Could anyone tell me how to say this number?
Bureaucrat
I'm looking for a way that one would write or say this number:
5,958,935,980,362,645,825,116,105,949,047,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00
0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
Thanks!
Kate
John Eric Hanson
some bad information third hand:
five quadrillillillillillion nine hundred fifty eight trillillillillillion
nine hundred thirty five billillillillillion three hundred sixty two
millillillillillion six hundred forty five decillillillillion eight hundred
twenty five novillillillillion one hundred sixteen octillillillillion one
hundred five septillillillillion nine hundred forty . . .
I am basing this on something I heard from someone who read something which
suggested that large numbers can be named by cycling from million to billion
to trillion to quadrillion to . . . decillion then millillion, billillion,
etc. Adding a new ill at every cycle.
If anyone with a more authoratative reference would like to step forward and
correct me please feel free.
-JEH
Seraph-sama
>suggested that large numbers can be named by cycling from million to billion
>to trillion to quadrillion to . . . decillion then millillion, billillion,
>etc. Adding a new ill at every cycle.
>
>If anyone with a more authoratative reference would like to step forward and
>correct me please feel free.
All the "illions":
million
billion
trillion
quadrillion
quintillion
sextillion
septillion
octillion
nonillion
decillion
undecillion
duodecillion
tredecillion
quatterodecillion
quindecillion
sexdecillion
septemdecillion
octodecillion
vigintillion
maybe I misspelled a few.
---
Seraph-sama
16/m, so don't call me "sera" or nothin'
Lynn Killingbeck
You already did 'write' it, so that takes care of the 'write' part of
you question.
I'd say
"Five,
nine,
five,
eight,
..." (fill in the monotonous words)
:)
Lynn Killingbeck
Nathaniel Silver
>I'm looking for a way that one would write or say this number:
>
>5,958,935,980,362,645,825,116,105,949,047,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
>000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00
>0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
The number is relatively close to 6*10^54.
So you can say "approximately
6 times 10 to the 54th power,"
that is, 6 followed by 54 zeros.
Barnaby Finch
<mat...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
More like 6*10^162 - you counted each group of THREE zeros as 1 increment
in the 10's exponent.
Keith Ramsay
serap...@aol.com (Seraph-sama) writes:
|million
|billion
|trillion
|quadrillion
|quintillion
|sextillion
|septillion
|octillion
|nonillion
|decillion
|undecillion
|duodecillion
|tredecillion
|quatterodecillion
That's quattuordecillion in my dictionary.
|quindecillion
|sexdecillion
|septemdecillion
I think it's septendecillion.
|octodecillion
You skipped novemdecillion
|vigintillion
|
|maybe I misspelled a few.
In the system used in the U.S., the word having a latin prefix
for "n" (n-illion) stands for 10^{3*(n+1)}, while in the British
system it stands for 10^{6n}. The U.S. based its system on the
French one at the time (like we decided to drive on the right) but
they've since changed theirs to be like the British system, and I
hear that British newspapers now use "billion" for 10^9 instead of
for 10^12.
Unfortunately, even in the British system, for this number one needs
the prefix corresponding to 27, and the dictionary I have only goes up
to vigintillion (vigin- associated with 20). There's also centillion
(10^303 or 10^600) but that doesn't help. I seem to remember there
being an extension for larger prefixes. Something like, "Five
septenvigintillion, nine hundred fifty-eight thousand nine hundred
thirty-five sexvigintillion, nine hundred eighty thousand three
hundred sixty-two quinvigintillion, six hundred forty-five thousand
eight hundred twenty-five quattuorvigintillion, one hundred sixteen
thousand one hundred five trevigintillion, nine hundred forty-nine
thousand forty-seven duovigintillion" in the British system, and
something messy involving latin prefixes up to 53 in our system.
It might be good to use the word "a googol" for 10^100 here. The
number of googols in the number is either "five hundred ninety-five
decillion, eight hundred ninety-three thousand five hundred ninety-
eight nonillion, thirty-six thousand two hundred sixty-four octillion,
five hundred eighty-two thousand five hundred eleven septillion,
six hundred ten thousand five hundred ninety four sextillion, nine
hundred four thousand seven hundred quintillion" in the British
system, or "five hundred ninety-five novemdecillion, eight hundred
ninety-three octodecillion, five hundred ninety-eight septendecillion,
thirty-six sexdecillion, two hundred sixty-four pentedecillion,
five hundred eighty-two quattuordecillion, five hundred eleven
tredecillion, six hundred ten duodecillion, five hundred ninety-four
undecillion, nine hundred four decillion, seven hundred nonillion".
So adding "googol" to either one of those should count as a reasonable
number name, I say.
Really though, sticking to this kind of number naming system is not
very practical, and if you want to communicate such a number to
someone orally, you'd be better off working it out some other way.
Reading it in scientific notation, "Five point nine five eight nine
three... times ten to the one hundred sixty-two" is probably about as
good as any way. Try to spare people having to count zeros at the end
of a number or the order of magnitude of a number if you can.
There's a poster outside of the math-physics library at the University
of Colorado which asks what you get if you put fourteen septillion
four hundred sextillion (written out in decimal, of course) teachers
into a Volkswagon? Why, a black hole! It has a cartoon drawing
of a long line of people behind a guy standing on top of a car with
a plumber's helper pushing someone in through the top.
Keith Ramsay
DWIII
>All the "illions":
>million
>billion
>trillion
>quadrillion
>quintillion
>sextillion
>septillion
>octillion
>nonillion
>decillion
>undecillion
>duodecillion
>tredecillion
>quatterodecillion
>quindecillion
>sexdecillion
>septemdecillion
>octodecillion
>vigintillion
>maybe I misspelled a few.
Very close... according to Webster's 7th, quattuordecillion,
septendecillion... and you skipped novemdecillion. Webster's also lists
centillion (10^303 Amercan, 10^600 British), skipping all denominations
higher than the vigintillion.
The 1986 Guinness Book lists the googol (10^100) as ten duotrigintillion
(American system). Therefore, it would appear that 10^120 is a
"novemtrigintillion" (9 + 30 + 1 groups of "000"), and 10^420 is a
"novemtrigincentillion" (9 + 30 + 100 + 1 groups of "000"). Does anyone
know the proper prefix-root forms for "40", "50", "60", "70", "80", and
"90"?
Anyway, I see no reason to stop there. Since the system already uses
"deci-" and "centi-", why not use all metric fractional prefixes? This
would give:
decillion = 10^33
centillion = 10^303
millillion = 10^3003 = 10^(1000^1 + 3)
micrillion = 10^3000003 = 10^(1000^2 + 3)
nanillion = 10^(1000^3 + 3)
picillion = 10^(1000^4 + 3)
femtillion = 10^(1000^5 + 3)
attillion = 10^(1000^6 + 3)
zeptillion = 10^(1000^7 + 3)
yoctillion = 10^(1000^8 + 3)
Uh, oh... ran out of prefixes! :-( BTW, the American version of that
last one has 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,003 zeroes, and the British
version (10^(1,000,000^8)) has
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 zeroes
(somewhat difficult to write out in full).
....
DWIII
DWIII
>Anyway, I see no reason to stop there. Since
>the system already uses "deci-" and "centi-",
>why not use all metric fractional prefixes? This
>would give:
>decillion = 10^33
>centillion = 10^303
>millillion = 10^3003 = 10^(1000^1 + 3)
>micrillion = 10^3000003 = 10^(1000^2 + 3)
>nanillion = 10^(1000^3 + 3)
>picillion = 10^(1000^4 + 3)
>femtillion = 10^(1000^5 + 3)
>attillion = 10^(1000^6 + 3)
>zeptillion = 10^(1000^7 + 3)
>yoctillion = 10^(1000^8 + 3)
>Uh, oh... ran out of prefixes! :-( BTW, the
>American version of that last one has
>1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,003 zeroes,
>and the British version (10^(1,000,000^8)) has
>1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
>000,000,000,000,000,000 zeroes (somewhat
>difficult to write out in full).
Ooops... that should read:
decillion = 10^33
centillion = 10^303
millillion = 10^3003 = 10^(3*1000^1 + 3)
micrillion = 10^3000003 = 10^(3*1000^2 + 3)
nanillion = 10^(3*1000^3 + 3)
picillion = 10^(3*1000^4 + 3)
femtillion = 10^(3*1000^5 + 3)
attillion = 10^(3*1000^6 + 3)
zeptillion = 10^(3*1000^7 + 3)
yoctillion = 10^(3*1000^8 + 3)
where "yoctillion" has 3,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,003 zeroes
(American), or 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 zeroes (British).
....
DWIII
Clifford J. Nelson
Bureaucrat wrote:
> Hello.
> I'm looking for a way that one would write or say this number:
>
> 5,958,935,980,362,645,825,116,105,949,047,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
> 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00
> 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Kate
Bucky Fuller's way is practical but it will probably never catch on.
From http://www.servtech.com/~rwgray/synergetics/synergetics.html
1231.00 Cosmic Illions
1231.01 Western-world humans are no longer spontaneously cognizant of the
Greek or Latin number prefixes like dec-, or non-,or oct-, nor are they able
spontaneously to formulate in appropriate Latin or Greek terms the larger
numbers spoken of by scientists nowadays only as powers of ten. On the other
hand, we are indeed familiar with the Anglo-American words one, two, and
three, wherefore we may prefix these more familiar designations to the
constant illion, suffix which we will now always equate with a set of three
successive zeros. (See Table 1238.80.)
1231.02 We used to call 1,000 one thousand. We will now call it oneillion.
Each additional set of three zeros is recognized by the prefixed number of
such three-zero sets. 1,000,000= two-illion. 1,000,000,000 is 1 threeillion.
(This is always hyphenated to avoid confusion with the set of subillion
enumerators, e.g., 206 four-illions.) The English identified illions only
with six zero additions, while the Americans used illions for every three
zeros, starting, however, only after 1,000, overlooking its three zeros as
common to all of them. Both the English and American systems thus were forced
to use awkward nomenclature by retaining the initial word thousand as
belonging to a different concept and an historically earlier time. Using our
consistent illion nomenclature, we express the largest experientially
conceivable measurement, which is the diameter of the thus-far-observed
Universe measured in diameters of the nucleus of the atom, which measurement
is a neat 312 fourteenillions. (See Sec. 1238.50.)
Copyright © 1997 Estate of R.
Buckminster Fuller
So, figure out how to say 5,958,935,980,362,645,825,116,105,949,047 and then
fortyfour-illion for the zeroes.
Cliff Nelson
Jeremy Boden
<burea...@aol.com> writes
>Hello.
>I'm looking for a way that one would write or say this number:
>
>5,958,935,980,362,645,825,116,105,949,047,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
>000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00
>0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
>
>Thanks!
>
>Kate
You just did.
--
Jeremy Boden
G. A. Edgar
<kra...@aol.commangled> wrote:
> In the system used in the U.S., the word having a latin prefix
> for "n" (n-illion) stands for 10^{3*(n+1)}, while in the British
> system it stands for 10^{6n}. The U.S. based its system on the
> French one at the time (like we decided to drive on the right) but
> they've since changed theirs to be like the British system, and I
> hear that British newspapers now use "billion" for 10^9 instead of
> for 10^12.
According to the New Fowler's Modern English Usage, the term "billion"
should now be understood to mean "thousand million" everywhere in the
English-speaking world.
--
Gerald A. Edgar ed...@math.ohio-state.edu
Department of Mathematics telephone: 614-292-0395 (Office)
The Ohio State University 614-292-4975 (Math. Dept.)
Columbus, OH 43210 614-292-1479 (Dept. Fax)
Oscar Lanzi III
--OL
Oscar Lanzi III
higher numbers. DWIII forgot to multiply the powers of 1000 by 3, or
could use a base of 1000 and "+1" instead of "+3".
--OL
DWIII
Yes, that seems like a better way of expressing such numbers:
1000^(1000^n + 1), where n corresponds to the appropriate Latin prefix
(starting with milli- for n=1). Of course, the British version of each
denomination would take the (more logical) form: 1,000,000^(1000^n).
....
DWIII
Clive Tooth
> Hello.
> I'm looking for a way that one would write or say this number:
>
> 5,958,935,980,362,645,825,116,105,949,047,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
> 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00
> 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Kate
Name of number:
five trequinquagintillion,
nine hundred fifty eight doquinquagintillion,
nine hundred thirty five unquinquagintillion,
nine hundred eighty quinquagintillion,
three hundred sixty two novemquadragintillion,
six hundred forty five octoquadragintillion,
eight hundred twenty five septenquadragintillion,
one hundred sixteen sexquadragintillion,
one hundred five quinquadragintillion,
nine hundred forty nine quattuorquadragintillion,
forty seven trequadragintillion
To get this result I used the number namer at:
http://reality.sgi.com/chongo/number/number.html
To see some _really_ large numbers named have a look at:
http://reality.sgi.com/chongo/prime/merdigit/
--
Clive Tooth
http://www.pisquaredoversix.force9.co.uk/
End of document