting you said cubed too - so you're not doing a permutation then - you allow a word to be repeated within the 3?
-
(though numerically the difference is tiny)
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.