Has google had a google hits?
It’s googol. A 1 followed by 100 zeros. Considering a trillion is only 12 zeros, no.
Google has had approximately 0% of a googol hits.
Do you have any idea how large a googol is? It’s 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 or 10[sup]100[/sup].
I might believe Google has had 100,000,000,000 hits, but that’s only 10[sup]11[/sup] or 1/10[sup]89[/sup] of a Googol. The history of the universe won’t be nearly long enough to reach a Googol.
If the observable universe were packed solid with neutrons there would still only be room for about 10[sup]86[/sup] of them. Don’t get me started on a googolplex…
Good god no. That number is almost incomprehensible in size.
Depends on how much porn continues to accumulate on the internet.
Google did 1.7 trillion searches last year. And that’s just searches, add all the hits to all the google servers and the number might be getting… well, still nowhere near a googol.
Okay, let’s say at the rate of 10[sup]10[/sup] [10,000,000,000 or 10 billion) hits every 5 years, the time it would take to reach a googol would be:
100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years.
Or, 10[sup]86[/sup] years.
:eek:
I believe I screwed up my math before the edit window.
But let’s so it this way, as it seems like a conservative number of hits for Google in a year anhow, we can get a better idea on how big a googol is.
**So, at 10 billion hits a year, it’d take:
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years for Google to achieve a googol hits.
Or, 10[sup]90[/sup] years.**
Ohh, ok. A real figure. At 1 trillion hits every year, it’d take:
(2* 10[sup]12[/sup]) * 10[sup]88[/sup] * =
20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years.
Dammit! It’s late, it should be this, at 2 trillion hits a year:
(10[sup]100[/sup] * .10[sup]12[/sup]) * 2 = 2[sup]88[/sup]
20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years.
I’m going to sleep now, wake me up when we reach 10[sup]33[/sup]
But it’s already almost 2 trillion per year now and has continued growing year over year for over 10 years.
So if we assume 10 trillion searches in the next 5 years, 15 trillion in the 5 after that, etc. and that growth rate continued indefinitely, then in 50 years they would be getting something like 150 trillion searches per year.
Then add to that all other ‘hits’ to google like gmail, google translate, google maps, google apps, webmaster tools, etc. and, what with the new iPhone out and everything, well then it still isn’t anywhere close, but its closer.
Instead of a fraction of a grain of sand compared to 100,000,000 planet Earths, its more like at least 2 or 3 fractions of a grain of sand. Don’t sell them short!
I’ll let our cybernetic, biogenetically evolved human descendents worry about the accounting.
The irony? I used Google to calculate the exponents. I just lowered that Google/googol figure by a tiny fraction of the Planck length compared to the size solar system.
Suffice to say, even if the Google search engine lasts the remainder of human existence, there is no way it will get even remotely close to a googol hits before the heat death of the universe.
That was sufficed all the way back in post #3.
Mapcase’s Theorem: Over time, the percentage of posts on the Internet that merely repeat what have been said earlier in the thread will approach and then equal 100.
Mapcase’s Lemma: At that point, the Internet will thereupon disappear up its own message box.
Just step into any .999… = 1 thread (there’s one going on right now) to see this in action.
And what about Bing?
How about packing it solid with neutrinos then?
And yet the sad part is that even a googolplex is ridiculously small compared to, say, Graham’s Number, because a googolplex can easily be written as an exponent and you don’t even need to go to a second tier when 10[sup]10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000[/sup] takes less than a minute to write. Mega, a.k.a. “two in the circle”, and not to be confused with “mega” as in “megaparsec”, is way bigger, but can still be written as a tower of exponents, which Graham’s number can’t.
It won’t keep growing forever though, nothing can:
That said, if you want to see some really big numbers, calculate the number of different images even a low-resolution computer monitor (1980s) can display; for example, 640x480 at 16 colors (4 bits per pixel), which comes out to 2 ^ (307,200 pixels x 4 bpp) or 4.557 x 10^369,905 (you can calculate this with this Java applet).
How much is a Bing?