Alright, you've probably heard that Google is derived from googol which is [img]http://mathworld.wolfram.com/images/equations/Googol/Inline1.gif[/img] or 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000. Googolplex (10^googol), on the other hand, is the much bigger brother. Some crazy facts:
[quote]An average book of 60 cubic inches can be printed with 5 x 105 '0's (5 characters per word, 10 words per line, 25 lines per page, 400 pages), or 8.3 × 103 '0's per cubic inch. The observable (i.e. past light cone) universe contains 6 × 1083 cubic inches (1.3 × π × (14 × 109 light year in inches)3). This implies that if the universe is stuffed with paper printed with '0's, it could contain only 5.3 × 1087 '0's—far short of a googol of '0's. In fact there are only about 2.5 × 1089 elementary particles in the observable universe so even if you used an elementary particle to represent each digit you still would have to make the universe's mass about a trillion times larger. Therefore a googolplex can not be written out since a googol of '0' can not fit into the observable universe.[/quote]
[quote]The time it would take to write such a number also renders the task implausible: if a person can write two digits per second, it would take around about 1.51 × 1092 years, which is 1.1 × 1082 times the age of the universe, to write a googolplex.[/quote]
[quote]According to recent studies, it would take 20,000,000,000,000 (twenty trillion) gigabytes of space in a computer to house a Microsoft word document containing a typed googolplex .[/quote]
[quote]Thinking of this another way, consider printing the digits of a googolplex in unreadable, one-point font. TeX one-point font is 0.35145989 mm per digit, so it would take about 3.5 × 1096 meters to write a googolplex in one-point font. The observable universe is estimated to be 8.80 × 1026 meters, or 93 billion light-years, in diameter, so the distance required to write the necessary zeroes is longer than the estimated universe; however, text wrapping would make this task possible.[/quote]
[quote]One googol is also presumed to be greater than the number of hydrogen atoms in the observable universe, which has been variously estimated to be between 1079 and 1081. A googol is also greater than the number of Planck times elapsed since the Big Bang, which is estimated at about 8 × 1060.[/quote]
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Creating a thread of mostly copy and paste without even citing his source." - ventilated))[/highlight]
:aaaaa:
cool facts compadre
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Memeshit. You know better than this, stop it." - ventilated))[/highlight]
Now divide it by Zero.
Why do we need this as a number?
I remember when i watched a documentary about that guy who cheated on Who wants to be a millionaire. The last question was something about Googolplex and i got it right. I was all like
:smug:
I don't really see how it's all that awesome, it's just another number.
Unless I'm missing something.
It's a very, VERY big number.
[QUOTE=tarkata14;17520438]I don't really see how it's all that awesome, it's just another number.
Unless I'm missing something.[/QUOTE]
I guess it's the fact that something that is bigger than the estimated universe can be represented in a pretty small way. Or the sheer size of the number.
Clarkkkkson.
+1 = 0?
In all of your quotes the "^" symbol is missing.
Cool, 20 trillion gigabytes of text for googolplex!
2.5 × 1089
So there's only around 2 722,5 particles in the universe? Or 2722,5x particles (where x is a variable)?
Author should learn some math...
[QUOTE=Hammertime;17520733]2.5 × 1089
So there's only around 2 722,5 particles in the universe? Or 2722,5x particles (where x is a variable)?
Author should learn some math...[/QUOTE]
9 should be the power of or something, the copy paste messed up.
[QUOTE=bravojr;17520381]Now divide it by Zero.[/QUOTE]
It's easy to divide by Zero, I don't know why people make a kerfuffle over it.
1/0 = 0
2/0 = 0
10/0 = 0
100/0 = 0
1000/0 = 0
10000/0 = 0
It is simple.
[QUOTE=radioactive;17520798]It's easy to divide by Zero, I don't know why people make a kerfuffle over it.
1/0 = 0
2/0 = 0
10/0 = 0
100/0 = 0
1000/0 = 0
10000/0 = 0
It is simple.[/QUOTE]
-E-
It would be
0/1 = 0
0/2 = 0
0/10 = 0
0/100 = 0
0/1000 = 0
0/10000 = 0
Mind = Blown
[QUOTE=Hammertime;17520733]2.5 × 1089
So there's only around 2 722,5 particles in the universe? Or 2722,5x particles (where x is a variable)?
Author should learn some math...[/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure the × should be a ^
The bigger brother is Googolduplex and the father is googoltriplex.
[QUOTE=Zyx;17520909]I'm pretty sure the × should be a ^[/QUOTE]
No, it should be an E.
Which is short for n x10^(number2)
[QUOTE=radioactive;17520798]It's easy to divide by Zero, I don't know why people make a kerfuffle over it.
1/0 = 0
2/0 = 0
10/0 = 0
100/0 = 0
1000/0 = 0
10000/0 = 0
It is simple.[/QUOTE]
No that equals division by zero error.
[QUOTE=Hammertime;17520733]2.5 × 1089
So there's only around 2 722,5 particles in the universe? Or 2722,5x particles (where x is a variable)?
Author should learn some math...[/QUOTE]
It's 2.5 × 10^89
I think you should learn some math.
There's only between 1079 and 1081 hydrogen atoms in the obeservable universe?
Edit
I see what they mean 10^79.
i learned this number when i was 8 on a kids tv show
[QUOTE=radioactive;17520798]It's easy to divide by Zero, I don't know why people make a kerfuffle over it.
1/0 = 0
2/0 = 0
10/0 = 0
100/0 = 0
1000/0 = 0
10000/0 = 0
It is simple.[/QUOTE]
The correct answer to all of those is undefined.
[QUOTE=Master117;17521217]It's 2.5 × 10^89
I think you should learn some math.[/QUOTE]
2.5 x 10^[b]89[/b]
TH89
:wtc:
Apparently there's only 1080 hydrogen atoms in the universe? What?
[QUOTE=Hammertime;17520733]2.5 × 1089
So there's only around 2 722,5 particles in the universe? Or 2722,5x particles (where x is a variable)?
Author should learn some math...[/QUOTE]
Scientific notation
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
