Talk:Orders of magnitude (numbers)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:275305224 (number))

Dimensionless numbers[edit]

I believe the entries for the Planck time, length and mass are out of place here, since the page is about dimensionless quantities. These belong on Orders of magnitude (time), Orders of magnitude (length) and Orders of magnitude (mass), respectively (some are already there). The ones concerning storage amounts probably shouldn't be here either (Orders of magnitude (data)), but I'm less concerned about those since they're related to counts of number of bits. - dcljr 10:15, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Agreed Ian Cairns 10:56, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
removed --PhiJ 14:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:The Anome added many entries with dimensions today. [1] I think they should be removed per this discussion and the article introduction which should be changed otherwise. PrimeHunter 15:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the entries that are not dimensionless (diff). PrimeHunter 12:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rowlett[edit]

I suggest deleting the Rowlett number information, since this system is only a proposed system. The long scale and short scale systems have centuries of historical usage, and are in widespread actual usage. If anyone can indicate when Rowlett will be accepted by which authority for which userbase, please look at Talk:Rowlett. Thanks, Ian Cairns 20:42, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Can anyone answer the question "What has to happen before the Rowlett system is ready to discontinue its description as "proposed"??" 66.245.108.17 15:12, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Another question to try: Anything that has been proposed for at least 20 years but still "proposed"?? 66.245.108.17 15:18, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Remove trivia?[edit]

I think a number of irrelevant items have made it onto this page. The purpose of the page must be to facilitate comparison of small and large numbers by their order of magnitude. I therefore think the following items (or at least the bold ones) should be removed (possibly moving the material to the relevant "nn (number)" article, or the like):

  • Most (but not all) of the probability entries ("Math - Poker", "Math - Lottery")
  • BioMed - HIV: About 1.2% of all 15-49 year-old humans were infected with HIV at the end of 2001
  • Math: φ ≈ 1.618034, the golden ratio
  • Sport: In Olympic basketball, the roster limit for a team is 12 (and they are limited to wearing numbers 4 through 15).
  • Sport: In NCAA basketball, players are not to wear digits above 5, and they are limited to one or two digits, making 42 distinct combinations (although 01, 02, 03, 04, and 05 typically aren't used). Since the roster limit is typically around 12, this doesn't present that much of a problem.
  • Lit: 42, The Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything.
  • Sport: In North American professional sports, players typically wear uniform numbers from 1 to 99. In some sports, 0 and 00 are also allowed, making 101 different combinations.
  • Pol: There are 100 Senators in the United States Senate.
  • Lit: 451 degrees Fahrenheit is the ignition temperature of paper. Therefore, Ray Bradbury titled his dystopian novel about book burnings Fahrenheit 451 (not dimensionless)
  • Geo: 338,200 population of the London Borough of Croydon in 1998
  • Math: 2,147,483,647 is a Mersenne prime and a Zsigmondy number

--Niels Ø 21:12, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed at least the Pol, Sport and Geo bits. There are just too many houses of parliment; far too many sports and absurdly far too many towns, cities, countries, boroughs, etc. to include them all. Why include some and not others? There can be no sensible reason ... except, where the number is interesting in itself, for example, the populations of China or India being the two greatest in the World. I have removed the following.
Jimp 04:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Surely it makes sense to include mathematical and scientific figures only, as these come about naturally. The others are "man-made" and so are, effectively, arbitrary. There could just as well be 10 or 1000 senators in the US Senate if the political system were configured differently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul G (talk • contribs) 12:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No rounding?[edit]

I notice in this list that the (for lack of a better word) "layman's" method for determining OOM — i.e., just counting the place of the most-significant digit — is used.

The mathematically correct method is to round up at the square root of 10, or approximately 3.16. The usual compromise is to just round up from 3 (this only introduces a few percent error). So, for instance, to pick an OOM as an example:

100
(1; one)

the last two would more appropriately go into the 101 section (and, if you use the up-from-3 compromise, π should as well). Is there a reason for doing this page in the count-the-digits style rather than using the true OOM? --TreyHarris 5 July 2005 21:37 (UTC)

Rounding down, which is equivalent in this case to using the number of digits in the numbers, is probably simplest for the layperson to understand, hence the use of the "layman's" method. Putting (say) 4 in 101 would look wrong to a lot more people than would putting it in the lower category. — —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul G (talk • contribs) 12:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Values needing power of ten equivalent[edit]

The following values should have a power of ten equivalent to allow comparison with other values on the page:

—Doug Bell talk•contrib 16:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh??[edit]

The quote regarding human bacteria is quoted as both 1014 and 1015 can someone confirm which it is and edit accordingly??

Many thanks,

Aurelius —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.6.161.161 (talk) 21:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Huh?? The article says 10^12 bacteria on the body (surface), 10^14 cells in the body, 10^15 bacteria in the body. 3 different things are counted, so I see no need for editing. PrimeHunter 03:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So for each 100 cells in your solid, 3-D body, there is a bacterial cell on the 2D surface of your skin? I don't think so!
Sys Hax 05:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And there are 10 times as many bacterial cells in a few pounds of guts as there are cells in your 200-pound body? Sorry, nope!
Sys Hax 05:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the correct counts. I just commented that the article didn't claim different numbers for the same thing, which is what Aurelius said. PrimeHunter 12:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no! I wasn't challenging your quite-correct observation, I was adding to it, my point being that there are all KINDS of suspect suspiciousnesses in this article!! Here's another one: And on earth, there are only 1,000 times more ATOMS of rock than there are MOLECULES of water? The earth is a sphere 8,000 miles thick, and only the outermost 4 miles is water. Bullshit! Particularly since most of that rock and iron is at a pressure making it orders of magnitude denser than water!
Sys Hax 05:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uh... bacteria are orders of magnitude smaller than cells. And feces are mostly bacteria by mass. So... I think you're wrong. These 5 sources also think you're wrong: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gut_flora

Avogadro's number[edit]

While often seen as dimensionless, Avogadro's number is only meaningful in the context of the International System of Units (gram or litre). In a stricter sense, it has SI units of mol−1. Does it really belong here? Owen× ☎ 20:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But mol itself is dimensionless, isn't it? --jftsang 11:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To be specific: in SI, the mole is a base unit (mol), with the physical dimension of "amount of substance". The Avogadro constant NA has the dimensions of mol-1, while the Avogadro number (which can be considered to be the product of NA by 1 mole), itself, is dimensionless. I believe it should belong here, but worded more precisely. DWIII (talk) 05:20, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary sequence members[edit]

The following current entries in the list appear to be rather arbitrary members of long or infinite sequences. They are not the largest, smallest, unique, or otherwise special of something as far as I know. I suggest to remove them. I don't think their order of magnitude says something relevant for this list. Some of them can be replaced by the largest known number of their kind (already listed in some cases).

  • Mathematics: 10-12 Roughly the chances of getting heads 40 times in a row on a fair coin.
  • Mathematics: 365,596 solutions to n-Queens Problem for n = 14
  • Mathematics - Chess: There are 2 279 184 solutions to n-Queens Problem for n = 15
  • Mathematics: 14,772,512 solutions to n-Queens Problem for n = 16
  • Mathematics: 95,815,104 solutions to n-Queens Problem for n = 17
  • Mathematics: 2,147,483,647 is a Mersenne prime.
  • Mathematics: 27,704,267,971 and 27,704,267,977 are sexy primes.
  • Mathematics: 258,584,046,368 is the number of domino tilings of a 10×10 checkerboard.
  • Mathematics: 53,060,477,521,960,000 is the number of domino tilings of a 12×12 checkerboard.
  • Mathematics: 2,305,843,009,213,693,951 (261-1) is a Mersenne prime
  • Mathematics: 2,833,419,889,721,787,128,217,599 (≈2.8×1025) is a Woodall prime.
  • Mathematics: 2,444,888,770,250,892,795,802,079,170,816 is the number of domino tilings of a 16×16 checkerboard.
  • Mathematics: 1,298,074,214,633,706,835,075,030,044,377,087 (≈1.3×1034) is a Carol prime
  • Mathematics: 548,943,583,215,388,338,077,567,813,208,427,340,288 is the number of domino tilings of a 18×18 checkerboard.
  • Mathematics: 53,694,226,297,143,959,644,031,344,050,777,763,036,004,353 (≈5.4×1044) is a Pierpont prime
  • Mathematics: 393,050,634,124,102,232,869,567,034,555,427,371,542,904,833 (≈3.9×1045) is a Cullen prime
  • Mathematics: 359,334,085,968,622,831,041,960,188,598,043,661,065,388,726,959,079,837 (≈3.6×1054) is a prime Bell number
  • Mathematics: 475,420,437,734,698,220,747,368,027,166,749,382,927,701,417,016,557,193,662,268,716,376,935,476,241 (≈4.8×1072) is a Fibonacci prime

Any comments? PrimeHunter 23:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I love primes, and I don't have anything against chess or checkers, so I suggest these two additions:

Since the games are actually played on 8x8 boards, these are special values (although 92 may be too small to be interesting). PrimeHunter 00:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, as long as it doesn't leave a section empty. If an arbitrary Carol prime number is the only example we have for 1033 to 1036, we may as well leave it there. Owen× ☎ 01:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I will try to come up with a more interesting property in that interval. The approximate chance of 40 heads in a row is the only entry for 10-12 (except for pico which is not bulleted), and many other negative exponents have no entry. PrimeHunter 02:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with all your deletions. My 10-times snake-eyes should eventually be removed too, once we find something not as arbitrary for that range. The mass values for the electron/proton/carbon in kilograms don't belong here either, but can be left as placeholders for now. Owen× ☎ 01:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I expect to add some computational records for large numbers later (hopefully in less than a year this time). It's hard to come up with other things than probabilities for small dimensionless numbers. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scrabble[edit]

The claim made under "Larger than 10100" about arrangements of Scrabble tiles omits to mention whether:

  • each of the arrangements consists solely of valid words
  • each of the the arrangements is connected — if you put 50 of the tiles in the first four rows and the other 50 in the bottom four rows, then you don't have a valid arrangement of tiles irrespective of whether or not the horizontal and vertical runs of tiles spell valid words.

The first is obviously highly unlikely, because the number of arrangements consisting of valid words isn't neatly expressible using factorials. Whether or not the second is intended is less clear. I think these points should be mentioned, perhaps with a (brief, if possible) explanation of where the quotient of factorials comes from. — Paul G 12:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BREAK![edit]

This article is not too long KB wise but has far too many sections which should be individual articles. It is very hard to even follow this not to mention not everyone gets the scientific notation. -- Cat chi? 21:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the content should be split, but the lead should probably explain the scientific notation before the TOC. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moser's number[edit]

Can someone who knows change this part? The entry is currently ridiculous. Hash2o (talk) 22:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"10 in a square" (approximately equal to 10↑↑11) is much smaller than mega (which is "256 in a square"), so it's much smaller than Moser. So I edited that part. --118.220.2.243 (talk) 05:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

XONA?[edit]

They(the scientists) adopted the prefix xona-? I am truly vexed by this, that is impossible, it is not in the news. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.246.250.63 (talk) 00:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

xona and xonto were added to the article by 90.196.175.198 during a sequence of edits.[2] The IP has no other edits than this article around that time. According to SI prefix#Extension, xenta (not xonto) and xona have been proposed among others. I have not found support for the ISO claim by 90.196.175.198. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The new account HPsiEPsi replaced them [3] with "theta" and "theto" which I'm also unable to confirm. I have removed them [4] without restoring "xona" and "xonto". PrimeHunter (talk) 11:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Planets and dwarf planets[edit]

Changed "Astronomy: 8 planets in the solar system" to "Astronomy: 8 Non Dwarf planets in the solar system" Since there is no Distinct name for a Planet vs Dwarf planet. This is to add the idea of size/catigorization since there are more then 8 planets of some kind in our solar system. Mementh (talk) 22:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Including wikilinks, you changed "8 planets in the solar system" to "8 Non Dwarf planets in the solar system". I have reverted [5] to the version which links correctly to planet. That article explains there are 8 planets. Dwarf planets are not planets and I don't think they should be linked instead of planets in an entry about planets. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Links from 10^12, 10^15, 10^18 ...[edit]

I found that 10^12 redirected here but 10^15 redirected to Names of large numbers#The "standard dictionary numbers". I noted that 10^9 redirected to 1000000000 (number); and 1000000000000 (number), 1000000000000000 (number) and 1000000000000000000 (number) redirected here.* Noting also that redirecting to the appropriate section in this article gives you the actual number you're after whereas the section in the other article to which 10^15 had redirected was just a list of number names, I redirected 10^15 here inline with 10^12. I've also just created 10^18 as a redirect here. The pattern could continue.

*But note how 1000000000000000000000 (number) redirects to Zetta-.

JIMp talk·cont 00:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added two more. I've forgotten to mention one of the main motivations for this. Linking via such redirects allows for a simple way of explaining the meaning of a term by hovering over a link with a mouse, compare e.g. one trilliard to one trilliard or one trilliard. JIMp talk·cont 00:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Factorial[edit]

Googolplex! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.158.99.15 (talk) 23:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Using Stirling's approximation, it's easy to see that Googolplex factorial is less than , so we're not breaking any new grounds with that. Sorry! Owen× ☎ 23:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, anyway. Must be a big number, though! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.158.99.15 (talk) 23:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tower?[edit]

  • Mathematics: 999 ≈ 4.2812×10369,693,099, the largest number expressible with 3 digits.

maybe 9↑9↑9? Rich Farmbrough, 16:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Of course we can 9↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑9↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑9.. but disallowing repeated operators we could still achieve the immeasurably large 9↑9↑9 Rich Farmbrough, 17:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
You could still have 999. (see tetration) Robo37 (talk) 18:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, much neater. No operators at all which m,ay be what was meant. Rich Farmbrough, 18:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
And what about ⑨↑⑨↑⑨..chortle.. Rich Farmbrough, 18:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

"no units"[edit]

the list has lots of examples where the numbers are those of countable quantities, such as "stars", "bacteria", "base pairs", "people", etc. Strictly speaking these are, of course, "units" and as such go outside the scope of discussing purely mathematical numbers. I still think their presence is adequate in this article though. --dab (𒁳) 10:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They should certainly be allowed and I don't think anybody will think otherwise. Calling them units seems rather contrived. I made Template:Editnotices/Page/Orders of magnitude (numbers). It's only displayed when editing the article. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
they are units. In effect, there is no reason to list "numbers of words" or "numbers of people" among arithmetical quantities any more than "numbers of years" or "numbers of meters". The result is that this list is rather a mish-mash of unrelated fields. But as long as the list remains reasonably short, there is no need to split it. --dab (𒁳) 11:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a big difference between naturally-distinct countable items such as words or people, and arbitrary measurement units like meters. An item can be measured in inches or light-years just as easily as it can in meters, but it doesn't make much sense to measure population in any unit other than "one person" or books in any unit other than words or letters. Counting years as unitless only makes sense when discussing solar system events. Listing the age of planet Earth by the number of revolutions it made around the sun is fine, but listing the half-life of an isotope in years is not. I think the definitions and the article as they stand now make perfect sense. Owen× ☎ 16:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Impossible to link to sections[edit]

It is impossible to link to sections with a url of the form /wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(numbers)#104. This seems to be a bug of wikipedia in auto-generating anchor tags of the form <a name="10-6"/>. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.202.0.41 (talk) 08:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean. These links all work: Orders_of_magnitude_(numbers)#104, Orders of magnitude (numbers)#104, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_%28numbers%29#104. But /wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(numbers)#104 or /wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(numbers) by itself without http://... in front or [[...]] around it is not a link and isn't supposed to make a link. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should factorials be included?[edit]

So, some guy went through and added every single factorial from around 15! to 30!, as well as 100!, 200!, 10,000!, and perhaps a few more which I haven't found yet...should factorials be included here? -- Black Yoshi (talk) 22:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any value in keeping such arbitrary factorials in place. the number 30! has no more significance than the number 10^30 - the section heading in which it is listed. I say remove all such factorials, unless they are the only item in a given section. Owen× ☎ 14:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1013 1014 are AWOL[edit]

Dear Nerds/Boffins/NPR listeners

ummmm... you missed a spot.

I have been distressed lately as I have learned that I have 1013 microorganisms living in my guts, yet I do not know how to conversationally express my anxiety without using the term "a gazillion" as "ten to the thirteenth power" doesn't roll of the tongue so well.

What are the terms for 1,000-trillion and 10,000-trillion? Or is it just "One Thousand Trillion" and "Ten Thousand Trillion"? (crossing my fingers hoping that 1013 is technically "1-jillion" and that 1014 is properly referred to as a "bazillion".

66.108.243.166 (talk) 10:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)Moi[reply]

So I just found out there are two different meanings for a "trillion" and I used the wrong one. So to make clear what I am asking... If I had a U.S. based checking account with infinity dollars, and somehow all the living single-celled organisms indigenous to my intestines formed a union and demanded I pay one dollar for every organism, what word to I write to describe $100,000,000,000,000 on the check?

66.108.243.166 (talk) 11:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, either meaning of a trillion is correct; it just depends on where you live in the world (and, in a way, when you lived in the world as well). In the United States, we use the short-scale system, whereby a trillion is expresed as 1 000 000 000 000, or 1012; this is the same as in modern Britain. However, in Europe, Asia, traditional Britain, and perhaps there are more nations I'm forgetting about, they use the long-scale system, whereby a trillion is expressed as 1 000 000 000 000 000 000, or 1018.
And 1013 and 1014 aren't missing, they're just part of a larger framework of 1012 -- in America, part of the larger Trillion framework, and in Europe, part of the larger Billion framework. Here, 1013 is 10 000 000 000 000, or ten trillion on the short scale and ten billion on the long scale; and 1014 is 100 000 000 000 000, or one hundred trillion on the short scale and one hundred billion on the long scale. (See long and short scales for more information.)
So, no, we didn't miss a spot. Black Yoshi (talk) 13:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point.

But math is math and 10 is 10 even if some call it ten or one hundred. I have a LD that makes scientific notation difficult for me to grasp practically. I just want to know how many 0s are followed by the 1 in the missing numbers. 66.108.243.166 (talk) 07:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)Moi[reply]

The number of zeroes is exactly the same as the value of the exponent (the superscript number) in the scientific notation. 1013 has 13 zeroes, and 1014 has 14 zeroes. So, 10x is simply 1 followed by x zeroes. Black Yoshi (talk) 11:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1.5 × 10^−6 ≠ 0.00015[edit]

You guys might want to look at just how scientific notation works. Look at http://www.purplemath.com/modules/exponent3.htm. 1.5 x 10^-6 does not equal 0.00015

This is just one of many many incorrect equations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.37.121.163 (talk) 18:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, none of those equations are incorrect; if you'll read just a little bit closer, you'll see that those decimals are in fact small percentages; thus, 1.5 × 10-6 = .0000015, or .00015%. Black Yoshi (talk) 23:13, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get some order here? (and I don't mean magnitude)[edit]

My suggestions for improving this article

  • just list one example for each category (e.g.: just one book which has 100,000 words, or one type of astrological entity that is a few billion kilometres across)
  • use examples which come close to each order of magnitude (e.g.: in describing the number 10,000, list a ship that weighs 9,990 or 10,040 tonnes, rather than one that weighs 14,330)
  • use examples which could be understood by a wide audience (e.g.: I can imagine having 100 trillion microbes in my body). The intention of giving examples is to assist readers, not to warehouse information.

Kransky (talk) 14:37, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the second one, we'd have to use examples that are over the order of magnitude, so that way they are the same number of digits (or at least the same number of digits for larger orders of magnitude). And if we just listed one example, there would be no point to this article. That's what wikilinks are for, right? Black Yoshi (Yoshi! | Yoshi's Eggs) 20:04, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Yoshi yes 5.170.119.16 (talk) 08:37, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dwarfs vs dwarves[edit]

The plural of dwarf is dwarfs (not dwarves) is it not?Bj norge (talk) 10:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Both dwarfs and dwarves are accepted as the plural of dwarf. Therefore, according MOS:ENGVAR, the version originally used in the article should be left in place. Owen× ☎ 15:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK. It is a possible (much less common) alternative spelling of the plural.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bj norge (talk • contribs) 09:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Bj norge I use both "dwarves" and "dwarfs" as if both were common, though I use "dwarfs" most of the time 5.170.119.16 (talk) 08:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10^2 long scale[edit]

I am pretty sure a long scale of 1 trillion should be 1000 billion, instead of 1 billion. Thoughts ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.76.230.223 (talk) 15:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The long scale is based on powers of one million, whereas the short scale is based on powers of one thousand. In the long scale, the number names are derived from 1,000,000n, whereas in the short scale, they're derived from 1000 x 1000n, where n is the number represented by the Latin prefix of the number name (billion = 2, quadrillion = 4, octodecillion = 18, etc.) So, the number 1012 in short scale is one trillion (10004, or 1000 x 10003), and in long scale that number is one billion (1,000,0002). Black Yoshi (Yoshi! | Yoshi's Eggs) 17:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Yoshi yes 5.170.119.16 (talk) 08:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1022 to 1023?[edit]

Someone please fill the number spaces?! — 73.47.37.131 (talk) 17:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are now 5 entries in 1022 to 1023, from Astronomy, Mathematics, and Chemistry --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 23:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 August 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 15:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Orders of magnitude (numbers) → List of orders of magnitude – I don't get it. Is (numbers) supposed to be disambiguation? If so, it doesn't seem adequate compared to Order of magnitude, which is also about numbers. Would Orders of magnitude be sufficient for this page? Should that be the title of Order of magnitude? I'm definitely open to alternative suggestions. --BDD (talk) 16:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 14:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Thing is, this article is for orders of magnitude in raw numbers; we have orders of magnitude articles for all specific measurements as well (temperature, time, velocity, etc.). Wouldn't a "List of orders of magnitude" article simply be a list of all of these? Black Yoshi (Yoshi! | Yoshi's Eggs) 04:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. I think those titles are still likely to confuse, since they look like disambiguation. Maybe titles like Orders of magnitude of numbers, Orders of magnitude of mass, etc.? --BDD (talk) 13:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support as proposed, strong for something Red Slash 17:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mayhap this article would become Order of magnitude (numbers), just like the others are Orders of magnitude (insert measurement here)? That way, the article on Orders of magnitude would become the master list. Black Yoshi (Yoshi! | Yoshi's Eggs) 03:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Orders of magnitude (numbers). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TREE(3) with Graham's function[edit]

Graham's number = g64

TREE(3) = gx

How large does x have to be, to reach the upper bound of TREE(3), by using Graham's function? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.154.66.113 (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SSCG(4) vs TREESSCG(3)(3) - Which is bigger?[edit]

SSCG(0) = 2

TREESSCG(0)(3) = TREE(TREE(3))

SSCG(1) = 5

TREESSCG(1)(3) = TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(3)))))

SSCG(2) < TREE(3)

SSCG(3) > TREETREE(3)(3)

So, what happens, if you compare SSCG(4) with TREESSCG(3)(3)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.154.68.61 (talk) 09:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which x is the biggest?[edit]

TREE(3) = x1

SSCG(3) = TREETREE(x2)(3)

Rayo's number = Rayo(10100) = SSCGSSCG(x3)(3)

Fish Number 7 = RayoRayo(x4)(10100) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.151.250.98 (talk) 07:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If x is 3, TREETREE(x)(3) is already Adam P. Goucher's TREETREE(3)(3). So, I guess, that x2 is smaller than x1. guess for x2: 3 < x2 < x1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.151.241.32 (talk) 15:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How large is ζ0?[edit]

R1(10100) is Rayo's number.

R2(10100) is already much bigger than RayoRayo(10^100)(10100). So, Rayo's number is tiny-tiny-tiny compared to R2(10100).

We do not know a good bound for R2(10100) in terms of the “Rayo-nesting”, but it has been shown, that even RayoRayo(10^219620)(10100) (Also known as fε0(10100).) would be much smaller than R2(10100) (This is the best bound, that has ever been proven.). But, we know, that this is an extremely weak bound. The actual Rayo-nesting needed to get to R2(10100) may well be of the order of RayoRayo(Rayo(10^100))(10100).

And, Fish Number 7 is Rζ0(10100). How large is ζ0? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.151.250.98 (talk) 10:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

insane roots[edit]

quora: Graham's number√Graham's number = a touch above 1

How large are Graham's number√TREE(3), TREE(3)√SSCG(3), SSCG(3)√SCG(13), SCG(13)√Loader's number, Loader's number√Rayo's number and Rayo's number√Fish number 7? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.154.64.161 (talk) 14:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SCG(n) vs Hyperfactorial array notation[edit]

Nucleaxul ≈ SCG(200)

What kind of SCG(n) would be about as large as BIGG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.154.65.5 (talk) 14:39, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@84.154.65.5 links to fandom? 5.170.119.16 (talk) 07:57, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"00000" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 00000. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 3#00000 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Jalen Folf (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NCAA Bracket[edit]

The odds of predicting a perfect NCAA bracket are 1 in 9,223,372,036,854,775,808 if you just guess or flip a coin. NCAA Source The Vital One (talk) 03:54, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@The Vital One: I don't know how many non-Americans have heard of NCAA brackets but I have added an entry with some links and explanation [6]:

References

  1. ^ Wilco, Daniel (16 March 2023). "The absurd odds of a perfect NCAA bracket". NCAA.com. Retrieved 16 April 2023.
PrimeHunter (talk) 05:10, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you --The Vital One (talk) 12:05, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@The Vital One the edit was reverted, sadly 5.170.119.16 (talk) 08:10, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

googoltriplex[edit]

should we add a googoltriplex to this list 88.110.55.255 (talk) 13:00, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TREE(3) nesting[edit]

What happened to the TREE(3) nesting of the TREE sequence? That had been used as a lower bound for SSCG(3). Why did someone get rid of it? 2603:6000:8740:54B1:1FB:5016:5EED:828C (talk) 02:35, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Orders_of_magnitude_(numbers)&oldid=1204451508"