The reader expressed doubts about the correctness of the three-digit word combination that he encountered: one-digit, two-digit, etc., in his opinion, only a number can be used, but not a word. Of course, you can limit your response to this to quotations from dictionaries. For example, from the Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language by S. I. Ozhegov and N. Yu. Shvedova: "Unambiguous" ... 2. Having only one meaning. An unambiguous word..."; "Single-digit" ... Indicated by a single digit. A single-digit number..."; "Two-digit"... Consisting of two digits. A two-digit number..."; "Two-digit"... having two values. Two-digit expression..."; "Multi-digit" ... About a number: consisting of many numeric characters. A multi-digit number..."; "Multi-valued"... Having many values. A multi-valued word...". If there are homonyms unambiguous and unambiguous, two-digit and two-digit, multi-digit and multi-valued, then why can't there be homonyms three-digit and three-digit, etc., on the same grounds? The dictionary is not required to register all of them. The dictionary has a right to rely on the smartness of its users. The reader's doubt allows, or rather requires, to expand the answer. For example, the word seven hundred. This is a single word sign that names a certain number; the Russian quantitative numeral. The number named by this word can be represented by digital signs (digits) - 700. And this is a hieroglyph. It is international: it is equally understood by people who speak different languages, but pronounced as a numeral of their native language. And if a digit is a sign (a digit has, as a sign should in its semiotic sense, two sides: material, visible, and ideal - a numerical value), then the phonemes that make up the numeral, and the letters (as such) that convey this numeral, are not signs. When they say and write a two-digit, three-digit, etc. number, they mean the number of digits that visually convey and denote the number. The second part of these complex a ... Read more