Talk:Names of large numbers/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

2004 comments

"It was first suggested that a googolplex should be 1, followed by writing zeros until you got tired. This is a description of what would actually happen if one actually tried to write a googolplex, but different people get tired at different times and it would never do to have Carnera a better mathematician than Dr. Einstein, simply because he had more endurance." WTF? Is it just me or is this completely weird? --Dyss 19:45, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• I think it's true. It is a fact that the terms "googol" and "googolplex" were invented by a nine-year-old, and I'm pretty sure this anecdote comes from the writings of his mathematician uncle. (Independent verification would be nice, though, just in case.) --Ardonik.talk() 19:50, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

---

Comment. I'm now actively tinkering with this page, but there's a lot of work to be done, including fact-checking, since a lot of loose statements found in various place on the Web and in Wikipedia about Nicolas Chuquet, etc. don't seem to be exactly right. I've moved Very large numbers to Names of large numbers, which I think is where it should go.

I think it's time to draw a distinction between large numbers themselves and the art/science/game/history of naming them. The list I added to Large number I have now copied to Names of large numbers#Dictionary numbers, and improved (but I have not yet removed it from Large number).

It turns out that Chuquet did not exactly invent billion, trillion, quadrillion and friends. First of all, he spelled them with a y, byllion, tryllion, quadryllion etc, so Knuth collides with Chuquet's namespace. Second, one Jehan Adam used them before Chuquet did. Third, neither Adam nor Chuquet claimed authorship, and apparently the context of their references to the names suggests they were in use earlier. Fourth, Chuquet's work remained unpublished for a very long time, so he didn't directly influence anyone. In other words, the whole topic is a maze of twisty little trivia, all of them hard to pin down.

I'm going to keep nibbling away at it but I could certainly use help.

Meanwhile, anyone who want to add names to this page by all means do so but please document who coined them, where, and when and whether they've received any acceptance. Dpbsmith 02:30, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Old VfD discussion can be found here. The listing was removed early because the proposal was withdrawn and there was a strong consensus to keep the page. Guanaco 23:56, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Work in progress

This page is a work in progress. I think the column headings in the section on "extensions of the dictionary numbers" are wrong. The three columns probably reflect American, British, and European usage circa 1950, but I'm not so sure they reflect current usage. And I don't think the names "Chuquet," "Modified Chuquet" and "Pelletier" are quite right. I doubt that Chuquet has any association whatever with the thousands-based system. Oddly enough, it does as if the British millions-based names and the American thousands-based names were both adopted from French usage, but at different times.

"Milliard" is certainly a real word, but does anyone have good authority for actual usage -iard endings of higher powers? What do modern French dictionaries have to say?

I don't really know what to make of the "Chuquet-ized numbering" table. I don't have any problem with documenting coinages, but we have to say where the coinages came from. Dpbsmith 20:20, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Really large numbers

10 to the power of 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 10 to the power of...

Those sorts of the numbers in the table are really hard to understand. Is there any simpler system?

Brianjd 08:44, 17 June 2004 (UTC)

when you get into layers of exponentiation like that other forms of notation (Knuth and Conway arrows,power towers,etc) become more useful and they have their own articles.The numbers don't get named as in the article here.--L.E./12.144.5.2/[email protected]

Layers of exponentiation are problematic

On my Firefox 0.9.3, even-numbered nested exponents are rendered at the same level as the base, and odd-numbered nested exponents are rendered at the same level as the first exponent — i.e., nested <sup> tags display completely incorrectly to me. I'm sure I'm not the only one with that problem.

• 1 googleplexplexplexplexplex = 10^{1010101010100}
• 1 googleplexplexplexplexplex = 10¹⁰10¹⁰10¹⁰100

On my browser, these both look exactly like the obviously incorrect second expression. Because of this, I replaced the exponents in the huge table with TeX expressions. It looks good, but there are twelve expressions that are not rendered at all. Still, better 12 that don't display than hundreds that look bad. I've marked the expressions that refuse to render as PNGs with <!-- not rendering? --> so that a future champion will be able to tame them. --Ardonik 03:22, 6 August 2004 (UTC)

For fanciful extensions, use Other names of large numbers

84.66.195.243, please stop adding dubious entries to the section on extensions of the standard dictionary numbers. This article tries to limit itself to names that have some degree of authority to them. Many people have produced fanciful and creative extensions to the systems of number names, but none of them are more than proposals or curiosities or imaginative exercises.

1) Please make your edits to Other names of large numbers, not here. 2) Please accompany your edits with some kind of reference, citation, or authority (the book or website from which the name was taken). Dpbsmith (talk) 21:52, 15 March 2005 (UTC)

Authorities in the table

I think that instead of the current system of ticks and crosses in a variable length list, it would be better to have a narrow column for each source (number them and put a key where the abbreviation list is currently, so the column only has to be 1 or 2 character wide) and put a mark (x perhaps) for each source that sites a particular word and leave blank the ones that don't. I would do this now but don't have time. Thryduulf 10:38, 5 April 2005 (UTC)

I've now reworked the table as I proposed above, and added the entries for dictionary.com. Thryduulf 11:48, 22 April 2005 (UTC)

Google hits

Is the information on how many google hits each particular number receives really worth keeping? It just makes the article real cluttered and might even amount to original research. Peyna 22:37, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I understand your point. Yes, it's somewhere in the hazy border of between original research. But it is also somewhere on the hazy border of citing sources.

Let me explain why this material is there. This page was and is subject to constant problems from people adding various invented names for large numbers, names that are basically neologisms created for the purpose of illustrating various creative ways in which one could devise names for unimaginably large numbers which have no practical use. These run the gamut from print-published material from the likes of Donald Knuth to conlang-like curiosities posted on individual websites.

The purpose of the table and the section, which has been fairly successful, is to draw a clear, convincing bright line between what might be called "real" names and "concocted" names. The purpose of the Google hit counts is to provide some objective indication of the frequency of usage of the various words. I know some people who hate Google hit counts on principle, but they are much better than no evidence at all, and they show very clearly how even the dictionary numbers fall into three categories: those up to quintillion, which are really used; the ones from the ones from undeceillion to novemdecillion, which are really obscure; and the ones from sextillion to decillion, which are in between.

I'm not sure what the difference between the page counts and article counts is supposed to be, or who put it there or why.

It would probably make more sense to change this column to something like "Relative frequency of use," with, say, "trillion" being set to 100, and then put a note at the bottom saying that the source of the relative frequency is Google hits. What do you think? Dpbsmith (talk) 15:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the Google hits make a convenient way to check for some kind of legitimacy; but to see it on the main page is a bit out of place. Something like that is better suited for the talk page, as a way to determine whether or not it is worth of mention on the page.

That said, your suggestion is probably the best way of dealing with this presently; or even just list them in order of frequency of use from high to low without assigning a number, especially since the number of Google hits provides at best a somewhat accurate relative ranking of frequency of use, but it's absolute frequency numbers could be subject to a lot more problems. (In other words, it probably gets them in the right "order" but the "strength" assigned to each could wildly fluctuate). Peyna 16:28, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Googleplex

Isn't a googleplex a google to the power of a google? -Jawr256

• Nope. First, it's spelled "googolplex." Second, Kasner and Newman's Mathematics and the Imagination defined it as "one followed by a googol zeroes," i.e. ten to the power of a googol. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Links, and something else

I removed the statement immediately under the table which stated that undecillion, duodecillion, etc. are not included in dictionaries. They're in my Merriam-Webster's dictionary and listed (and checked as appearing in some of the dictionaries cited) in the chart. Also, why are many of the numbers (such as undecillion) linked to an article for "undecillion" then redirected back to the same article? I'm going to remove these links.Rt66lt 05:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Si Prefix

Would it be helpful to add the si prefixes in the table? --Salix alba (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Conway numbers

What does the "Conway number" system look like?? Georgia guy 16:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

To Whom It May Concern:

I saw your Large Number Denominations (LND) beyond Centillion they are not correct since they can not extend themselves far enough to reach even a Googolplex 10^(10^100) or the Googoltriplex 10^(10^(10^100)). Yes, my LND's can easily name numbers beyond these named numbers and beyond. I am John Candelaria the guy that made into the Guinness Record Books in 1985 through 1990 for devising an LND system of self perpetuating number names that made it into the GBR books. Then they decided to change their priorities from educational information to records of physical feats. So they just selved these type of records for the physical type of records. Anyway, if you would like to see how these number names are actually arrange in order to reach the mega numbers please e-mail me at this address <[email protected].>

For example, here are some LND names to taste, the 21st LND period is Viginti-million (10^66 US), not primo-vigintillion or unvigintillion. As for the hundred period LND's they begin with Ducentillion (10^603 US), Trecentillion (10^903 US), ..., Decingentillion (10^3003), not millillion, yet)... Thus,the millillion has been delayed back a thousandfold of LND's to its rightful millionth LND period place. They all work out by the following mathematical formula of if you know the LND period, you just enter it as 3(period)+3 = gives the number of zeros and the reverse by dividing the no. of zeros by 3 - 1 gives the LND period number name... I hope by touching on a few of these LND's it is clearer to see how the rest are formed...

Dear Sir,

One of the reasons why lexicographers of dicionaries have not shown a complete LND listing is because they are not sure themselves how to illustrate LND's between the 20th and the hundredth period LND. As such, I have already shown the Webster's people how to devise the best way to extend-on the LND system. By recycling the number naming analogy from the previous listing of number names. I even showed Donald E. Knuth of Stanford University years ago, and he also agreed that it was the best LND listing he has ever seen. An wholly rational LND system is proven out by its ability to extend itself beyond the googol, googolplex and Googoltriplex, ...Whithout running into any abiguious LND's. Otherwise the only thing one has listed is a short lived scheme of names that are doomed.

Yes, even Isaac Asimov before he died, wrote me back to tell me that my LND system made his head swim endlessly, and before Carl Sagan died my LND system left him speechless, probably because they were beyond his billions and billions and billions...ad infinitums. There's my proof...and then some..."I have saved the best for last by holding back another LND that extends the US/Brit. LND system of number names even further than ever before, which many people know about including the Guinness authorities, etc. It is known as the "MilliONEillion", note how it can be easily extended on and on... By ascending the internal "ONE" from "ONE" to "TWO", "THREE", "FOUR", etc...and so on... What we now have is a self perpetuting LND system of LND's that can extend indefinitely. Of course the LND names will still slowly expand out wider and wider, but not as quickly as before. The US/Brit. system of number names never had this potential before, until I showed the lexicographers how to do it in one of their main periodical reference magazines called "The Journal of Recreational Linguistics, Word Ways". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.31.97.254 (talk • contribs)

• If you want these in the article, please give some verifiable source citations that show that your names are accepted and in actual reasonably-widespread use. Many people have devised theoretical systems for naming large numbers, but as far as I know, so far, none of them have made it into dictionaries or are used in scientific writing. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Original research concerns

From the article:

Frequency of usage determined by the number of Google hits on pages in English on the web, as of September, 2005.

That is unacceptable. We can't be performing original research to try and determine the relative frequency of usage of various names for numbers, and even if that were allowed, doing it using a Google Search is an absurd methodology. Unless anyone has any compelling reasons for this original research not to be removed, it needs to be removed. --Cyde↔Weys 20:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I found that field to be doubious too. HighInBC 02:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Googolduplex vs Googolplexian

When doing a search on Google, "Googolplexian" is far more common than "googolduplex" for 10^googolplex. Which should we mention here on Wikipedia? Andros 1337 18:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• For which terms can you cite a source meeting reliable source guidelines? I don't believe either term has any real usage but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction?

Under the subheading "Usage of names of large numbers" there appears a contradiction:

He concluded that it would take less than "one thousand myriad myriad eighth numbers" (10⁷⁵) grains of sand to pack the universe solid with sand. This much sand would fill a volume larger than our galaxy, the Milky Way, but smaller than the group of galaxies it is part of, the Local Group (which would take about one million times as many grains of sand to fill).

So, would this much fill the universe, or just a volume larger than the Milky Way? Yahadreas 18:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

We think now that the Universe is bigger than Archimedes thought it was. Spacepotato 20:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Grillion

is it a real number? - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.100.48.178 (talk • contribs)

No. - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)|HISTORY} 23:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Big Numbers

Forgive me, I know wiki policy is against discussing the issue as a forum, but if anyone knows anything interesting... I'm interested in how the world names these big numbers, and when and how names of numbers are released to the public. The largest number I know of is a googolplex, or a 1 followed by a googol 0s. Does anyone know anything higher than that? --LtWinters 02:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

If they did, it would certainly be in the article.  :-) Mdotley 03:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

What's a googolexgoo?

One of my friends told me the word for googol^googol was "googolexgoo", but there is no reference to that on the internet. What is it actually called, I couldn't find it on the page. (Ztobor 21:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC))

Your friend was messing with you. Mdotley 04:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal

What do you think of merging with "long and short scales" ? Mdotley 20:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawn, per discussion on the other talk page. Mdotley 00:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Graham's, Moser's numbers

I'm far from an expert on this topic, so I leave it to someone else, but shouldn't both Graham's and Moser's numbers be listed here? They are larger than anything on the list, even Skewes' number. If they shouldn't be listed, then I would imagine that Skewes' shouldn't either. All three of these "name numbers" are not actually normal cardinals, but specific, large numbers used in math/science, of which there are probably many more. Clemenjo 02:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

So... What The Biggest US Number with on-word-name?

and what about the UK..? and... is there a full arranged list of all thus? at first i thought this is:

http://home.hetnet.nl/~vanadovv/BignumbyN.html#n6

but then i understood there is much larger numbers as googolplusplexplus...

thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.227.111 (talk) 14:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

What's the point of these links?

I was looking up "decillion" in Wikipedia, and ended up on "Names of large numbers". I found a link on the word "decillion" on this page, clicked it, and ended up on....."Names of large numbers"! What is the point for a link to send you to the page you are on already? (Under redundant, see redundant.)

[My original reason to look this up was to find out why the number is decillion instead of dekillion ("deci-" usually means one-tenth, while "deka-" means tenfold (i.e., decimeter vs. dekameter)). Any thoughts?]

Paploo 14:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[It's because deci- is latin prefix, used in both large numbers and in mesuring words. Deka-, though, is a Greek (I think...) prefix, and thus not used in large numbers.] Chagi 14:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Removing Skewe's Number and Graham's Number from list of dictionary names

Although Skewe's Number was added with checkmarks claiming it to be in AHD4, OED2, and OED2new, a quick check shows it is not, in fact, in AHD4. Graham's Number was added without any checkmarks. I don't think these are "standard dictionary names." Dpbsmith (talk) 15:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Extensions of the standard dictionary numbers--sources requested

I would like to see good, verifiable source references for the numbers above vigintillion, which is, as far as I know, the largest number name to appear in any dictionary.

If none are forthcoming, eventually I intend to remove the portion of the table dealing with numbers larger than a vigintillion, per the verifiability policy. I'm not going to do this instantly, and I will be looking for references myself, but it's about time to start providing sources or removing unsourced material in this article. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• The dictionary of numbers names http://home.comcast.net/~igpl/NWM.html mentions those numbers. I've added that source. TreeFrogz 23:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • That's just a personal website, and, regrettably, it does not cite its sources. I'm not going to do anything in a hurry, but I don't think I accept that as a reputable source within the meaning of the verifiability policy. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC) P. S. With regard to your edit comment, "How is reference to a dictionary unreliable?", obviously R. Koot does not accept that site as a real dictionary, nor do I. Wikipedia:Reliable sources says "A personal website or blog may be used only as a primary source, i.e., when we are writing about the subject or owner of the website," but actually the big problem with that page is not that it's a personal page, but that it says nothing whatsoever about how it was compiled or by whom or where they got their information. If it were, say, a page maintained by a mathematics professor at a university and it cited sources, I'd accept it even if I couldn't (or didn't want to bother to check those sources directly. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Asimov wrote an article, I believe called "T-Formation", which claimed that a googol could be referred to as "ten duotrigintillion", implying that he was familiar with the system which is there currently (below the centillion level anyway). Ben Standeven 05:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Asimov later saw that the actual number name for a googol is a large compound number name as "10 triginti-billion" (=10^100), not 10 duotrigintillion. Why because the Latin numeral names are arranged backwarks. Translated over to English it is like saying "10 twothirty" and we are are talking about the US system of consistent number names...Otherwise, we are talking about a doomed system of strange names, but not the names of consistent numbers that's for sure.

The existence or non-existence of serious sources for these Long scale or Short scale number words is irrelevant. No ordinary reader will understand them anyway. Readers who do not understand 10¹⁰⁰ supplemented by an explanation like "1 followed by 100 zeros" will not be helped by these unusual number names. So why use them at all?--Niels Ø 20:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Extension of this table past decillion seems to me like original research. Admittedly it's kind of fun to do this, but, whether or not there are other such lists (from reliable sources), if these numbers are not used in practice, they're irrelevant. --Ant 14:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed "googolplexian" (supposedly $10^{\mathrm {googolplex} }$) from the table. I haven't heard of this term before, and no reliable source was given for it. If someone can find a reliable source that uses this term (for example, a printed book or a peer-reviewed academic paper), then it can go back in. —Bkell (talk) 05:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Google searches

The smallest name that Google shows fewer than 1000 hits for is undecillion. 66.32.147.233 23:48, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Think about this system:should it be added?...or other stuff dropped?

Whooo...this article has changed since I last looked at it,I'm familiar with a number of large-number webpages (Susan Stepney's,Robert Munafo's,etc.) but not some of the stuff here.

I have a system of large-number nomenclature I've been working on myself since the 1980s,and it seems likely to have as much provenance as some of the stuff in the last section...which confusingly uses some of the same names I use for different numbers.I'm not sure my system belongs in here OR that some of the curio stuff does...I'm open to discussion.

It's based on powers of a million,allied with SI prefixes in some cases.As in Chuquet-Pelletier,the intervening thousand-multiples are -iard rather than -ion. The thousandth power of a million is a kilillion (Ondrejka's "millillion",he used Latin rather than mixing Greek),the millionth power of a million a megillion (Ondrejka's milli-millillion),and a million raised to a milliard is a gigillion (Ondrejka called this a "milli-millimillillion" and this name is listed in the Guinness Book of World Records editions of the 1970s as the highest name for a number found in linguistic literature).

I proceed to the terillion (million raised to a million million) and so to the petillion,exillion,zettillion,and yottillion (a million raised to a million million million million).At this point the SI prefixes give out and I resort to hyphenating the power of a million using its name under this system.As 10^24 is a quadrillion under this system,a million raised to 10^25 is a decaquadrillio-illion.By contrast,a thousand times this is a decaquadrillio-illiard,a million million million million decaquadrillio-illions is a decaquadrillio-quadrillion (a million raised to ((10^25)+4)),and a decaquadrillia-illion is a million raised to 10^28 (aka ten quadrilliards).The letter before the hyphen,and what side of the hyphen a letter is on,makes an enormous difference.Hyphens are NEVER used up to this level,though names of intervening numbers recapitulate the power of a million working backward from the last digit.(The 1048576th power of a million is a sexseptaginquinhectooctoquatriginkilmegillion).

This iteration goes on to the yottillio-illion (a million raised to a yottillion) before we reach the decaquadrillio-illio-illion which starts the next iteration (and is a millionth of a decaquadrillio-illio-million which is very very much smaller than a decaquadrillio-millio-illion).

This iteration proceeds to the yottillio-illio-illion and its ilk (things like the yottillia-exillia-trilliard follow,obviously) and then the hyphens start again in another generation.I have pondered introducing apostrophes in some context (the only other characters routinely encountered in words) but haven't.Obviously,all these numbers are finite,and these names most effective when used to describe the number of sides in a Moser polygon describing the number of Knuth arrows needed to express a number of Conway chained arrows,or some such permutation.But I like naming gigantic numbers too,and I don't see that my system is any less deserving of publication that that of other experimenters in this.(What of "The One Man Infinity Fears",a Mr. Candelaria who got written up in Guinness with his milli-decilli-fiveillion,I think you have to buy a book to see what it means)? Thoughts?--Louis Epstein/12.144.5.2/[email protected]

---

My thoughts. Wikipedia has a policy against personal essays and primary research; see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. It is not a publication vehicle. So if your material hasn't been published and is still a personal work in progress, well, then, no, I don't think it belongs in the article. (You're welcome to leave it here on the Talk page, of course!) But if you have it on a web page, a link to that web page would be fine. On the present page, I'd suggest perhaps a section entitled "Various proposals," with a list of references, including yours. The URLs for those other "large-number web pages" ought to be in the article, too.

As for your comment that your proposal is at least as good as some of those in the article... my thinking is that we should move toward dividing the current article into two articles. The first one would include

1 The "standard dictionary numbers" 2 Usage of names of large numbers 3 Chuquet and the origins of the "standard dictionary numbers" 4 The Googol family

and possibly

5 Extensions of the standard dictionary numbers

The other would have a title like "Proposed naming systems for very large numbers," since none of the humongous names are actually used. This new article would include the material in the current section 6, "Other systematic names of large numbers."

But, frankly, if the names in that section can't be better sourced, I think they should go. However, I'd much rather have them sourced and keep them, and I'm not in any hurry to remove them.

Any idea in what article or book Knuth proposed his myllions and byllions? And was he unaware that they conflict with the original Chuquet names, most of which also used "y?" Dpbsmith 01:03, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Munafo might know,his webpage is where I saw the myllion etc. mentioned.The "Googol family"...I believe only the Googol and Googolplex are "real",the Googolplexplex and Googolbangplex and others are more individual proposal-schemes.Thus more suited to the second article.--L.E./12.144.5.2/[email protected]

This is Munafo. I got the Knuth -yllion stuff from the same source as that used in the -yllion article (the 1981 book "Mathematical Gardener" ed. by Klarner). I have given my copy away, but could borrow one from my library network if some question needs to be answered. Robert Munafo (talk) 13:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Speaking solely for myself: you'll notice that the above dialog dates back to 2004. At that time, this article suffered from nerd oneupmanship, with continuous drive-by additions of supposed names of large numbers, usually just bald assertions without references. A sophisticated version of grade-school children seeing who can count higher. It was not at all clear which names for numbers were, like "quadrillion," in ordinary use; which were in rare use but nevertheless real English words in dictionaries; which were published proposals by reputable mathematicians in print sources; which were an idea someone had put up on a personal web page; and which were things made up in school one day.

I pushed at that time for references, for an article that drew clear distinctions, and which, on the whole, was about names of large numbers--as opposed to methodologies for generating naming systems for large numbers. And I pushed, and continued to push, for reasonably clear boundaries, to keep from sliding down the slippery slope into essays and "original research."

The -yllion article is perfectly appropriate because it says clearly that it is a proposal by Knuth, not a series of real words that have entered the English language, and because IMHO Knuth and his proposal obviously have enough stature to warrant inclusion... as a separate article.

This article might well have a sentence somewhere mentioning Knuth's proposal and linking to the -yllion article.

As far as references go, my feeling is that if you wanted to reference the Mathematical Gardener here you could just copy the reference. I'm not a maven on verifiability, but the spirit of the requirement is that someone should be able to check the reference if they care. Given that the reference in -yllion gives title, author, and page number, it is verifiable. It's not usually the case that anyone's concerned about fabricated references. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Even though it was 4 years, I was answering because my name was mentioned. Also, it seems difficult to get Wiki to put the discussions in chronological order, and I was unable to work out where the content went after the "other names of large numbers" article got axed. I know -yllion has its own page, but unlike Googol and Large numbers, it is not listed under See Also. Can I add it there? There might be other related articles too, I'll try to find some. Robert Munafo (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Scale?

Would it be at all worthwhile to have examples of something with a similar scale to numbers listed on this page? For instance, a Rubik's Cube has quintillions of patterns on the short scale, and related puzzles lie within a few orders of magnitude of larger numbers on the scale. Just a thought. Hellbus (talk) 23:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

See Orders of magnitude (numbers). Spacepotato (talk) 23:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Hellbus (talk) 02:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, here goes. Snipping large "extensions" section that's been unreferenced for over three years

I'm going to see what happens if I the plug on this, although I expect some vigorous discussion. This section has been in the article for a very, very long time but there's never been any indication at all of where these extensions came from, let alone evidence of any real use anywhere. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

No existence of "trigintillion"? I beg to differ!

The articles says, "It can be argued that a number such as a "trigintillion" has no existence in the physical world. There simply is not a trigintillion of anything, and no practical need for such a name." I don't think this is actually true for trigintillion or any other number, no matter how high. For example, the volume of the universe is 2000 trigintillion cubic micrometers ([1] and [2]). I know that's arbitrary, but is correct and there are other possible meanings for that number. Thus, I feel this line should be removed. Thoughts? Superm401 - Talk 00:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

i agree , surely these "monster numbers" have some relevance in the realms of theoretical physics and the like ? t ali 29/01/06

but surely we should measure everything in terms of the Planck's constant, what size would the universe be then? --Salix alba (talk) 10:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Although I think Superm401 is being overliteral, I'm not going to object to the excision of the sentence. My main concern is trying to keep this page reasonably free from neologisms, protologisms and, in general, words that have been invented but not used widely by real people who were trying to use them to describe the actual number of something—as opposed to demonstrating how a hypothetical number could be given.

I certainly would agree that trigintillion is a neologism. However, the sentence as written was simply false; that is all I wanted to demonstrate. I have no intention of adding my statistic to the article or attempting to argue that trigintillion or similar numbers are in common use. Superm401 - Talk 21:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Saying there is "not a trigintillion of anything" is too strong. It also shows my age. That was derived from a talk I heard Philip Morrison give some decades ago. The universe has gotten bigger since then. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence, "Trigintillion, often cited as a word in discussions of names of large numbers, is not included in any of them, nor are any of the names that can easily be created by extending the naming pattern (unvigintillion, duovigintillion, duoquinquagintillion, etc.)." Trigintillion would seem like a very logical name for 10⁹³ as triginta is Latin for thirty, so the name can obviously thus be easily created and used for this particular large number and the section on Extensions of the standard dictionary numbers uses this word just fine.--Champaign (talk) 09:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC).

Note from Champaign (talk): My edit was reverted by Spacepotato with this edit summary: 09:13, 8 January 2009 Spacepotato (talk|contribs) (32,208 bytes) ("Trigintillion" isn't in the cited dictionaries. It's in this article, but this article is not a dictionary.)

Ok. I concede your point. However, the sentence reads in its entirety:

Trigintillion, often cited as a word in discussions of large numbers, in not included in any of them [dictionary numbers], nor in the names that can easily be created by extending the naming pattern (unvigintillion, duovigintillion, duoquinquagintillion, etc.). [strong emphasis and italics added]

Extending the naming pattern accordingly (by the way the third item on the list of examples should be trevigintillion and not "duoquinquagintillion," which would correspond to duoquinquaginta, the Latin for 52, and to 10¹⁵⁹ numerically in short scale...well, perhaps the writer was jumping numbers, but no matter), one would unavoidably end up at novemvigintillion or 10⁹⁰ and this number times 1000 (10⁹³) can have no other name "by extending the naming pattern," except trigintillion. Also, while it may be true that it is not a dictionary number, I have never heard this number name come up anywhere "in discussions of names of large numbers" I've ever had, which brings up another point: what source could be cited to support the assertion that trigintillion is "often cited as a word in discussions" like these? I figured, why even bring up trigintillon at all whether it's a dictionary number or not? I don't think the word is notable and I defy anyone to please show me a source that says it is. Anyway, I would like to give one week from writing this for someone to please show me a good reason why this sentence is relavent to this article. After that, if such is either not forthcoming or insufficient, I shall see no other alternative but to remove the entire sentence. --Champaign (talk) 10:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You have misquoted the sentence in question. It reads:

Trigintillion, often cited as a word in discussions of names of large numbers, is not included in any of them, nor are any of the names that can easily be created by extending the naming pattern (unvigintillion, duovigintillion, duoquinquagintillion, etc.).

This means that (a) trigintillion is not in the cited dictionaries and (b) other words, such as duovigintillion, which can be created by extending the naming pattern are not in the cited dictionaries. The sentence does not say that trigintillion cannot be created by extending the naming pattern, since, as you point out, it can.

Spacepotato (talk) 19:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Abbreviations?

Where can I find abbreviations for these numbers? Thanks. SharkD (talk) 22:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The "standard dictionary numbers" table

Interestingly, the table of standard dictionary numbers includes two numbers that, according to that table itself, are evidently not standard dictionary numbers. The only reference given for "billiard" and "trilliard" is Russ Rowlett's webpage, which obviously is not a "standard dictionary". I am removing these two on the assumption that the table is indeed meant to list numbers that are standardly listed in (real) dictionaries. --Jmk (talk) 14:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Alternative systems merge

List of numbers#Proposed systematic names for powers of 10 and Names of large numbers#Proposal for new naming system cover (or should) cover the same material. I think they should be merged here, and some of the discussion on the English/British/European systems for powers of two be merged to Long and short scales. The notability tag reflects WP:UNDUE (why his system, and not the -yllion or other systems? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

See #Table from List of numbers above in 2004(!). It doesn't look as if it's been done. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge with Power numbers

I think that the power numbers page should be merged into this one, or possibly deleted. It's only a few people that are updating that page, and it seems to simply duplicate information found here and in other names of large numbers. I didn't want to go ahead and do anything yet, because I'm not sure, though. Quentin mcalmott 21:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I concur. Clay Barnes 12:35, 24 August 2005 (PST)

"Power numbers" is a low-quality article with no source citations at all. It is a miscellaneous collection of word with no indication of where they came from and whether they are in any real use. The phrase "Power numbers" is not a term in real use, as far as I know. The article is a miscellaneous collection of numbercruft. I would hate to see it merged with this page. This page was once similar to "power numbers" and I've put a lot of work into trying to make sure that it only deals with "real" number names, that is names some degree of actual acceptance, as opposed to being mental exercises in creating names. Anyone can create "vanity" names like "googolminex." I think Power numbers should simply be nominated for deletion. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

P. S. It would make more sense to merge it with Other names of large numbers, since that too is a catchall, miscellaneous list. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• I would agree with the merge, but this page is already quite large. How about renaming "Power numbers" to something like "Table of numbers by power"? -- Reinyday, 16:00, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I just noticed that this table is largely duplicated by List of numbers#English names for powers of 10, so that is where the merge should go. -- Reinyday, 16:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Power numbers should not, IMHO, be merged at all, because the information in it is much poorer than the information in the other related articles.

It could redirect to List of numbers#English names for powers of 10.

Actually, I believe I'm going to be bold and do it now.

I'm not going to merge the words that are in Power numbers but not presently in List of numbers#English names for powers of 10. I take strong exception to non-words like "Millitricentihexagintiquadrillion" being merged anywhere, unless someone can come up with a source citation showing actual use, and the burden of proof should be on the person who wants to put this in.WP:NOT says, "Articles about words formed on a predictable numeric system (such as "septenquinquagintillion") are not encyclopedic unless they are defined on good authority, or genuinely in use." If someone wanted to write a paragraph describing some well recognized system for assigning names like Millitricentihexagintiquadrillion, and wanted to use that as an example of how the system works, fine, but we can't just have it in an article based on our own authority that there is such a word and that that is what it means is. People that want those words in List of numbers#English names for powers of 10 can add them one by one citing sources. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:02, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

The word 'millitricentihexagintiquadrillion' may not be wikiable, but the system by which it is formed most certainly is. It forms part of a legitimate and scholarly survey of the relative virtues of different numbering systems. IMHO it's a problem with the Wikipedia authorities (oxymoron) that original materials are not permitted. Surely, this makes Wikipedia nothing more than an act of plagiarism. Also, that some kinds of words are not permitted. But why should 'quadrillion' not be permitted, when 'butane' is? Both are formed from word fragments according to a grammatical system. Neuralwarp (talk) 17:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• AGREE : Wikipedia should have one page dealing with number scales, showing all the systems, both actual and proposed, and including the SI prefixes. This would require merger of maybe 5 articles, and would leave another article about interesting numbers of other kinds (pi, e, primes, hypercubics, and so on). Neuralwarp (talk) 16:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Extensions of the standard dictionary numbers

Any particular reason why the three additions to the 'Extensions of the standard dictionary numbers' were deleted? They were based on the Conway Wechsler notation (ref. 13), which BTW is the source of the entire table. Chasrob (talk) 00:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

To expand, the table in the 'Extensions of the standard dictionary numbers' section is derived from the Latin by Professor John H. Conway of Princeton and mathematician Richard Guy in their book 'The Book of Numbers' (ref. 13 in the article).

In the 2006 edition of the book, they extended the notation past N=999, still using Latin bases. Therefore the 1000th zillion (N=1000) is millinillion, and the 1,000,000th is millinillinillion, according to their interpretation: their interpretation of Latin cardinal numbers is what the whole of the table is based on in the first place.

Another analysis of their method--http://mrob.com/pub/math/largenum.html#conway-wechsler Chasrob (talk) 04:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

aide memoire

I do not think that a complete reversion of my edit is appropriate:

I changed the paragraph from this:

• An easy way to find the value of the above numbers in the short scale is to take the number indicated by the prefix (such as 2 in billion, 4 in quadrillion, 18 in octodecillion, etc.), add one to it, and multiply that result by 3. For example, in a trillion, the prefix is tri, meaning 3. Adding 1 to it gives 4. Now multiplying 4 by 3 gives us 12, which is the power to which 10 is to be raised to express a short-scale trillion in scientific notation: one trillion = 10¹².

to this:

• An easy way to find the value of the above numbers in the short scale is to take the number indicated by the prefix (such as 2 in billion, 4 in quadrillion, 18 in octodecillion, etc.), add one to it, to give the number of commas needed to write the number, and multiply that by 3 to give the number of zeros. For example, in a trillion, the prefix is tri, meaning 3. Adding 1 gives four commas needed to write a trillion and multiplying by 3 gives 12, the number of zeros needed, or the power to which 10 is to be raised to express a short-scale trillion in scientific notation: 10¹².

• A similar aid is available for powers of 2, that uses the approximation that 2¹⁰=1000 (1,000=one comma). 2⁴⁰ = 4 commas or a trillion, and 2⁴⁵ = a trillion times 2⁵ or 32 trillion. To find the interpolating powers of two you can count off on your fingers

( Martin | talk • contribs 01:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC))

I'm sorry, Martin, but your edits seemed to me to be based almost entirely in what's called assuming good faith; such edits are highly looked down upon here unless they are based on material which can be found elsewhere on the Internet. I'm sorry if you found my action inappropriate, but it had to happen. Black Yoshi (talk) 02:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Prof. not Dr.

Einstein was a Professor not a Doctor. However, the quoted passage in The googol family section refers to him as Dr. I have added a [sic] with a ref note regarding this to show this error. As the original text refers to him as Dr. it is not prudent to change the text and, as such, [sic] (denoting an error in quoted text) is the most appropriate form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendroche (talk • contribs) 22:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

He didn't become a professor until 1911. Dbfirs 17:23, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Einstein was a doctor, having received his Ph.D. from the University of Zurich in 1905. Therefore it does not seem wrong to me to refer to him as Dr. Einstein. I've removed the "[sic]" and the footnote. —Bkell (talk) 17:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Billiard, trilliard, quadrilliard are not "standard dictionary numbers"

The table of "standard dictionary numbers" is intended to be exactly what it says. My purpose is to draw a permanent, stable, neutral, verifiable bright line between these numbers and various other numbers that are proposed, tabulated, occasionally used, etc. If you can find a dictionary that includes the word "billiard" in the sense of 10¹⁵, put it in the table and cite the dictionary in which you found it. With respect to billiard, trilliard, quadrilliard I am not even clear as to whether these words a) are really used in France or other European countries, b) appear in French or other foreign-language dictionaries. If you find them in a foreign-language dictionary I think it would be interesting and legitimate to include them in the table.

See "Are billiards, trilliards, quadrilliards, etc. real?" above.

If you can find it in a dictionary (as the name of a number!) it goes in this table. Otherwise, it does not. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 16:11, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Since you are using dictionary definitions (as opposed to Google webpage usage) as the criterion for their existence, then there is some work to be done on Wikipedia, where articles on these words have existed for some time without any queries having been raised (no, I did not create these) - see billiard, trilliard. The term Quadrilliard is mentioned in List of numbers and Order of magnitude (numbers). I was simply trying to ensure coherence between one part of Wikipedia and another.

Billiarde, for example, does exist in German, see Oxford-Duden English-German dictionary (revised 1997). Ian Cairns 16:52, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, there's a lot of inconsistency in Wikipedia. Furthermore, there are people that enjoy creating very short articles about names of numbers and so forth and they are constantly being created and re-created. For example, it took a lot of energy to get rid of the entries about the non-words nonabyte and doggabyte which appear on various websites but not in any dictionary or document promulgated by and standards authority.

The fact about Billiarde is interesting. I'd like to see it in the "standard dictionary number section." I think perhaps the best way to do it is to just put it in baldly as a statement, following the table. If enough of them get accumulated, there could be another table about foreign languages, or integrated into the main table, dropping the phrase "English dictionaries."

But I really want to draw a bright line between words that are in some dictionary, any dictionary, cite the dictionary.

Yes, the article on Trilliard makes me cranky. Probably what should be done with it is to add a line to it and all the others saying "This word is not found in standard English dictionaries." One of the things I hate about people creating many of short, related articles is that if there's a problem with them, the correction needs to be made many separate times... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 17:13, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, there were only two of them and I've added that note to them both.

By the way, apologies for my cranky tone. Out of line. I probably should take these number articles off my watchlist and chill. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 17:18, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No problem. Well done for editing those articles. Did you spot the German links? I have spent much time in the last few months correcting the prevalence of long scale as current UK usage. I hold no torch for the above terms - I was simply looking to be complete / consistent. Thanks, Ian Cairns 18:09, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Billiard/biljard is sometimes used in Swedish (for 10^12) (the alternative way of saying the same thing is 1000 billioner/biljoner; 1 biljon/billion=10^9). Not that you talk about numbers that high very often, and when you do, for example in physics, it's much, much more common to just say 10^12 (or just add "tera" if that's possible). 02:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

OED2 does not have billiard. This edit may contain more unverifiable claims. Does RHD really have billiard in this sense? I doubt it. Cf. http://dictionary.infoplease.com/billiard Gyopi (talk) 12:33, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Those above "milliard" are not really used in English, are they? ... and even "milliard" sounds dated. We won't know about OED3 for quite a few years yet, but they haven't removed "milliard" (as of today's check), so this should have a tick under OED3 (I've added it). Is "milliard" missing from the COD? Dbfirs 15:48, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Usage of Commas

Commenting on:

>> Throughout this article, exponential or scientific notation is used. 10^6 could also be written as the number 1 followed by six 0s, 1,000,000; 10^9 could be written as 1,000,000,000, and so on. <<

In ISO 31-0#Numbers it is stated:

Numbers consisting of long sequences of digits can be made more readable by separating them into groups, preferably groups of three, separated by a small space. ISO 31-0 specifies that such groups of digits should never be separated by a comma or point, as these are reserved for use as the decimal sign.

At no point (pun not intended) is the comma designated as a thousands separator, and should not be used as such here.

ISO 31-0 applies to science and technology, not necessarily wikipedia; is there any kind of Wikipedia:policy out there we can reference in this regard? I imagine it has been discussed before. Peyna 14:42, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Peyna. Public use of the comma notation pre-dates the ISO standard. Also, the space would not be an appropriate character to use as it too has a reserved meaning. An alternative to commas, dots or spaces would be to use an underscore character. This is the case in some computer programming languages (e.g. Oberon). Neuralwarp (talk) 17:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm virtually certain that I've seen an apostrophe-like glyph used as a thousands separator, as in " 1'000'000 ". Whether such notation is no longer used, I don't know; it might still be in use in some European locales. (Note to self: Check translations of this article!)

When printed (even bound books) tables of multi-digit numbers were commonplace (e.g. Vega's book of logarithms), digits were typeset with spaces every fifth digit. Regards, Nikevich 20:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

2006 comments

does the section about the sand reckoner make no sense to anyone else? Apart from anything else it talks about the number of grains of sand needed to fill the universe, and then states that the volume would fill our galaxy or whatnot. eh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.63.45.194 (talk • contribs)

• I think the purpose of the passage is to elucidate on ancient concepts of big numbers. Archimedes attempted to estimate how many grains of sand would be required to fill the universe. He had to do so without recourse to our relatively modern terms like "billion" and "trillion", or scientific notation. it seems his estimate wasn't that far off, only a few orders of magnitude. — MSchmahl 16:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Does it make sense to refer to "Traditional British values"? Since British tradition has changed, and we now universally use the short scale (for at least 20 years), the old system is now better referred to as "Obsolete British...". This would help clarify the widespread myth among die-hards, expatriates and foreigners that anyone in Britain still uses the long scale. Bobcousins 14:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, most people in Europe use long scale, therefore obsolete is not the correct word. 80.136.216.68 16:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Certainly not obsolete! I still use the long scale in Britain, because I learnt it before Harold Wilson's Americanisation of economics. I agree that long-scale usage is becoming increasingly rare in the UK. Dbfirs 08:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Within probably the last seven years, and probably more recently, the BBC World Service (audio) was still using the term "thousand million", for example. They now use the short-scale names.

Regards, Nikevich 21:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Usage of names of large numbers

2nd Paragraph: "For example, the first hit on "quintillion" is about a man who is trying to preserve the Etsako language by codifying it..." The first hit on Google is this article with that sentence. --WildKard84 01:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Separators for large integers; Arabic-locale numbers

I do hope I haven't missed discussions of these topics, but have not noticed them yet. European practice in general, perhaps completely, is to use the full stop (period) as a thousands separator, and a comma as the radix (nearly always decimal) point. Any good calculator offers this option. It might be better, although a bit more clumsy, to refer to "thousands separator" instead of "comma" in this article. A good search-and-replace with a text editor would simplify the task; hardly need to say that.

In South Asia, their separator scheme differs; see South Asian numbering system. As well, note the terms "crore" and "lakh", which appear in English-language publications, including news articles. I'd suggest at least a link to that article.

In locales that use Arabic script and one of the two sets of numerals* commonly associated with that script, the way they write large numbers and decimal fractions differs, although I don't know all pertinent details. Unlike text, their multi-digit numbers are written left-to-right. In one system, a 5 is represented (surprise!) by a dot just above the writing line, like an English/European period (full stop). Therefore, a decimal point cannot be a period/full stop. I'm reasonably sure that they separate large integers as we do, with separator marks every three digits to the left of the decimal-position separator ("point¨). *See Wikipedia article Hindu-Arabic numeral system.

Regards, Nikevich (talk) 00:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Didn't "googol" become "Google"?

I'm reasonably sure that "googol" (Kasner and Newman) is the origin of the very-well-known company name. I'm almost 76, and read Kasner and Newman in high-school days (loved it!). I had assumed that "googol" was pronounced "goo-gall", roughly equal accent on its syllables. Afaik, Google simply re-spelled "googol".

Regards, Nikevich 00:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The Google company may have taken their name from the number, but the number is still "googol." Black Yoshi (Yoshi! | Yoshi's Eggs) 18:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Confusion - Clarification needed?

I am certainly confused with these names, as these large numbers are quoted, as it is never specified if the user talks of long or short numbers, and a distinction is clearly necessary for disambiguation (if you like the expression) and I wish that an international conference on mathematics or the sort would decide how to make certain we understand what the author talks about.

In a simpleminded way I would say prefix the US & Modern British naming with a B, like BBillion or ABillion (American Billion) for example, or the long system with an E for European. Alternatively s and l could be used, but without either confusion will reign 86.197.31.139 14:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Something akin to this, invented at the US NIST, has come into use for multiples of power of two that are close to powers of 1,000. Examples are "kibibits", kib (1,024 bits), "mebibytes", MiB (1,048,576 bytes), etc. A small "i" between the power-of-1,000 prefix and the unit of measurement shows the use of this system; it's common in computer work. I apologize for not giving a reference; my energy is limited. Regards, Nikevich 21:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not NIST, and it's not commonly used. Please provide evidence. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Two Alternative Proposals for New Names

In class notes, I always used the "Calculator Notation" that many use here: E.g., 1E6, 1E9, 1E12, etc. These could be given very simple names; in fact, they could be merely spoke out -- e.g., "One ee twelve."

Another idea would be to base the numbers on SI prefixes -- perhaps "megoid" (1E6), "gigoid" (1E9), etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.58.58 (talk) 23:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Authorities in Standard dictionary numbers

The table "Standard dictionary numbers" cites the authorities AHD4, RHD2 and UM for billiard. Can somebody verify the AHD4 (American Heritage Dictionary) and RHD (Random House Dictionary) citations? The online version of AHD [3] does not say anything about billiard being a number. As for UM (Russ Rowlett's web page), I doubt it even counts as a "standard dictionary". --Jmk (talk) 19:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly, billiard appeared with four citations (AHD4, OED2, RHD2, UM) in this edit by a one-off IP in May 2010. OED2 was later removed as bogus in December 2011. I think this casts doubt on the AHD4 and RHD2 citations as well. In fact, the RHD2 citation was already challenged on this talk page, based on this. Somebody have these in their bookshelf? --Jmk (talk) 20:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Similarly, googolplexplex was added in this edit (March 2012). I seriously doubt the claimed citations. It is as if they were simply copied from the previous line (googolplex). Random House citation implausible because of this. American Heritage citation implausible because of this. UM (Ross Rowlett) citation is evidently false. I am removing googolplexplex from the "Standard dictionary numbers". --Jmk (talk) 09:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I checked RHD2. Quite expectedly it had neither billiard (as number) nor googolplexplex. So those citations were pure baloney. — For the record, I verified that RHD2 does have all the other numbers currently listed in the "Standard Dictionary Numbers" table, including centillion which for some reason does not currently cite RHD2. --Jmk (talk) 18:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

For the record: RHD2 does not have any of the words added in this edit: billiard (as number), trilliard, quadrilliard nor quintilliard. I just checked. In other words, the user who cited RHD2 for those was simply making it up. Faking the citation. (I'm pretty confident it was not just RHD2, but the same edit contained other fake citations as well.) I'm not sure what kind of policy en-wiki has for such cases. --Jmk (talk) 10:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Any edit with fake (as opposed to possibly mistaken) citations should be reverted as a whole. It is considered serious vandalism. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Millinovenonagintanongentillion?

I decided to deduce the number's name for myself using this as a guide. With $10^{6000}=10^{3*1999+3}$, it's the "1999" that determines the number's name. "1"x1000's => "milli", "9"x100's => "nongenti" "9"x10's "nonaginta" "9"x1's => "nove". So this does result in "milli-nove-nonaginta-nongenti-llion", as claimed. Although it may be correct, I disagree with the article including number names (like this) that were synthesized by editors. Were the other number names "synthesized" as well, or can they be found in a reliable source? (I could not find "millinovenonagintanongentillion" mentioned anywhere on the internet, except on pages that copy content from wikipedia.) Does this article even mention, or describe, the "Conway-Wechsler" system that is being used to deduce the names for these numbers? Justin W Smith (talk) 03:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

As was noted when the edit was made, the line was simply added to fill out the table for millinillion in the long form. The short form was added to complete the table line. The claim that it was "synthesized" is reductio ad absurdum.Chasrob (talk) 17:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I suppose you realize that reductio ad absurdum is (e.g., proof by contradiction) is a completely valid proof technique, but I don't see how it applies to what I said. Do you mean "straw man"? Justin W Smith (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Centillion

Its seems, based on this article, that a centillion is more than everything but less than infinity. I'm not questioning this, just checking is this widely accepted in the sciences? Sean7phil (talk) 19:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Very funny. No, centillion is not "more than everything", nor does this article say so. It is just the largest of the numbers commonly found in dictionaries (the first table of this article). Even this article lists numbers bigger than centillion. --Jmk (talk) 10:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Are these names of numbers really well written in the table? From this table results that "sescentillion" is in long scale either 1 000 000 ^ 106 (100+6) or 1 000 000 ^ 600 (6×100). --95.48.31.26 (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

How do you arrive to that conclusion? The table has sescentillion only in the short scale column, and gives its numerical value as 10^1803. Do you think there is something wrong with this? --Jmk (talk) 09:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The system is described at http://mrob.com/pub/math/largenum.html#conway-wechsler, for which I just added a citation. According to this system, #106 is sexcentillion, while #600 is sescentillion. —Anders Kaseorg (talk) 09:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Quindecillion vs Quinquadecillion

Which source are you referring to, Black Yoshi? I believe that the table lists numbers from the "Conway-Wechsler" system, and my edit is correct with regards to that. Also have a look at the listing of large numbers in the standard dictionary. All the numbers constructed from the system are in brackets.Smk65536 (talk) 04:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Nope. That was the "traditional" system, not the Conway system. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Never mind. We need to have the same name in row 15 in the first column (short scale) and row 29 of the second column (long scale / traditional British), though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I was referring to this page, slightly further down than the link points to. There, the Chuquet extension table lists the number as either "quin..." or "quinqua..."; however, the Conway-Wechsler table lists the prefix as "quin-". Therefore, since this article seems to be based on C-W names, I feel the number should be listed as "quindecillion." After all, that's what it's listed as in the long-scale column, as Arthur said, so it should be listed as such in the short-scale column. Black Yoshi (Yoshi! | Yoshi's Eggs) 19:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Tera, Peta, Mega, Kilo, ... ?

Rather a lot of important info is totally missing from the main article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.103.88 (talk) 06:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

That is bits and bytes, stuff like that--99.48.60.144 (talk) 20:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

They are in SI prefix. 219.78.209.183 (talk) 12:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Sept-Hept & Undec-Hendec

I'd like to request a revision to the table of Septillion and Undecillion as I believe these names are incorrect. The numerical system in these cases is supposed to follow the Greek system, especially when it comes to naming. While the rest in the table follow perfectly these two do not.

The Greek for 7 is Epta and 11 Endeca, in mathematics where it begins with E ie shapes, an H is then added so the numbers would become Heptillion and Hendecillion. Is there any objection to this revision, I'm unable to find any reference material to refute this. Projectmayhem666 (talk) 14:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

This is a list of all numbers ever created on earth so far by Justin chan

Hiding personal list
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
10^0 = one 10^3 = thousand 10^6 = million 10^9 = billion 10^12 = trillion 10^15 = quadrillion 10^18 = quintillion 10^21 = sexillion 10^24 = septillion 10^27 = octillion 10^30 = nonillion 10^33 = decillion 10^36 = undecillion 10^39 = duodecillion 10^42 = tredecillion 10^45 = quattuordecillion 10^48 = quindecillion 10^51 = sexdecillion 10^54 = septdecillion 10^57 = octodecillion 10^60 = novemdecillion 10^63 = vigintillion 10^66 = unvigintillion 10^69 = duovigintillion 10^72 = trevigintillion 10^75 = quattuorvigintillion 10^78 = quinvigintillion 10^81 = sexvigintillion 10^84 = septvigintillion 10^87 = octovigintillion 10^90 = novemvigintillion 10^93 = trigintillion 10^96 = untrigintillion 10^99 = duotrigintillion 10^100 = googol 10^102 = tretrigintillion 10^105 = quattuortrigintillion 10^108 = quintrigintillion 10^111 = sextrigintillion 10^114 = septtrigintillion 10^117 = octotrigintillion 10^120 = novemtrigintillion 10^123 = quadragintillion 10^126 = unquadragintillion 10^129 = duoquadragintillion 10^132 = trequadragintillion 10^135 = quattuorquadragintillion 10^138 = quinquadragintillion 10^141 = sexquadragintillion 10^144 = septquadragintillion 10^147 = octoquadragintillion 10^150 = novemquadragintillion 10^153 = quinquagintillion 10^156 = unquinquagintillion 10^159 = duoquinquagintillion 10^162 = trequinquagintillion 10^165 = quattuorquinquagintillion 10^168 = quinquinquagintillion 10^171 = sexquinquagintillion 10^174 = septquinquagintillion 10^177 = octoquinquagintillion 10^180 = novemquinquagintillion 10^183 = sexagintillion trigintilliard 10^186 = unsexagintillion untrigintillion 10^189 = duosexagintillion untrigintilliard 10^192 = tresexagintillion duotrigintillion 10^195 = quattuorsexagintillion 10^198 = quinsexagintillion 10^201 = sexsexagintillion 10^204 = septsexagintillion 10^207 = octosexagintillion 10^210 = novemsexagintillion 10^213 = septuagintillion 10^216 = unseptuagintillion 10^219 = duoseptuagintillion 10^222 = treseptuagintillion 10^225 = quattuorseptuagintillion 10^228 = quinseptuagintillion 10^231 = sexseptuagintillion 10^234 = septseptuagintillion 10^237 = octoseptuagintillion 10^240 = novemseptuagintillion 10^243 = octogintillion 10^246 = unoctogintillion 10^249 = duooctogintillion 10^252 = treoctogintillion 10^255 = quattuoroctogintillion 10^258 = quinoctogintillion 10^261 = sexoctogintillion 10^264 = septoctogintillion 10^267 = octooctogintillion 10^270 = novemoctogintillion 10^273 = nonagintillion 10^276 = unnonagintillion 10^279 = duononagintillion 10^282 = trenonagintillion 10^285 = quattuornonagintillion 10^288 = quinnonagintillion 10^291 = sexnonagintillion 10^294 = septnonagintillion 10^297 = octononagintillion 10^300 = novemnonagintillion 10^303 = centillion Centummillion or uncentillion 306 duocentillion 309 trecentillion 312 quattuorcentillion 315 quinquacentillion 318 sexcentillion 321 septencentillion 324 octocentillion 327 novencentillion 330 decicentillion 333 undecicentillion 336 duodecicentillion 339 tredecicentillion 342 quattuordecicentillion 345 quinquadecicentillion 348 Centumsedecillion or Sedecicentillion 351 septendecicentillion 354 octodecicentillion 357 novendecicentillion 360 viginticentillion 363 Primo-vigesimo-centillion or unviginticentillion 366 duoviginticentillion 369 tresviginticentillion 372 quattuorviginticentillion 375 quinquaviginticentillion 378 sesviginticentillion 381 septemviginticentillion 384 octoviginticentillion 387 centumvigintinonillion, centumundetrigintillion or novemviginticentillion 390 Trigintacentillion 393 Untrigintacentillion 396 Duotrigintacentillion 399 Trestrigintacentillion 402 quattuortrigintacentillion 405 quinquatrigintacentillion 408 sestrigintacentillion 411 septentrigintacentillion 414 octotrigintacentillion 417 Noventrigintacentillion or bentaggoogol 420 quadragintacentillion 423 unquadragintacentillion 426 duoquadragintacentillion 429 tresquadragintacentillion 432 quattuorquadragintacentillion 435 quinquaquadragintacentillion 438 sesquadragintacentillion 441 septenquadragintacentillion 444 octoquadragintacentillion 447 novenquadragintacentillion 450 quinquagintacentillion 453 unquinquagintacentillion 456 duoquinquagintacentillion 459 tresquinquagintacentillion 462 quattuorquinquagintacentillion 465 quinquaquinquagintacentillion 468 sesquinquagintacentillion 471 septenquinquagintacentillion 474 octoquinquagintacentillion 477 novenquinquagintacentillion 480 sexagintacentillion 483 unsexagintacentillion 486 duosexagintacentillion 489 tresexagintacentillion 492 quattuorsexagintacentillion 495 quinquasexagintacentillion 498 sesexagintacentillion 501 septensexagintacentillion 504 octosexagintacentillion 507 novensexagintacentillion 510 septuagintacentillion 513 unseptuagintacentillion 516 duoseptuagintacentillion 519 treseptuagintacentillion 522 quattuorseptuagintacentillion 525 quinquaseptuagintacentillion 528 seseptuagintacentillion 531 septenseptuagintacentillion 534 octoseptuagintacentillion 537 novenseptuagintacentillion 540 octogintacentillion 543 unoctogintacentillion 546 duooctogintacentillion 549 tresoctogintacentillion 552 quattuoroctogintacentillion 555 quinquaoctogintacentillion 558 sexoctogintacentillion 561 septemoctogintacentillion 564 octooctogintacentillion 567 novemoctogintacentillion 570 nonagintacentillion 573 unnonagintacentillion 576 duononagintacentillion 579 trenonagintacentillion 582 quattuornonagintacentillion 585 quinquanonagintacentillion 588 senonagintacentillion 591 septenonagintacentillion 594 octononagintacentillion 597 Undeducentillion or Novenonagintacentillion 600 Ducentillion 603 unducentillion 606 duoducentillion 609 treducentillion 612 quattuorducentillion 615 quinquaducentillion 618 seducentillion 621 Septenducentillion 624 octoducentillion 627 Novenducentillion or tentaggoogol 630 deciducentillion 633 undeciducentillion 636 duodeciducentillion 639 tredeciducentillion 642 quattuordeciducentillion 645 quinquadeciducentillion 648 sedeciducentillion 651 septendeciducentillion 654 octodeciducentillion 657 novendeciducentillion 660 Vigintiducentillion (eleventyillardplex?) 663 unvigintiducentillion 666 duovigintiducentillion 669 tresvigintiducentillion 672 quattuorvigintiducentillion 675 quinquavigintiducentillion 678 sesvigintiducentillion 681 septemvigintiducentillion 684 octovigintiducentillion 687 novemvigintiducentillion 690 trigintaducentillion 693 untrigintaducentillion 696 duotrigintaducentillion 699 trestrigintaducentillion 702 quattuortrigintaducentillion 705 quinquatrigintaducentillion 708 sestrigintaducentillion 711 septentrigintaducentillion 714 octotrigintaducentillion 717 noventrigintaducentillion 720 quadragintaducentillion 723 unquadragintaducentillion 726 duoquadragintaducentillion 729 tresquadragintaducentillion 732 quattuorquadragintaducentillion 735 quinquaquadragintaducentillion 738 sesquadragintaducentillion 741 septenquadragintaducentillion 744 octoquadragintaducentillion 747 novenquadragintaducentillion 750 quinquagintaducentillion 753 unquinquagintaducentillion 756 duoquinquagintaducentillion 759 tresquinquagintaducentillion 762 quattuorquinquagintaducentillion 765 quinquaquinquagintaducentillion 768 sesquinquagintaducentillion 771 septenquinquagintaducentillion 774 octoquinquagintaducentillion 777 novenquinquagintaducentillion 780 sexagintaducentillion 783 unsexagintaducentillion 786 duosexagintaducentillion 789 tresexagintaducentillion 792 quattuorsexagintaducentillion 795 quinquasexagintaducentillion 798 sesexagintaducentillion 801 septensexagintaducentillion 804 octosexagintaducentillion 807 novensexagintaducentillion 810 septuagintaducentillion 813 unseptuagintaducentillion 816 duoseptuagintaducentillion 819 treseptuagintaducentillion 822 quattuorseptuagintaducentillion 825 quinquaseptuagintaducentillion 828 seseptuagintaducentillion 831 septenseptuagintaducentillion 834 octoseptuagintaducentillion 837 novenseptuagintaducentillion 840 octogintaducentillion 843 unoctogintaducentillion 846 duooctogintaducentillion 849 tresoctogintaducentillion 852 quattuoroctogintaducentillion 855 quinquaoctogintaducentillion 858 sexoctogintaducentillion 861 septemoctogintaducentillion 864 octooctogintaducentillion 867 novemoctogintaducentillion 870 nonagintaducentillion 873 unnonagintaducentillion 876 duononagintaducentillion 879 trenonagintaducentillion 882 quattuornonagintaducentillion 885 quinquanonagintaducentillion 888 senonagintaducentillion 891 septenonagintaducentillion 894 octononagintaducentillion 897 Novenonagintaducentillion 900 Trecentillion 903 untrecentillion 906 duotrecentillion 909 trestrecentillion 912 quattuortrecentillion 915 quinquatrecentillion 918 sestrecentillion 921 septentrecentillion 924 octotrecentillion 927 noventrecentillion 930 decitrecentillion 933 undecitrecentillion 936 duodecitrecentillion 939 tredecitrecentillion 942 Trecentiquattuordecillion or quattuordecitrecentillion 945 quinquadecitrecentillion 948 sedecitrecentillion 951 septendecitrecentillion 954 octodecitrecentillion 957 novendecitrecentillion 960 vigintitrecentillion 963 unvigintitrecentillion 966 duovigintitrecentillion 969 tresvigintitrecentillion 972 quattuorvigintitrecentillion 975 quinquavigintitrecentillion 978 sesvigintitrecentillion 981 septemvigintitrecentillion 984 octovigintitrecentillion 987 novemvigintitrecentillion 990 trigintatrecentillion 993 untrigintatrecentillion 996 duotrigintatrecentillion 999 trestrigintatrecentillion 1002 quattuortrigintatrecentillion 1005 quinquatrigintatrecentillion 1008 sestrigintatrecentillion 1011 septentrigintatrecentillion 1014 1octotrigintatrecentillion 1017 noventrigintatrecentillion 1020 quadragintatrecentillion 1023 unquadragintatrecentillion 1026 duoquadragintatrecentillion 1029 tresquadragintatrecentillion 1032 quattuorquadragintatrecentillion 1035 quinquaquadragintatrecentillion 1038 sesquadragintatrecentillion 1041 septenquadragintatrecentillion 1044 octoquadragintatrecentillion 1047 novenquadragintatrecentillion 1050 quinquagintatrecentillion 1053 unquinquagintatrecentillion 1056 duoquinquagintatrecentillion 1059 tresquinquagintatrecentillion 1062 quattuorquinquagintatrecentillion 1065 quinquaquinquagintatrecentillion 1068 sesquinquagintatrecentillion 1071 septenquinquagintatrecentillion 1074 octoquinquagintatrecentillion 1077 novenquinquagintatrecentillion 1080 sexagintatrecentillion 1083 unsexagintatrecentillion 1086 duosexagintatrecentillion 1089 tresexagintatrecentillion 1092 quattuorsexagintatrecentillion 1095 quinquasexagintatrecentillion 1098 sesexagintatrecentillion 1101 septensexagintatrecentillion 1104 octosexagintatrecentillion 1107 novensexagintatrecentillion 1110 septuagintatrecentillion 1113 unseptuagintatrecentillion 1116 duoseptuagintatrecentillion 1119 treseptuagintatrecentillion 1122 quattuorseptuagintatrecentillion 1125 quinquaseptuagintatrecentillion 1128 seseptuagintatrecentillion 1131 septenseptuagintatrecentillion 1134 octoseptuagintatrecentillion 1137 novenseptuagintatrecentillion 1140 octogintatrecentillion 1143 unoctogintatrecentillion 1146 duooctogintatrecentillion 1149 tresoctogintatrecentillion 1152 quattuoroctogintatrecentillion 1155 quinquaoctogintatrecentillion 1158 sexoctogintatrecentillion 1161 septemoctogintatrecentillion 1164 octooctogintatrecentillion 1167 novemoctogintatrecentillion 1170 nonagintatrecentillion 1173 unnonagintatrecentillion 1176 duononagintatrecentillion 1179 trenonagintatrecentillion 1182 quattuornonagintatrecentillion 1185 quinquanonagintatrecentillion 1188 senonagintatrecentillion 1191 septenonagintatrecentillion 1194 octononagintatrecentillion 1197 novenonagintatrecentillion 1200 Quadringentillion 1203 unquadringentillion 1206 duoquadringentillion 1209 tresquadringentillion 1212 quattuorquadringentillion 1215 quinquaquadringentillion 1218 sesquadringentillion 1221 septenquadringentillion 1224 octoquadringentillion 1227 novenquadringentillion 1230 deciquadringentillion 1233 undeciquadringentillion 1236 duodeciquadringentillion 1239 tredeciquadringentillion 1242 quattuordeciquadringentillion 1245 quinquadeciquadringentillion 1248 sedeciquadringentillion 1251 septendeciquadringentillion 1254 octodeciquadringentillion 1257 novendeciquadringentillion 1260 vigintiquadringentillion 1263 unvigintiquadringentillion 1266 duovigintiquadringentillion 1269 tresvigintiquadringentillion 1272 quattuorvigintiquadringentillion 1275 quinquavigintiquadringentillion 1278 sesvigintiquadringentillion 1281 septemvigintiquadringentillion 1284 octovigintiquadringentillion 1287 novemvigintiquadringentillion 1290 trigintaquadringentillion 1293 untrigintaquadringentillion 1296 duotrigintaquadringentillion 1299 trestrigintaquadringentillion 1302 quattuortrigintaquadringentillion 1305 quinquatrigintaquadringentillion 1308 sestrigintaquadringentillion 1311 septentrigintaquadringentillion 1314 octotrigintaquadringentillion 1317 noventrigintaquadringentillion 1320 quadragintaquadringentillion 1323 unquadragintaquadringentillion 1326 duoquadragintaquadringentillion 1329 tresquadragintaquadringentillion 1332 quattuorquadragintaquadringentillion 1335 quinquaquadragintaquadringentillion 1338 sesquadragintaquadringentillion 1341 septenquadragintaquadringentillion 1344 octoquadragintaquadringentillion 1347 novenquadragintaquadringentillion 1350 quinquagintaquadringentillion 1353 unquinquagintaquadringentillion 1356 duoquinquagintaquadringentillion 1359 tresquinquagintaquadringentillion 1362 quattuorquinquagintaquadringentillion 1365 quinquaquinquagintaquadringentillion 1368 sesquinquagintaquadringentillion 1371 septenquinquagintaquadringentillion 1374 octoquinquagintaquadringentillion 1377 novenquinquagintaquadringentillion 1380 sexagintaquadringentillion 1383 unsexagintaquadringentillion 1386 duosexagintaquadringentillion 1389 tresexagintaquadringentillion 1392 quattuorsexagintaquadringentillion 1395 quinquasexagintaquadringentillion 1398 sesexagintaquadringentillion 1401 septensexagintaquadringentillion 1404 octosexagintaquadringentillion 1407 novensexagintaquadringentillion 1410 septuagintaquadringentillion 1413 unseptuagintaquadringentillion 1416 duoseptuagintaquadringentillion 1419 treseptuagintaquadringentillion 1422 quattuorseptuagintaquadringentillion 1425 quinquaseptuagintaquadringentillion 1428 seseptuagintaquadringentillion 1431 septenseptuagintaquadringentillion 1434 octoseptuagintaquadringentillion 1437 novenseptuagintaquadringentillion 1440 octogintaquadringentillion 1443 unoctogintaquadringentillion 1446 duooctogintaquadringentillion 1449 tresoctogintaquadringentillion 1452 quattuoroctogintaquadringentillion 1455 quinquaoctogintaquadringentillion 1458 sexoctogintaquadringentillion 1461 septemoctogintaquadringentillion 1464 octooctogintaquadringentillion 1467 novemoctogintaquadringentillion 1470 nonagintaquadringentillion 1473 unnonagintaquadringentillion 1476 duononagintaquadringentillion 1479 trenonagintaquadringentillion 1482 quattuornonagintaquadringentillion 1485 quinquanonagintaquadringentillion 1488 senonagintaquadringentillion 1491 septenonagintaquadringentillion 1494 octononagintaquadringentillion 1497 novenonagintaquadringentillion 1500 Quingentillion 1503 unquingentillion 1506 duoquingentillion 1509 tresquingentillion 1512 quattuorquingentillion 1515 quinquaquingentillion 1518 sesquingentillion 1521 septenquingentillion 1524 octoquingentillion 1527 novenquingentillion or Megafugafour 1530 deciquingentillion 1533 undeciquingentillion 1536 duodeciquingentillion 1539 tredeciquingentillion 1542 quattuordeciquingentillion 1545 quinquadeciquingentillion 1548 sedeciquingentillion 1551 septendeciquingentillion 1554 octodeciquingentillion 1557 novendeciquingentillion 1560 vigintiquingentillion 1563 unvigintiquingentillion 1566 duovigintiquingentillion 1569 tresvigintiquingentillion 1572 quattuorvigintiquingentillion 1575 quinquavigintiquingentillion 1578 sesvigintiquingentillion 1581 septemvigintiquingentillion 1584 octovigintiquingentillion 1587 novemvigintiquingentillion 1590 trigintaquingentillion 1593 untrigintaquingentillion 1596 duotrigintaquingentillion 1599 trestrigintaquingentillion 1602 quattuortrigintaquingentillion 1605 quinquatrigintaquingentillion 1608 sestrigintaquingentillion 1611 septentrigintaquingentillion 1614 octotrigintaquingentillion 1617 noventrigintaquingentillion 1620 quadragintaquingentillion 1623 unquadragintaquingentillion 1626 duoquadragintaquingentillion 1629 tresquadragintaquingentillion 1632 quattuorquadragintaquingentillion 1635 quinquaquadragintaquingentillion 1638 sesquadragintaquingentillion 1641 septenquadragintaquingentillion 1644 octoquadragintaquingentillion 1647 novenquadragintaquingentillion 1650 quinquagintaquingentillion 1653 Uunquinquagintaquingentillion 1656 duoquinquagintaquingentillion 1659 tresquinquagintaquingentillion 1662 quattuorquinquagintaquingentillion 1665 quinquaquinquagintaquingentillion 1668 sesquinquagintaquingentillion 1671 septenquinquagintaquingentillion 1674 octoquinquagintaquingentillion 1677 novenquinquagintaquingentillion 1680 sexagintaquingentillion 1683 unsexagintaquingentillion 1686 duosexagintaquingentillion 1689 tresexagintaquingentillion 1692 quattuorsexagintaquingentillion 1695 quinquasexagintaquingentillion 1698 sesexagintaquingentillion 1701 septensexagintaquingentillion 1704 octosexagintaquingentillion 1707 novensexagintaquingentillion 1710 septuagintaquingentillion 1713 unseptuagintaquingentillion 1716 duoseptuagintaquingentillion 1719 treseptuagintaquingentillion 1722 quattuorseptuagintaquingentillion 1725 quinquaseptuagintaquingentillion 1728 seseptuagintaquingentillion 1731 septenseptuagintaquingentillion 1734 octoseptuagintaquingentillion 1737 novenseptuagintaquingentillion 1740 octogintaquingentillion 1743 unoctogintaquingentillion 1746 duooctogintaquingentillion 1749 tresoctogintaquingentillion 1752 quattuoroctogintaquingentillion 1755 quinquaoctogintaquingentillion 1758 sexoctogintaquingentillion 1761 septemoctogintaquingentillion 1764 octooctogintaquingentillion 1767 novemoctogintaquingentillion 1770 nonagintaquingentillion 1773 unnonagintaquingentillion 1776 duononagintaquingentillion 1779 trenonagintaquingentillion 1782 quattuornonagintaquingentillion 1785 quinquanonagintaquingentillion 1788 senonagintaquingentillion 1791 septenonagintaquingentillion 1794 octononagintaquingentillion 1797 novenonagintaquingentillion 1800 Sescentillion 1803 unsescentillion 1806 duosescentillion 1809 tresescentillion 1812 quattuorsescentillion 1815 quinquasescentillion 1818 sesescentillion 1821 septensescentillion 1824 octosescentillion 1827 novensescentillion 1830 decisescentillion 1833 undecisescentillion 1836 duodecisescentillion 1839 tredecisescentillion 1842 quattuordecisescentillion 1845 quinquadecisescentillion 1848 sedecisescentillion 1851 septendecisescentillion 1854 octodecisescentillion 1857 novendecisescentillion 1860 vigintisescentillion 1863 unvigintisescentillion 1866 duovigintisescentillion 1869 tresvigintisescentillion 1872 quattuorvigintisescentillion 1875 quinquavigintisescentillion 1878 sesvigintisescentillion 1881 septemvigintisescentillion 1884 octovigintisescentillion 1887 novemvigintisescentillion 1890 trigintasescentillion 1893 untrigintasescentillion 1896 duotrigintasescentillion 1899 trestrigintasescentillion 1902 quattuortrigintasescentillion 1905 quinquatrigintasescentillion 1908 sestrigintasescentillion 1911 septentrigintasescentillion 1914 octotrigintasescentillion 1917 noventrigintasescentillion 1920 quadragintasescentillion 1923 unquadragintasescentillion 1926 duoquadragintasescentillion 1929 tresquadragintasescentillion 1932 quattuorquadragintasescentillion 1935 quinquaquadragintasescentillion 1938 sesquadragintasescentillion 1941 septenquadragintasescentillion 1944 octoquadragintasescentillion 1947 novenquadragintasescentillion 1950 quinquagintasescentillion 1953 unquinquagintasescentillion 1956 duoquinquagintasescentillion 1959 tresquinquagintasescentillion 1962 quattuorquinquagintasescentillion 1965 quinquaquinquagintasescentillion 1968 sesquinquagintasescentillion 1971 septenquinquagintasescentillion 1974 octoquinquagintasescentillion 1977 novenquinquagintasescentillion 1980 sexagintasescentillion 1983 unsexagintasescentillion 1986 duosexagintasescentillion 1989 tresexagintasescentillion 1992 quattuorsexagintasescentillion 1995 quinquasexagintasescentillion 1998 sesexagintasescentillion 2001 septensexagintasescentillion 2004 octosexagintasescentillion 2007 novensexagintasescentillion 2010 septuagintasescentillion 2013 unseptuagintasescentillion 2016 duoseptuagintasescentillion 2019 treseptuagintasescentillion 2022 quattuorseptuagintasescentillion 2025 quinquaseptuagintasescentillion 2028 seseptuagintasescentillion 2031 septenseptuagintasescentillion 2034 octoseptuagintasescentillion 2037 novenseptuagintasescentillion 2040 octogintasescentillion 2043 unoctogintasescentillion 2046 duooctogintasescentillion 2049 tresoctogintasescentillion 2052 quattuoroctogintasescentillion 2055 quinquaoctogintasescentillion 2058 sexoctogintasescentillion 2061 septemoctogintasescentillion 2064 octooctogintasescentillion 2067 novemoctogintasescentillion 2070 nonagintasescentillion 2073 unnonagintasescentillion 2076 duononagintasescentillion 2079 trenonagintasescentillion 2082 quattuornonagintasescentillion 2085 quinquanonagintasescentillion 2088 senonagintasescentillion 2091 septenonagintasescentillion 2094 octononagintasescentillion 2097 novenonagintasescentillion 2100 Septingentillion 2103 unseptingentillion 2106 duoseptingentillion 2109 treseptingentillion 2112 quattuorseptingentillion 2115 quinquaseptingentillion 2118 seseptingentillion 2121 septenseptingentillion 2124 octoseptingentillion 2127 novenseptingentillion 2130 deciseptingentillion 2133 undeciseptingentillion 2136 duodeciseptingentillion 2139 tredeciseptingentillion 2142 quattuordeciseptingentillion 2145 quinquadeciseptingentillion 2148 sedeciseptingentillion 2151 septendeciseptingentillion 2154 octodeciseptingentillion 2157 novendeciseptingentillion 2160 vigintiseptingentillion 2163 unvigintiseptingentillion 2166 duovigintiseptingentillion 2169 tresvigintiseptingentillion 2172 quattuorvigintiseptingentillion 2175 quinquavigintiseptingentillion 2178 sesvigintiseptingentillion 2181 septemvigintiseptingentillion 2184 octovigintiseptingentillion 2187 novemvigintiseptingentillion 2190 trigintaseptingentillion 2193 untrigintaseptingentillion 2196 duotrigintaseptingentillion 2199 trestrigintaseptingentillion 2202 quattuortrigintaseptingentillion 2205 quinquatrigintaseptingentillion 2208 sestrigintaseptingentillion 2211 septentrigintaseptingentillion 2214 octotrigintaseptingentillion 2217 noventrigintaseptingentillion 2220 quadragintaseptingentillion 2223 unquadragintaseptingentillion 2226 Septingentiquadragintabillion or duoquadragintaseptingentillion 2229 tresquadragintaseptingentillion 2232 quattuorquadragintaseptingentillion 2235 quinquaquadragintaseptingentillion 2238 sesquadragintaseptingentillion 2241 septenquadragintaseptingentillion 2244 octoquadragintaseptingentillion 2247 novenquadragintaseptingentillion 2250 quinquagintaseptingentillion 2253 unquinquagintaseptingentillion 2256 duoquinquagintaseptingentillion 2259 tresquinquagintaseptingentillion 2262 quattuorquinquagintaseptingentillion 2265 quinquaquinquagintaseptingentillion 2268 sesquinquagintaseptingentillion 2271 septenquinquagintaseptingentillion 2274 octoquinquagintaseptingentillion 2277 novenquinquagintaseptingentillion 2280 sexagintaseptingentillion 2283 unsexagintaseptingentillion 2286 duosexagintaseptingentillion 2289 tresexagintaseptingentillion 2292 quattuorsexagintaseptingentillion 2295 quinquasexagintaseptingentillion 2298 sesexagintaseptingentillion 2301 septensexagintaseptingentillion 2304 octosexagintaseptingentillion 2307 novensexagintaseptingentillion 2310 septuagintaseptingentillion 2313 unseptuagintaseptingentillion 2316 duoseptuagintaseptingentillion 2319 treseptuagintaseptingentillion 2322 quattuorseptuagintaseptingentillion 2325 quinquaseptuagintaseptingentillion 2328 seseptuagintaseptingentillion 2331 septenseptuagintaseptingentillion 2334 octoseptuagintaseptingentillion 2337 novenseptuagintaseptingentillion 2340 octogintaseptingentillion 2343 unoctogintaseptingentillion 2346 duooctogintaseptingentillion 2349 tresoctogintaseptingentillion 2352 quattuoroctogintaseptingentillion 2355 quinquaoctogintaseptingentillion 2358 sexoctogintaseptingentillion 2361 septemoctogintaseptingentillion 2364 octooctogintaseptingentillion 2367 novemoctogintaseptingentillion 2370 nonagintaseptingentillion 2373 unnonagintaseptingentillion 2376 duononagintaseptingentillion 2379 trenonagintaseptingentillion 2382 quattuornonagintaseptingentillion 2385 quinquanonagintaseptingentillion 2388 senonagintaseptingentillion 2391 septenonagintaseptingentillion 2394 octononagintaseptingentillion 2397 novenonagintaseptingentillion 2400 Octingentillion 2403 unoctingentillion 2406 duooctingentillion 2409 tresoctingentillion 2412 quattuoroctingentillion 2415 quinquaoctingentillion 2418 Sexoctingentillion 2421 septemoctingentillion 2424 octooctingentillion 2427 novemoctingentillion 2430 decioctingentillion 2433 undecioctingentillion 2436 duodecioctingentillion 2439 tredecioctingentillion 2442 quattuordecioctingentillion 2445 quinquadecioctingentillions 2448 sedecioctingentillion 2451 septendecioctingentillion 2454 octodecioctingentillion 2457 novendecioctingentillion 2460 vigintioctingentillion 2463 unvigintioctingentillion 2466 duovigintioctingentillion 2469 tresvigintioctingentillion 2472 quattuorvigintioctingentillion 2475 quinquavigintioctingentillion 2478 sesvigintioctingentillion 2481 septemvigintioctingentillion 2484 octovigintioctingentillion 2487 novemvigintioctingentillion 2490 trigintaoctingentillion 2493 untrigintaoctingentillion 2496 duotrigintaoctingentillion 2499 trestrigintaoctingentillion 2502 quattuortrigintaoctingentillion 2505 quinquatrigintaoctingentillion 2508 sestrigintaoctingentillion 2511 septentrigintaoctingentillion 2514 octotrigintaoctingentillion 2517 noventrigintaoctingentillion 2520 quadragintaoctingentillion 2523 unquadragintaoctingentillion 2526 duoquadragintaoctingentillion 2529 tresquadragintaoctingentillion 2532 quattuorquadragintaoctingentillion 2535 quinquaquadragintaoctingentillion 2538 sesquadragintaoctingentillion 2541 septenquadragintaoctingentillion 2544 octoquadragintaoctingentillion 2547 novenquadragintaoctingentillion 2550 quinquagintaoctingentillion 2553 unquinquagintaoctingentillion 2556 duoquinquagintaoctingentillion 2559 tresquinquagintaoctingentillion 2562 quattuorquinquagintaoctingentillion 2565 quinquaquinquagintaoctingentillion 2568 sesquinquagintaoctingentillion 2571 septenquinquagintaoctingentillion 2574 octoquinquagintaoctingentillion 2577 novenquinquagintaoctingentillion 2580 sexagintaoctingentillion 2583 unsexagintaoctingentillion 2586 duosexagintaoctingentillion 2589 tresexagintaoctingentillion 2592 quattuorsexagintaoctingentillion 2595 quinquasexagintaoctingentillion 2598 sesexagintaoctingentillion 2601 septensexagintaoctingentillion 2604 octosexagintaoctingentillion 2607 novensexagintaoctingentillion 2610 septuagintaoctingentillion 2613 unseptuagintaoctingentillion 2616 duoseptuagintaoctingentillion 2619 treseptuagintaoctingentillion 2622 quattuorseptuagintaoctingentillion 2625 quinquaseptuagintaoctingentillion 2628 seseptuagintaoctingentillion 2631 septenseptuagintaoctingentillion 2634 octoseptuagintaoctingentillion 2637 novenseptuagintaoctingentillion 2640 octogintaoctingentillion 2643 unoctogintaoctingentillion 2646 duooctogintaoctingentillion 2649 tresoctogintaoctingentillion 2652 quattuoroctogintaoctingentillion 2655 quinquaoctogintaoctingentillion 2658 sexoctogintaoctingentillion 2661 septemoctogintaoctingentillion 2664 octooctogintaoctingentillion 2667 novemoctogintaoctingentillion 2670 nonagintaoctingentillion 2673 unnonagintaoctingentillion 2676 duononagintaoctingentillion 2679 trenonagintaoctingentillion 2682 quattuornonagintaoctingentillion 2685 quinquanonagintaoctingentillion 2688 senonagintaoctingentillion 2691 septenonagintaoctingentillion 2694 octononagintaoctingentillion 2697 novenonagintaoctingentillion 2700 Nongentillion 2703 unnongentillion 2706 duonongentillion 2709 trenongentillion 2712 quattuornongentillion 2715 quinquanongentillion 2718 senongentillion 2721 septenongentillion 2724 octonongentillion 2727 novenongentillion 2730 decinongentillion 2733 undecinongentillion 2736 duodecinongentillion 2739 tredecinongentillion 2742 quattuordecinongentillion 2745 quinquadecinongentillion 2748 sedecinongentillion 2751 septendecinongentillion 2754 octodecinongentillion 2757 novendecinongentillion 2760 vigintinongentillion 2763 unvigintinongentillion 2766 duovigintinongentillion 2769 tresvigintinongentillion 2772 quattuorvigintinongentillion 2775 quinquavigintinongentillion 2778 sesvigintinongentillion 2781 septemvigintinongentillion 2784 octovigintinongentillion 2787 novemvigintinongentillion 2790 trigintanongentillion 2793 untrigintanongentillion 2796 duotrigintanongentillion 2799 trestrigintanongentillion 2802 quattuortrigintanongentillion 2805 quinquatrigintanongentillion 2808 sestrigintanongentillion 2811 septentrigintanongentillion 2814 octotrigintanongentillion 2817 noventrigintanongentillion 2820 quadragintanongentillion 2823 unquadragintanongentillion 2826 duoquadragintanongentillion 2829 tresquadragintanongentillion 2832 quattuorquadragintanongentillion 2835 quinquaquadragintanongentillion 2838 sesquadragintanongentillion 2841 septenquadragintanongentillion 2844 octoquadragintanongentillion 2847 novenquadragintanongentillion 2850 quinquagintanongentillion 2853 unquinquagintanongentillion 2856 duoquinquagintanongentillion 2859 tresquinquagintanongentillion 2862 quattuorquinquagintanongentillion 2865 quinquaquinquagintanongentillion 2868 sesquinquagintanongentillion 2871 septenquinquagintanongentillion 2874 octoquinquagintanongentillion 2877 novenquinquagintanongentillion 2880 sexagintanongentillion 2883 unsexagintanongentillion 2886 duosexagintanongentillion 2889 tresexagintanongentillion 2892 quattuorsexagintanongentillion 2895 quinquasexagintanongentillion 2898 sesexagintanongentillion 2901 septensexagintanongentillion 2904 octosexagintanongentillion 2907 novensexagintanongentillion 2910 septuagintanongentillion 2913 unseptuagintanongentillion 2916 duoseptuagintanongentillion 2919 treseptuagintanongentillion 2922 quattuorseptuagintanongentillion 2925 quinquaseptuagintanongentillion 2928 seseptuagintanongentillion 2931 septenseptuagintanongentillion 2934 octoseptuagintanongentillion 2937 novenseptuagintanongentillion 2940 octogintanongentillion 2943 unoctogintanongentillion 2946 duooctogintanongentillion 2949 tresoctogintanongentillion 2952 quattuoroctogintanongentillion 2955 quinquaoctogintanongentillion 2958 sexoctogintanongentillion 2961 septemoctogintanongentillion 2964 octooctogintanongentillion 2967 novemoctogintanongentillion 2970 nonagintanongentillion 2973 unnonagintanongentillion 2976 duononagintanongentillion 2979 Trenonagintanongentillion 2982 quattuornonagintanongentillion 2985 quinquanonagintanongentillion 2988 Senonagintanongentillion 2991 septenonagintanongentillion 2994 octononagintanongentillion 2997 nongentinonagentanonillion or undemillillion or googood or novenonagintanongentillion 3000 Millillion 3003 Millilliardilliardplex (british or american?) 6003 sexmilliaquingentsexagintillion 19683 Myrillion 30003 Googolplex (10googol) Graham's number (number of zeroes requires power tower)

may edit as u please I just want to inform people about this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.9.101.219 (talk) 04:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The system behind the madness

I came to this article because I was aware of the fact that there's a naming system for very large numbers, and I wanted to know the -system- that is used. This page is great for giving the list of names, and if I ever feel the need to speak a word meaning 10³⁶ I'll know where to look, but it seems to me that all these names have a very clear METHOD to how the names were generated, though I'm not 100% certain of how it works.

I mean, at the lower end, it's pretty obvious. billion is bi (meaning two) illion (meaning uhh... big number?)... so it's the "2nd big number". Likewise, trillion would be the 3rd big number, and so on. But I don't quite get the naming convention once you get past nine. Unedecillion? I'm assuming that's the first of the tens? But duodecillion seems to refer to the 11th big number, while the name suggests the 12th? Or am I misreading something? Or do I just not get it?

Could someone more knowledgable than me put up a section describing the system? Fieari 03:06, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

deci: n=10; undeci: n=11; duodeci: n=12. On the short scale, n-illion = 1000^(n+1) = 10^(3n+3), so e.g. duodecillion = 1000^13 = 10^39. On the long scale, n-illion = 1000000^n = 10^(6n) and n-iard = 1000*1000000^n = 10^(6n+3), so duodecillion = 1000000^12 = 10^72, and duodecilliard = 10^75 (a.k.a. "one thousand duodecillions"). That explains everything... except the greek/latin system naming the numbers. I agree with you that a clear neat explanation of the system would be good - and probably more relevant in an encyclopedia than a list of numbers that are so rarely used.

For the sake of argument: There is nothing in Wikipedia on the number 371074 (randomly chosen), though that number gives 1480 hits in Google. The number name ("three hundred and seventyone thousand seventyfour" with some variants) gives no hits anywhere. The word "duodecillion" gives 548 Google hits; the vast majority of these are from dictionaries and the like, and very few "in the wild" (if any at all). But various other notations for that number (1000000000000000000000000000000000000000, 1E39 etc.) gives thousands of hits. My point is that for 371074 as well as for the very large numbers on the Names of large numbers page, the following is true:

• The numbers exist in a mathematical sense - you can't count forever without needing them eventually.
• Their names hardly exist in the sense that they are commonly used.
• Their names do exist in the sense that, if you come across the number "in the wild", you can construct the name on demand (knowing the system), and it is unambiguous (apart for some annoying details).
• In most situations where those numbers could come up, they would not be named; instead, they would be expressed in some convenient notation.

--Niels Ø 07:47, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

By the way... I don't know if it's an invented explanation, but the comment in Fowler's 1926 comment in Modern English Usage at least gives some explanation of the "off-by-one-in-the-short-scale" issue:

"It should be remembered that this word ["billion"] does not mean in American use (which follows the French) what it means in British. For to us it means the second power of a million, i.e. a million millions (1,000,000,000,000); for Americans it means a thousand multiplied by itself twice, or a thousand millions (1,000,000,000), what we call a milliard. Since billion in our sense is useless except to astronomers, it is a pity that we do not conform."

I think the question, "what is the system," is meaningless. I don't think anyone, anywhere has "officially" promulgated such a system. There's no practical need for one. It's all an abstract mathematical or computer science game. Chuquet proposed names for specific numbers up to a decillion centuries ago, and with small variations they've made it into the dictionaries. Even on the short scale, names for numbers above a quintillion are simply not needed in ordinary discourse. Mathematicians and scientists use exponential notation and SI prefixes. And numeric notation suffices in print.

Since the early days of computer programming, there has sometimes been a real practical need to generate the English representation of a number, and I'm sure many individual programmers have tried to make the algorithm general enough to handle the highest values their computer can represent. But of course even the standard dictionary numbers handle everything up to 2⁶⁴ or even 2¹²⁸. Somebody could formally propose an system, defined with algorithmic precision, capable of indefinitely high extension, and probably someone has, but it would still be just a curiosity because no body of authority is going to take the trouble to adopt it.

Another argument for the meaninglessness of the question is that it is all but impossible for a person to retain more than (you choose) nine, twelve, whatever digits in short-term memory. For anything where only an approximate value is needed, you'd use an SI prefix; 12.34 terameters or whatever. For anything where a precise-to-the-unit value is needed, you need to write the number down, because if you say (using long scale here) "three hundred sixty-eight thousand one hundred ninety quintillion, nine hundred sixteen thousand five hundred fifty-six quadrillion, two hundred forty-three thousand seven hundred thirty-nine trillion, eight hundred ninety-six thousand twenty-one billion, eight hundred seventy-three thousand six hundred fourteen million, one hundred one thousand, six hundred twenty-five," by the time you get to the end you've forgotten the beginning. And if you're going to write it down there's no good reason to use words instead of numerals.

It's sort of like asking "is there a system for naming every possible placement of pieces on a checkerboard?" You can construct one if you want to, but apart from showing that you can, nobody cares about it and nobody is going to adopt it.

If someone wanted to research a list of published algorithms for generating names of numbers and include the list or a representative algorithm in the article—but not as original research, i.e. not your own algorithm—that would be a valid addition to the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:51, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I struggle to imagine a situation where a large number would have quite that many significant figures, and even if it did have that many, who would say all of them? I wouldn't say more than just "368 thousand quintillion", or (in my preferred short scale) "368 decillion". Double sharp (talk) 15:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

"That explains everything... except the greek/latin system naming the numbers." So... where can I go about finding THIS information? Perhaps such an explanation would be good for its own page, as it's pretty clear that the system is also used for naming other things, like shapes (septagon, octagon, duodecahedron, etc). Seems like it would be a pretty useful article to have. Because while no one in their right minds would really use the huge number names outside of trying to impress someone with thier trivia knowledge, if you do encounter a 63 faced regular solid, you'll want to know its name and you probably will actually use it. Not that encountering such shapes is common, but it isn't outside the realm of possibility. Fieari 19:56, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If there's an algorithmic pattern here, the table isn't sufficient to know it, even for the numbers below a centillion. The prefix for +3 is either "tre" (when attached to decillion) or "tres" (when attached to vigintillion or trigintillion). So is word #43 going to be trequadragintillion or tresquadragintillion? OK, maybe word #10-19 are archaic exceptions, and only #20-39 should be considered to establish the pattern. But then we get stuck at #47: septemquadragintillion or septenquadragintillion? (Neither one has any Google hits.)

And if we go beyond a centillion, there seems to be a problem with additive vs multiplicative prefixes. #103 is listed as trescentillion, while #300 is listed as trecentillion; these would seem to be homonyms. Worse yet, the pattern so far suggests that #106 must be sescentillion, and this is exactly what the table specifies as the name for #600. Unless the latter was supposed to be sesgintillion instead. If these names are sourced somewhere, does the source say anything that would resolve these issues? Joule36e5 (talk) 03:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The system is described at http://mrob.com/pub/math/largenum.html#conway-wechsler, for which I just added a citation. According to this system, #106 is sexcentillion, while #600 is sescentillion. —Anders Kaseorg (talk) 09:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Are billiards, trilliards, quadrilliards, etc. real?

Hello! I'm a french canadian. You can check those word from the Office of the french language of québec, they have a dictionnary online at [4]. In common use we have million, milliard, billion, billiard. Trillion, trilliard, quadrillion, quadrilliard, quintillion, quintilliard, sextillion, sextilliard, septillion, septilliard, octillion, octilliard DO exist but let's face it... we don't use those big numbers quite ofter with our little budget! All those numbers can be searched on the québec dictionnary and they will provide the scientific notation and the US (short scale) name associated.

I asked Anthere, who is a native French-speaker, about this. The discussion is shown below. I suspect that that the information on all of the -illiard may be out-of-date information that has been propagated from book to book for decades and no longer reflects reality.

I'm working on Names of large numbers and would appreciate some input as to what current usage is in French. I'm just looking for what you know off the top of your head, not any deep research.

Have you ever heard of Pelletier, the 1550 mathematician who supposedly created the names ending in -illiard? That is, is the system that was adopted in 1948 referred to as "the Pelletier system?"

Wellll.... no. I checked with a few french. Noone knew

Which of the -illiard words are really used?

mostly milliard.

Are quadrilliards/quintilliards/sextilliards, etc. found in standard French dictionaries and textbooks?

It reminded me of nothing...so I looked in my Larousse. And the answer is no. No billiards, no quintilliards. However, I found a quintillion (10exp30). No sextilliards. However, I found a sextillion (10exp36).

Do I understand correctly that a billion in French was 1 000 000 000 up to 1948 and was then changed to 1 000 000 000 000?

I think that is true. 1 000 000 is a million. 1 000 000 000 is "un milliard", 1 000 000 000 000 is "mille milliard". Un "billion" is a million of million. But we never use the billion because of the confusion with english people.

As of 2004 today, what word do people use for 1 000 000 000 000?

Mille milliard

I'm no expert in French, but in Danish, using the long scale, the words are all real. They are rare because reference to so large numbers "by name" are rare - they mostly show up in science, where SI or scientific notation is used, avoiding naming them. But if they must be named, that is truly what they are called; they have no other names. Believe it or not! Arguably, the long scale (million=1E6, billion=1E12, trillion=1E18, ..., and -iard=times 1000) is more regular and logical than the short scale. It's a bit like driving in the right or the left side of the road...--Niels Ø 21:58, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

In swedish we use (swedish - eng translation):

• miljon - million - E6

• miljard - milliard - E9

• biljon - billion - E12

• biljard - billiard - E15

• triljon - trillion - E18

• triljard - trilliard - E21

..etc

A thought on the rarity of these words and their absense from dictionnaries, even in the languages where they are used: In Danish, 463284 is called firehundredetreogtrestusindetohundredefireogfirs. (You may insert a few blanks or hyphens, but that is the name of the number.) You will not find it in a dictionnary, because it is rare to spell it out, and anyway it follows the same pattern as zillions of other numbers. The situation for e.g. quintilliard is pretty much the same: Correct, following a pattern, and rare.--Niels Ø 11:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The "-illiard" are very much real in many countries in the world still, see Long and short scales - which I also added to the see-also section of the article. It describes the various variations of short and long scales as well as their geographical and linguistical spread (and historical background). -- 212.25.128.33 (talk) 07:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Error for chart on rules for numbers when n>20

The chart explaining how to produce very large numbers has: NX Centi

Which if correct, leads to: Trexcentillion instead of Trescentillion as indicated in the examples below those rules.

I assume that X should be an S ?

You're partially correct. An S needs to be added there, but the X needs to stay for such numbers as sexcentillion. Black Yoshi (Yoshi! | Yoshi's Eggs) 01:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I get it now, it's specifically called out on "The Conway-Wechsler System" with this rule: "For the special case of tre, the letter s should be inserted if the following part is marked with either an s or an x." and in the current version of the document we have: “tre” changes to “tres” and “se” to “ses” or “sex”. I wasn't taking this literally enough, in that it ALWAYS becomes tres. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.156.236.84 (talk) 08:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Quin or Quinqua

There is a note on http://mrob.com/pub/math/largenum.html#conway-wechsler that says: (NOTE: The original Conway-Wechsler system specifies quinqua for 5, not quin.) which implies that quin should now be used for Quinvigintillion and Quintrigintillion in the example tables for n=25 and n=35. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.156.236.84 (talk) 09:22, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Why was "Millillion" deleted?

Why was the "Millillion" line deleted from the Extensions of Standard Dictionary Numbers table? (I've already added it back in, but still, it baffles me...) -- Black Yoshi (talk) 21:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I assume that's a joke ... - DavidWBrooks (talk) 23:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I can assure you it's not...for reference, here you go: [5] Black Yoshi (talk) 13:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

If you're going to add the questionable "Millillion" as 10³⁰⁰³ to the table, at least fill in the long scale names. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Note that the reference given above by Black Yoshi only says this: "Some popular non-dictionary sources have made reference to millillion and milli-millillion" and gives as a primary source for the word a "Professor Henckle" in the early 1900s, adding "No-one seems to know who "Henkle" was". To me, this means somebody somewhere once dreamed up this term but it hasn't ever been used by anybody - which is exactly the sort of "hey, this sounds cool!" word we don't want to clog this article with. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

@DavidWBrooks:: The source says Henkle published it properly in the 9th volume of The Ohio Educational Monthly (now called

Ohio schools): . He published regularly there and if you research him further you find a obituary in the The Indiana School Journal : "Prof. William Downs Henkle, who died at his home in Salem, Ohio, November 21, 1881: Mr. Henkle was born in Springfield, Ohio. October 8, 1828. ... In Ohio he was successively Professor of Mathematics in the Lebanon Normal School, Superintendent of Lebanon Public schools. Superintendent of Salem public schools. State School Commissioner, and Editor and Proprietor of " Notes and Queries " and "Ohio Educational Monthly." He was also an active member of the National Educational Association, and since 1875 is efficient Secretary. BeniBela (talk) 15:37, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

References

10^306

This article says that 10³⁰⁶ is an Uncentillion, but in the link [6], 10³⁰⁶ is a Cenuntillion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.216.165.94 (talk) 16:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Memory aide

I have removed a four-paragraph section that tried to tell people how to remember the names of the various numbers. Aside from not being very well done, it violates [[7]] - "an article should not read like a "how-to" style owner's manual, cookbook, advice column (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestion box. This includes tutorials ... " - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Milliard vs. Billion

Has anyone idea why on earth would US. remove the Milliard 10^9 and replace it with Billion that is 10^12. Its rediculuous that the Billion has a different value based on your location. Does it have something to do with you national debt?Dmitri 152 (talk) 08:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

It has to do with the number scale certain parts of the world use; see long and short scales for more information. Black Yoshi (Yoshi! | Yoshi's Eggs) 08:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Sesquillion

Why has there been no mention of 'sesquillion'? This is found in dictionaries as much as 'milliard', probably more so. As it comes from 'sesqui' which means one and a half, chemists should recognise it as it is used for sesqui-terpenes with 15 carbon atoms. If you have a million^1.5 then you get 10^9 which is what 1 sesquillion is. I think this should be added as an alternative to milliard. I do not know if there is a term for two and a half which would relate to 10^15. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.119.162 (talk) 22:19, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

A cursory Google search shows that not to be the case. The only two hits I got which defined the number are a wiki and a Google site, neither of which can be considered reliable sources. Other than that, it seems to be used in the same vein as "zillion," namely defining some large undefined amount. Black Yoshi (Yoshi! | Yoshi's Eggs) 23:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I think you are mixing up 'squillion' with 'sesquillion', as you are right in that the former is used like 'zillion'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.119.162 (talk) 08:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Quadrillion-Hold Hats-Propose Change Name

Unless I am overlooking something, Quadrillion is respresented as:

Quadrillion 1,000,000,000,000,000 (15 zeros)

1,000 Trillion = 1 Quadrillion

Trillion 1,000,000,000,000 (12 zeros)

Action #1

---

Propose changing the name from:

"Quadrillion"

To

"Centrillion" or "Centillion"

Primarily due to 15 zeros having 5 "000" places, after leading "1,".

        {1},{2},{3},{4},{5}

Quadrillion 1,000,000,000,000,000 (15 zeros)

Quad represents 4.

Cent represents 5.

"Centrillion" "Centillion" makes much more logical sense from math rules / laws perspective one make conclude.

Action #2

---

Not to confuse issue, mainly proposing name change from "Quadrillion" -> "Centrillion" or "Centillion" but based on this logic, "Trillion" probably should have been called "Quadrillion" due to 4 "000" places post leading "1,".

     {1},{2},{3},{4}

Trillion 1,000,000,000,000 (12 zeros)

The above notation could be called "Quadrillion" but again, mainly proposing "Action #1" and personally would leave "Trillion" as is. May be too confusing for multiple modifications this drastic.

A) Agree with proposed "Action #1"?

B) Agree with proposed "Action #2"?

C) Why or Why Not?

D) The BIG question in my mind if others agree with both or 1 proposed...HOW would one go about modifying? CajunJas (talk) 07:29, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

This article is not naming numbers as we see fit, it tells readers what the numbers are called. So while your idea is intriguing, it does not belong here. You are welcome, of course, to create a separate website and make the argument, trying to convince others; if the idea truly spreads then perhaps it could be referenced here. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:17, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Hudelson proposal

Matt Hudelson - an assistant professor in the Department of Pure and Applied Mathematics at Washington State University - has proposed the following scheme for names of huge numbers.

The term "k-oogol" is used to indicate 10^(10^k).

So a one-oogol would be 10^(10^1) = 10 ¹⁰ = somewhere between an American "billion" and "trillion". (André Joyce was the Franco-American mathematician-cum-creative-writer who coined the word "oogol")

A two-oogol would be 10^(10^10) = 10 ¹⁰⁰ = one googol. (The word "googol" was coined in 1920 by nine-year-old Milton Sirotta, nephew of Jewish American mathematician Edward Kasner. Kasner popularized the concept in his book Mathematics and the Imagination.) (Erm, but isn't that a ten-oogol? --220.255.7.155 (talk) 02:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC))

A five-oogol would be 10^(10^5)=10 ¹⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰

Matt Hudelson also proposed that we should use the construction "k-plex" to indicate raising 10 to the k.

So, a oogolplex is 10 ^oogol and a googolplex is 10 ^googol and a googolplexplex is 10 ^googolplex etc. Thus, 100 is also a twoplex, which makes a googol a twoplexplex and a googolplex a twoplexplexplex. Thus, a k-oogol is also a k-plexplex. Finally, he also suggested that we use the Greek and/or Latin prefixes, so instead of writing plexplex, we write duplex, and plexplexplex should be triplex, etc.

No sources are given. Is there is a published source for this? This material should be reinserted in the article only if it is accompanied by a citation of a published source. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

http://www.math.wsu.edu/faculty/hudelson/moser.html  Does not seem appropriate. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 08:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC).

Crore and lakh

We should include these. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 08:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC).

How silly do these names look??

Do the names of these extremely gigantic numbers look silly at all to any of you?? 66.32.93.148 20:24, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes. They do. If in a month or so there aren't some decent notes about where those names came from and why they are any more encyclopedic than "bajillion kabillion skillion," I'll probably delete the later sections. There's even worse online at http://michaelhalm.tripod.com/mathematics_beyond_the_googol.htm Dpbsmith 20:39, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

They're Francais/ Chemistry like, my child: Million as Mon-oxide, billion as in 2, trillion as in 3, Quadrillion as in Quatre which means 4 in French, Quintrillion which i don't know, sexcillion which is related to 6 in English and French, Septillion which means 7 in french, and the obvious octliion comes from the octopus' 8 legs. etc. Hope that helps ;) Sum1else 10:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Wierd Rokolegenda (talk) 03:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

quintillion from Latin quintus ‘fifth’Robinrobin (talk) 22:48, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Just look at http://users.skynet.be/nizgorur/very_big_numbers.htm ...going down to the bottom of that was harsh. Names like"novenseptuagintaoctingentillion", "quattuorseptuagintanongentillion", "fugagargantugoogolplex", just to name a few.WhyJustWhy (729) (talk) 23:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

See also

@DavidWBrooks: You shouldn't refer to the "see also" as a part of the article itself. It's just section with related links.
davronova.a. 22:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Sure it's a part of the article itself, just as footnotes are part of a research paper and headlines are part of a newspaper article. Decisions about what does and doesn't belong int he See Also is determined by the rest of the article, by the subject matter - the See Also needs to be related enough so that it is worthy of inclusion in the article. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 02:34, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Whole possible range of names of large numbers in short

Million 1 Billion 2 Trillion 3 Quadrillion 4 Quintillion 5 Sextillion 6 Septillion 7 Octillion 8 Nonillion 9

Decillion 10 Vigintillion 20 Trigintillion 30 Quadragintillion 40 Quinquagintillion 50 Sexagintillion 60 Septuagintillion 70 Octogintillion 80 Nonagintillion 90

Centillion 100 Bicentillion 200 Tercentillion 300 Quadricentillion 400 Quinquacentillion 500 Sexacentillion 600 Septuacentillion 700 Octocentillion 800 Nonacentillion 900

Millillion 1000

Missing billiard?

In french, 10^15 is called a billard. I am surprised that it is not included in the list. Is there a reason for this or is it just missing?--Powo 08:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess that's because this is an English encyclopaedia. Why include the French word (and if we do include it, we should also include the Greek and the Russian and the Chinese etc.) -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

It is, however, of interest with regard to the article on long and short scales.

Can you personally confirm that "billiard" is in real, everyday use in French-speaking countries to mean 10¹⁵?

I ask, because English dictionaries and reference sources often say that "milliard" is an English word meaning 10⁹ but in fact it is very, very, very rarely used. I've gotten conflicting answers on the French use of the word "billion;" there's no doubt that 'when it is used it means 10¹². But when you ask the question the other way around—what do French-speakers call the quantity 10¹²?—a native-French-speaking Wikipedian has told me that billion is hardly used at all and the normal locution is "mille milliards."

What word is used in French for the game called Billiards in English? Dpbsmith (talk) 13:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about French, but in Dutch biljard is used for 10^15 and miljard for 10^9. Miljard is used a lot, biljard not that much but that's just because numbers of that magnitude do not occur very often. Billiards is called biljard. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

"Mille milliard" or "billion"? I reaccon people who use mille milliards do this either because they forgot the meaning of the word billion, or because it is confusing due to the fact that its got a different meaning in english (typically true in scientific circles...). Billion = 10^12 would therefore be used exclusively by litterate french speakers, probably in non scientific circles... I am tera-times sorry if this is slitely confusing... ;)--Powo 16:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Why 1 is "million"? I think 1 should be "unillion", since (in Latin) 1 = "un", 2 = "bi", 3 = "tri", 4 = "quad", 5 = "quin", 6 = "sex", 7 = "sept", 8 = "oct", 9 = "nona".

A lot of those names actally come from the French (which, in turn, does borrow from the Latin). The French regarded "million" as a "big thousand," based on their word for thousand, "Mil." Black Yoshi (Yoshi! | Yoshi's Eggs) 16:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Latin names?

e.g. “4” is “quattuor” and “10” is “dec”, thus “14” is “quattuordecillion”, and “7” is “septem” thus “17” is “septendecillion”, however, “2” is “bis”, why “12” is not “bisdecillion” (but duodecillion)? “duo” is GREEK of 2... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xayahrainie43 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

"Bis" (archaically "duis") means "twice", "duo" means "two" in Latin. 12 in Latin is "duodecim". Burzuchius (talk) 13:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2018

MikutronixX3535 (talk) 22:13, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 23:15, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2018

I want to edit that! MikutronixX3535 (talk) 23:02, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

@MikutronixX3535:You can edit this page when you become autoconfirmed (usually after four days and 10 edits). Any changes you make will need to be supported by citations to Reliable Sources. RudolfRed (talk) 00:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

"none" - plural or singular?

There is an editorial dispute about whether to follow "none of ..." with "is" or "are". There's no set answer, as this discussion from Writers Digest demonstrates (http://www.writersdigest.com/editor-blogs/questions-and-quandaries/grammar/is-none-singular-or-plural) - I prefer to use what sounds best, which usually means the plural. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

It actually depends on what the "none" refers to. If you're referring to a large amount of something (e.g. sand, dirt), then you'd use the singular ("None of the sand was able to pass through the No.200 sieve"). If you're referring to a large number of objects (say, planets, stars), then you'd use the plural ("we have several billion stars in our galaxy and none of them, save our sun, have planets around them that support life, that we know of"). Black Yoshi (Yoshi! | Yoshi's Eggs) 17:07, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

That's not a hard and fast rule, although I was taught it. It's similar to using "more than" vs. "over" - that difference was once peddled as an absolute rule but now even AP has rejected it. Go with what sounds best. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:49, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

10^51

10^51 is called sexdecillion in the first table and sedecillion in the second. The latter is more correct, since it comes from sedecim = 16. Should the table be corrected? 109.246.123.214 (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Done. I've fixed it in the first table to comply with Conway and Guy's system as described later in the article. Black Yoshi (Yoshi! | Yoshi's Eggs) 17:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with this -- the first table is entitled 'Standard Dictionary Numbers' and is a chart of which words are found in which dictionaries. While 'sedecillion' might be closer to Latin 'sedecim', it is not found in any of the dictionaries listed and so the chart becomes incorrect and we would have to remove all of the checkmarks. Understood sedecillion comes from the Conway and Guy system, but so does quinquadecillion and novendecillion -- also not found in any dictionaries. There's certainly an argument for using the Conway and Guy names but not in a table that is specifically charting dictionary usage. I am going to revert but happy to discuss further. Ytrepus (talk) 21:13, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

millillion

it's obvious, that millillion would be (short) 10³⁰⁰³ or (long) 10⁶⁰⁰⁰ since mille is latin for 1000. Ra-raisch (talk) 20:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

10^138

is Quinquadragintillion not Quinquaquadragintillion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.70.76.185 (talk) 14:58, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

No, "quinquaquadragintillion" is correct. The base of the name is 45, and the number name is formed by reading the digits backward according to the table: 5 becomes "quinqua" and 40 becomes "quadraginta" -- hence "quinquaquadragintillion." Black Yoshi (Yoshi! | Yoshi's Eggs) 07:14, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

wrong too: 5 ist quinque and numbers in general are read from high digits to low digits [8] so it is quadraginta-quintillion. Ra-raisch (talk) 22:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

well maybe the illions are not read like the romans would from high to low digits ... Ra-raisch (talk) 23:05, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

google plex bang stack

There might be some reasonable RS for this system by now. I've seen it in a few places online. This is partly "note to self" but if someone else wants to look into it, that's great. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 07:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Twoplexlex

"Conway and Guy [15] have suggested that N-plex be used as a name for 10^N."

Wouldn't that make googol a hundredplex? But then a hundred is really a twoplex. So a googol would become a twoplexplex? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.118.170.35 (talk) 02:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Upon encountering the names of large numbers article for the first time, I came here to the talk page in order to propose the hundredplex, and found that you had conceived of it, and gone even farther, almost exactly oneplex years earlier. If the -plex definition were accepted, it would make the googol an unimportant novelty. Perhaps there is a corporate conspiracy to suppress adoption of the common sense approach of Conway and Guy so as not to rename their headquarters the Twotriplex. 146.115.70.68 (talk) 18:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2019

Croomillion 10^990 ?

RedBeetle (talk) 17:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart 18:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Conway-Wechsler name of a googolplex

In the third table of the section "Extensions of the standard dictionary numbers", the name of a googol is shown in the short scale, British long scale, and Traditional European long scale, but not googolplex. The full Conway-Wechsler name of a googolplex is in the short scale "ten trilli" followed by 32 repetitions of "trestrigintatrecentilli" followed by "duotrigintatrecentillion" and in the British long scale "ten thousand milli" followed by 33 repetitions of "sesexagintasescentilli" followed by "on" (and conversion from British long scale to Traditional European long scale is trivial so I needn't state it here). Is there any reasonably understandable way to indicate such repetition and so fit the name in the table? Or is it just not worth it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timestoppa (talk • contribs) 23:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC) There is no way to indicate such repetition, that I know of. Black Yoshi (Yoshi! | Yoshi's Eggs) 00:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2019

Add Googolplexian I'm Too Lazy to make a Username (talk) 22:51, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. There's no reliable source to support such a number, nor does it appear in any of the listed dictionaries. Black Yoshi (Yoshi! | Yoshi's Eggs) 22:56, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2020

Big numbers, such as duoquattoragintriginvigintillion, is actually the biggest known number. 2A00:23C5:7538:FA01:5C77:5091:E8FB:85FE (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Name produces no search results in Google. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 21:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Graham's Number

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham's_number

Is Graham's number larger than a googolplex?

Hpfeil (talk) 00:42, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is far, far larger than a googolplex. Black Yoshi (Yoshi! | Yoshi's Eggs) 01:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Quin or quinqua

If we're naming numbers using the method described in the Extensions of the standard dictionary numbers section and The Book of Numbers, shouldn't the numbers quindecillion, quinvigintillion, quintrigintillion, etc. be quinquadecillion, quinquavigintillion and quinquatrigintillion? Andreasl01 (talk) 09:21, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Talk:Names_of_large_numbers#Quindecillion_vs_Quinquadecillion for an explanation. Black Yoshi (Yoshi! | Yoshi's Eggs) 21:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by this part of your response: "the Conway-Wechsler table lists the prefix as 'quin-'. Therefore, since this article seems to be based on C-W names, I feel the number should be listed as 'quindecillion.'" The Conway-Wechsler system uses "quinqua", not "quin". The page you linked to even states that "[t]he original Conway-Wechsler system specifies quinqua for 5, not quin." It does, however, seem like "quin" is more common than "quinqua" in English, so maybe we could use those names, but in that case we need to find a new source and change the description of the naming system. As the article is right now it first states that the Conway-Guy-Wechsler system uses "quinqua", then, right after, there's a table using "quin" instead of "quinqua" without any explanation as to why. This could possibly be okay if the table didn't claim to show "number names generated by the system described by Conway and Guy". Andreasl01 (talk) 18:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Source Citation For Jonathan Bowers -illion Numbers.

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Names of large numbers for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 21:49, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Here's my source - this article needs more bigger numbers. Thanks! Jonathan Bowers' illions, as well. There are only a few numerals on this page, and those are the rememberable ones. It would be necessary to learn the larger ones than millinillion since these will become vital soon. More of his -illions. Sorry, it wouldn't have been smart to list them all out, but here are all from micrillion 10^3,000,003 to nonecxenultillion 10^{3*103*102.997*1045+3}. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poxism (talk • contribs) 22:07, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

A random website isn't a reliable source; see WP:RS, WP:SPS, etc. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:18, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Table from List of numbers

After reviewing this well-researched page, it seems pretty clear to me that the biggest table in List of numbers ought to be merged with the list here and deleted from the other page. The tables are big, so it'll take a little while. --Ardonik 20:12, 5 August 2004 (UTC)

also, there are 2 tables here that could be merged into one, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cregox (talk • contribs) 09:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

merging the 2 big tables

i think the second table is descriptive enough to explain the article, while the first one just adds confusion. but the first one is shown more proheminently, for some reason.

does it make sense to merge them both and put it in a better place? 09:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cregox (talk • contribs)

The reason they're separate is that one lists the numbers that appear in the standard dictionaries and the other lists those that are extensions of those numbers based on a system conjured by Conway and Guy. The second table lists the numbers from the first table as a point of illustration, both to establish the patterns and to provide the SI prefixes, which we can't on the first table. Black Yoshi (Yoshi! | Yoshi's Eggs) 14:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Question

Excuse me? When I type out the Illions like Septillion, Octillion, Nonillion, Decillion, Quattuortrigintillion, and etc., why does the computer think it's misspelled even though it's spelled correctly? Any Answers? --StaleGuy22 (talk) 14:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

It's a function of the dictionary inside whatever software you're using - probably those words are not included in its list of acceptable words, because they're so rare, so it marks them as unknown/wrong. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Yep, and what's more, how would this question be on topic here, keeping the wp:talk page guidelines in mind? Here we discuss the article, not the quality of some software. - DVdm (talk) 18:17, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

True, but I read the question as sort of asking: How do we know the spellings in this article are right when my computer says they're wrong? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Too bad you corrected that compouter typo. I assumed you did it on purpose, and I loved it . - DVdm (talk) 21:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

"n/a" in the table for googolplex

Is there a reason to include googolplex in our table of numbers if we're not going to use the Conway–Guy–Wechsler scheme to fill in the relevant entries? At the very least, it seems misleading to me to fill in those entries with "n/a" when the words can in fact be constructed. 130.64.35.20 (talk) 07:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Because it's a well-defined and well-sourced number. And the reason for the use of "n/a" is that the C-G-W names for googolplex would be incredibly long, perhaps hundreds of letters, so it's better left out. Black Yoshi (Yoshi! | Yoshi's Eggs) 17:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

In that case mightn't it be better to use a footnote to that effect? I've always understood "n/a" to mean "not available/applicable" — i.e., that the information in question doesn't exist, whereas in this case the information does exist, but we're choosing not to display it. 130.64.35.20 (talk) 17:01, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Looking into it, the actual length of the number would be 769 letters, still too long to show on this article in any sense, footnote or otherwise. And that assumes that one can count the source I used as reliable, which is questionable at best. Black Yoshi (Yoshi! | Yoshi's Eggs) 19:04, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't thinking necessarily a footnote containing the full name of the number, but a footnote explaining that the name is too long to display. At the moment the table reads to me as though it's saying the name doesn't exist. 130.64.35.20 (talk) 01:51, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Maybe. I'd like to wait for some more input on this one before moving forward with this. Black Yoshi (Yoshi! | Yoshi's Eggs) 05:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I've tried to fill the actual names in the table myself (which unfortunately did not pass the filter and I'm trying to resolve the issue).

Even though the names are indeed long. I've made sure to format the table in such a way where

1. The table will not be too intrusive and will not ruin the readability of the article

2. The names themselves will be separated by a newline in a place where it makes since and readable (You'll see that the names happen to repeat themselves and so the newlines make the final name easier on the eye)

I also added a footnote explaining the way in which the names were calculated which will make it easier to understand the large prefix (and also to validate in case of an error). UltimateLobster (talk) 06:00, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

@UltimateLobster The details of the edit attempt are available here Special:AbuseLog/33206564. I haven't made the edit because this section indicates there may not be consensus for the change, but this is an old discussion so if there is no objection in a week or two leave a message on my talk page and I'll make the edit for you. PhantomTech[talk] 17:56, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Is there any evidence of these names actually being used, rather than WP:OR on what the names might be if they existed? Certes (talk) 23:18, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

The only source I've been able to find is questionable at best. Black Yoshi (Yoshi! | Yoshi's Eggs) 23:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Actually we should use bowers system which is based on si prefixes and Greek numbers and is less confusing also it can go up to 10^10^10^10^45 or with my extension 10[4]15 where x[y]z is hyperoperation it was truly designed for number such as googolplex 2601:CD:4101:5520:2916:7FB4:2E7E:BA03 (talk) 00:58, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I Was Shocked by how Confusing Your way of displaying large illions is so I decided to nearly start an edit war so that I could change the illions to John bowers illion system it is based on si prefixes plus Greek numbers and it goes up to 10^10^10^10^45 which is unbelievably large so why not use it instead of the confusing Conway-guy system Made by ben 20:49, 7 October 2022

The Bowers system is not reliably sourced. Bower's own web page or some other wiki do not meet WP:RS guidelines. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 05:08, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I think you Are trying to confuse people we should finally replace Conway-guy system because it is confusing 2601:CD:4101:5520:70E9:53AE:F551:1DB1 (talk) 12:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Why has cenuntillion been deleted?

This article used to include other numbers, such as a cenuntillion (10^306), etc, but these have been removed. Any ideas why? --Rebroad (talk) 12:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

10^306 is included in the article. --Jmk (talk) 10:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This is because there are two systems that are both correct and in wide use, although wikipedia refuses to acknowledge the second (and arguably better) system. This is not helped, unfortunately, by the fact that the other system is not used in any widely known documents that could be cited in the article, although the system is definitely legitimate and as correct as Conway and Guy's system. Conway and Guy's system puts the one prefix before the hundred prefix, but the other system has it after to avoid confusion with (duocen)tillion and (duo)(cen)tillion. 80.189.100.37 (talk) 18:02, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Jonathan Bowers' system

I used to be familiar with the extended "illion" number system by Jonathan Bowers, is the sourcing reliable for Wikipedia? Trakaplex (talk) 16:37, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

There has been discussion about that system beforehand and it was ruled unreliable per Wikipedia standards, specifically WP:RS. See the discussion above. Black Yoshi (Yoshi! | Yoshi's Eggs) 00:20, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Is there a "trucentillion", or is it just me?

I was wondering, does the word trucentillion exist as 10⁹⁰³ (short scale) / 10¹⁸⁰⁰ (long scale) but which one is correct? Trucentillion or Trecentillion?

Thanks! AptiveViennaPro (chat with me) 02:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

The word is "trecentillion," and it represents either 10⁹⁰³ (short scale)/10¹⁸⁰⁰(long scale) or 10³¹² (short scale)/10⁶¹⁸ (long scale). Confusing, I know. Also, "centillion" is equivalent to 10³⁰³ (short scale)/10⁶⁰⁰ (long scale). There is no "trucentillion." Black Yoshi (Yoshi! | Yoshi's Eggs) 02:40, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Words like these may exist in principle, but if you find them anywhere, it will probably be in texts discussing names of large numbers. It's a bit like saying the word "sixtynine billion threehundred and sixtynine million fivehundred and eightyseven thousand sixhundred and eleven" exists (OK, let's pretend that is one word!) - except that "word" might in fact be found in real use (if someone needed exactly that number), where as numbers as large as "trecentillion" are never seriously, "in the wild", referred to by name - one would use scientific notation ("ten-to-the ...", if spoken). In a popular context, one might add a name for such a number to impress people, but more likely one would compare it to the number of atoms in an Elephant or a galaxy, or the probability monkeys at a typewriter would produce Shakespeare's complete works - and it would usually be secondary to stating the number using scientific notation. It's difficult to say where the limit goes, but I think it will be very hard to find examples of numbers as large as 10^18 (a short scale quintillion or long scale trillion) referred to by name "in the wild". Nø (talk) 07:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Updated. Thanks for your reply! AptiveViennaPro (chat with me) 10:54, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

1.1K

1,100 2601:14D:4780:25AB:D01C:8BF7:F004:DF6D (talk) 13:58, 6 February 2023 (UTC)