Recently I noticed on a Wikipedia page that there’s a number named the “MILL(IN)ILLION.” It’s not named for a “million”-- 10 to the (6th exponent), but rather 10 to the (3003rd exponent).
Using the EXPONENT to BASE NAME formula: (n - 3) / 3, ----we get ----- (3003 - 3) / 3 which is simply 3000 / 3 = 1000.
I don’t know if 10 to the (6003rd exponent) would be named a "BILL(IN)ILLION, nor 10 to the (9003rd exponent) a “TRILL(IN)ILLION” , etc.
If anyone would like to see this, go to wikipedia.com and type “NAMES OF LARGE NUMBERS” in the “search box.” The example of “MILLINILLION” will be near of the bottom of that Wikipedia page.
It’s obvious all of these quantities pale in comparison to the GOOGOLPLEX. With something that immense, you’re for the most part, dealing with fantasy, science fiction, spirituality, or metaphysics.
Welcome to the Straight Dope Message Board, CalDude, we’re glad to have you with us. When you start a thread, it’s helpful to other readers if you provide a link to the staff report (or column) that you’re referring to. Saves searching time, and helps keep us all on the same page. In this case, I think I know what you’re talking about, and I’ve added a link for you. If I’m incorrect, please email me (or REPORT this post with an explanation) and I’ll be glad to adjust.
In any case, no biggie, you’ll know for next time. And, as I say, welcome. Glad for the update from Wikipedia, although the trustworthiness of that source is… well, can be dubious.
PS - I see that when we moved to the new system, the 10[sup]9[/sup] somehow became “109”, I’ve asked that to be fixed.
I’m pretty embarrassed by the writing, but I think I should link to my old thread on large numbers here. The short version is that if you can write down the number of digits, it’s just not that large.
In fact, if you can express it in any amount of space, using any sort of notation whatsoever, it’s just not that large. The vast majority of numbers are far larger than that.
Prove it! Just give me one example of a number that’s larger than that. If you can’t give me any examples, then I refuse to believe that “The vast majority of numbers are far larger than that.”
Can’t give an example (obviously), but it’s trivially true for positive integers - for any such number you can give, there’s a finite amount of smaller numbers, but an infinite number of larger ones. It’s also true, although slightly less trivially, for other sets of numbers.
Sure: “The smallest number at least an order of magnitude larger than the current largest number humans have developed a notation system capable of notating explicitly using all of the mass in the universe.”
(I believe it’s in the vicinity of the smallest thoroughly boring number.)
When the column was converted to HTML or whatever for Web display, the coding for superscripts fell out. The text therfore reads (in relevant part)
instead of saying “it means 10[sup]9[/sup]” and “it means 10[sup]12[/sup]” respectively. There are several other places in that column where an intended 10[sup]nn[/sup] notation became 10nn.
The column is somewhat out of date, though, in that most British and Commonwealth authorities threw in the towel and converted to the American use some time ago. “Long scale billion” is now the preferred term for what used to be called “British billion”, etc., and “short scale” is the (mostly unnecessary) term for what used to be called “American”.
I don’t know what is meant by this claim… “Any amount of space, using any sort of notation whatsoever”? Surely, everything can be expressed in some amount of space in some system of notation (indeed, you can always consider notation systems contrived to “express” that particular thing in pretty much no space at all).
ETA: I suppose what’s meant is “For every fixed system of notation, the vast majority of numbers are not expressible in human-feasible length in that system of notation”. Note, though, that this is different from “The vast majority of numbers are such that, for every system of notation, they are not expressible in human-feasible length in that system”…
The vast majority of numbers are not expressible at all, with any notation system. The set of real numbers is uncountably infinite, remember, so between any two numbers are an infinite amount of numbers, an infinite amount of which will not be expressible.
