Big Numbers

[Kat]

Learned something at work today. We were talking about big numbers. I think some of you might enjoy this. See the table on this site for the differences between U.S. and U.K. numbering.

The big numbers past a trillion, in ascending powers of ten (in parentheses), are as follows:

million (6)

billion (9)

trillion (12)

quadrillion (15)

quintillion (18)

sextillion (21)

septillion (24)

octillion (27)

nonillion (30)

decillion (33)

undecillion (36)

duodecillion (39)

tredecillion (42)

quattuordecillion (45)

quindecillion (48)

sexdecillion (51)

septendecillion (54)

octodecillion (57)

novemdecillion (60)

vigintillion (63)

centillion (108)

I still don't know how much a brazillian or a gazillion is :-)

Kat

(edit - I had to disable the smileys because a happy face with shades popped up every time I typed 8)

[Aaron]

Hadn't heard of the 11-20 based ones before. Assuming US, centillion is 10 ^ 303.

[Roger Bissell]

Kat wrote:

I had to disable the smileys because a happy face with shades popped up every time I typed 8)

Kat, all is not lost. I've run into this problem before, myself, and I found that there is a simple way to avoid generating an unwanted smiley, when you need to type a number eight followed by a parenthesis. Simply put a space between the number eight and the parenthesis! Here is the difference in how it looks with and without the space:

8 ) (with the space)

8) (without the space)

REB

[Kat]

Thanks, Roger, for that tip. I will put that up in the tech support thread on smilies.

:D/ O:) 8-[ =P~ :D/ 8) 8 )

Kat

[Jody Gomez]

Well, I certainly know what a 'brazillian' is!! As for a gazillion, I think that would refer to the number of daily, unfounded attacks on MSK.

[Charles R. Anderson]

Jody,

I think a gazillion is even larger than that. Isn't it about the number of irrational thoughts that the world's population has in a month?

[MBM]

The big numbers past a trillion, in ascending powers of ten (in parentheses), are as follows:

Don't forget the "googol" (1 followed by 100 zeroes -- some mathemetician asked his

toddler to name it). Not to be confused with the mega website "Google".

[John Dailey]

KAT:

~ Thanx for that table (and the site ref). Will print it out for Joey (and, as a ref for moi).

~ Re your questions about Brazillions and Gazillions:

~ Never heard of "Brazillions" before. Mike's really having an influence on you, huh? However, upon 'thinking' Objectively about this, I find associationally quite-relevent connotations coming to mind, and, finding no consensual denotative establishment of a definition, yet, being aware that there MUST be some semi-clear meaning to some people re these terms' useability, I have found a quite sensible set of meanings to the terms. To wit: As shown in Akeelah and the Bee , any proper analysis of terms oftentimes requires a breakdown of it into it's proper component parts.

~ So, "Brazillion" is atomizable to 'Bra' and 'Zillion'. Now, what meaning can be ascriptable to each? 'Zillion', according to Wikipedia (don't have my 20-vol OED handy here), at most usefully best, refers to "an indefinitely large number." Conceivably, that can mean more than the highest 'named' number, Centillion (let's leave 'google' out of this, ok?) That doesn't mean that it always HAS to mean such (context, context, non?) Ergo, let's allow 'zillion' to mean nothing more than 'mucho millions'. ('zillions' would of course thence mean 'MUCHO mucho millions'.) ;) Given that quite clear premise, and 'Bra' obviously meaning '2', "Bra-zillions" means 2-zilliions. I grant that there's a still a bit of ambiguity re the 'zillions' part, but, we're talking something akin to the math arguments about infinity here, ya know. We're not at, but we are approaching Godel's type of territory. Can we say 'zillions' is in the etherea of math? Anyhoo, we're not finished.

~ Re "Gazillions", same-o same-o re atomizing. "Ga", as a prefix, clearly can have 1 and *only* 1 reference: Ga-Ga as one goes regarding Gaz-ing at Gaz-ongas. We're talking 'humongous' as a synonym. Ergo, objectively speaking, "Gazillions" is "Brazillions" multiplied by...something.

~ Hmmm...what could/might that 'something' be? Well, I see a 'pattern' involved in thinking properly (er, objectively) here, re going from 'Bra' (2, as in 'squared', as in 'area') to 'Ga' (next step: 'cubed', as in 'volume'...you know, 'Gazongas', as in 'spherical-geometry'?)

~ Ergo, 1 "Ga-zillion" is 1 "Bra-zillion" CUBED!

QED!

~ Ummm, that makes 1 Gazillion equaling, uh, 8 zillions.

~ (Ok: we still have to work out the details about 'zillion', but, whoever said higher math was easy?)

~ Stephen Hawking: eat your heart out!

~ If I can clarify anything else, lemme know.

LLAP

J:D

P.S: If anyone knows the relation between a 'zillion' and a 'googleplex', please post it here.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

John,

LOLOLOLOL...

Dayaamm! That was cute.

You should do that more often. You're very good at it.

Michael

[BruceMGF]

Learned something at work today. We were talking about big numbers. I think some of you might enjoy this. See the table on this site for the differences between U.S. and U.K. numbering.

See this site for even higher numbers, in fact, an extension of the naming conventions to accomodate any number, no matter how high:

Dr Math

Is there anything that can actually be described using these incredibly big numbers? Well, the highest prime number yet discovered (which changes a couple times a year, usually):

Highest Primes

The highest prime discovered begins with two hundred ninety nine domilliamilliaquadringentundecmillianongentnovemtillion. To read the whole thing would take a few years, by which time it would be obsolete.

Big primes, the bigger the better, are used in encryption methods.

[BaalChatzaf]

Learned something at work today. We were talking about big numbers. I think some of you might enjoy this. See the table on this site for the differences between U.S. and U.K. numbering.

The big numbers past a trillion, in ascending powers of ten (in parentheses), are as follows:

million (6)

billion (9)

trillion (12)

quadrillion (15)

quintillion (18)

sextillion (21)

septillion (24)

octillion (27)

nonillion (30)

decillion (33)

undecillion (36)

duodecillion (39)

tredecillion (42)

quattuordecillion (45)

quindecillion (48)

sexdecillion (51)

septendecillion (54)

octodecillion (57)

novemdecillion (60)

vigintillion (63)

centillion (108)

I still don't know how much a brazillian or a gazillion is :-)

Kat

(edit - I had to disable the smileys because a happy face with shades popped up every time I typed 8)

The following SI metric prefixes have been proposed based on the names of the Marx Brothers:

harpo- hr

1000^-9

10^-27

[1] Marx Bros. Harpo

groucho- gc

1000^-10

10-^30

[1] Marx Bros. Groucho

zeppo- zp

1000^-11

10^-33

[2] Marx Bros. Zeppo

gummo- gm

1000^-12

10^-36

[2] Marx Bros. Gummo

chico- ch

1000^-13

10^-39

[2] Marx Bros. Chico

For example a Chicometer wold be 1000^-13 meters.

See:

http://www.chemtutor.com/prex.htm

This sounds like there are people in the measurement naming community who have far too much idle time on their hands.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited April 17, 2007 by BaalChatzaf

[Mindy Newton]

This is a little off-topic, but, can any of you mathematicians tell me what interest the world would have in a general divisibility test?

--Mindy

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

... what interest the world would have in a general divisibility test?

Mindy,

Boom?

Michael

[Mindy Newton]

... what interest the world would have in a general divisibility test?

Mindy,

Boom?

Michael

I don't get it...

--Mindy

[BaalChatzaf]

This is a little off-topic, but, can any of you mathematicians tell me what interest the world would have in a general divisibility test?

--Mindy

If a such a test were a doable in a time which were a polynomial function of the size of the number being tested (is it prime or not prime? And if not prime, what are its factors?) then the problem of determining the primality of an integer is not NP hard and the problem of factorization will fall.

This could have consequences in solving the major problem outstanding in the field of theoretical computation: is P = NP? is it not? Or is the problem of determining whether P = NP recursively unsolvable. Getting an answer to this question is one of the Holy Grails of mathematics. In addition finding that the factorization problem is not NP hard will render every fancy method of encryption now in use rather uncertain. I can guarantee that there are people in the NSA who will cum in their pants if the problem of divisibility (therefore of factorization) turns out not to be NP hard. They will sacrifice a hekatomb (a shitload of oxen) to the Gods of Number. Even to Pythagoras Himself.

The person (or persons) that answer that question will become Very Famous in the vineyards of mathematics and the groves of academe. Also lithe and comely maidens will offer them sexual favors.*

*at the risk of sounding sexist, the person who solves the P = NP problem or makes the factorization problem not NP hard will be a male human with almost .9999 probability. Any one who wants to respond to this particular assertion might want to start a separate thread on whether males or females tend to be the better mathematicians. Right now the odds favor the males.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Mindy,

That was just a quip. Politicians often use science and math to make more and more powerful weapons. Boom makes everything into rubble, and some politicians even like to bomb that.

There's their use for divisibility: dividing the world up into rubble.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Mindy,

That was just a quip. Politicians often use science and math to make more and more powerful weapons. Boom makes everything into rubble, and some politicians even like to bomb that.

There's their use for divisibility: dividing the world up into rubble.

Michael

Don't knock it. Boom is why you are not speaking German or Japanese and why I was not turned into a cake of soap on some Nazi's bathtub. Technology is a value neutral thing. It can be used equally for good or for ill.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Mindy Newton]

Mindy,

That was just a quip. Politicians often use science and math to make more and more powerful weapons. Boom makes everything into rubble, and some politicians even like to bomb that.

There's their use for divisibility: dividing the world up into rubble.

Michael

Don't knock it. Boom is why you are not speaking German or Japanese and why I was not turned into a cake of soap on some Nazi's bathtub. Technology is a value neutral thing. It can be used equally for good or for ill.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I have the divisibility test, Ba'al, but I don't know how efficient it is compared to present methods. It does produce a factor, when succeeding. It does not require any division or estimations. I was told that a small improvement in divisibility wouldn't mean anything, that only exponential improvements are of interest. Is that true? It derives from the fact that the single-digit products of any odd number have unique terminal digits.

--Mindy

[Brant Gaede]

*at the risk of sounding sexist, the person who solves the P = NP problem or makes the factorization problem not NP hard will be a male human with almost .9999 probability. Any one who wants to respond to this particular assertion might want to start a separate thread on whether males or females tend to be the better mathematicians. Right now the odds favor the males.

Ba'al Chatzaf

All those male failures. At least the women have been having babies and writing Atlas Shrugged.

--Brant