Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 17

Math Help - Googolplexian

  1. #1
    Newbie
    Joined
    May 2008
    Posts
    2

    Googolplexian

    Is this a real number which is recognised in the maths/science community?

    I know what the number is suppose to be I just want to know if it is widely accepted as a number.

    Thanks
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    Global Moderator

    Joined
    Nov 2005
    From
    New York City
    Posts
    10,616
    Thanks
    10
    The number is useless. It is never used anywhere in mathematics. And definitely not physics for there is not even enough atoms in the entire universe of 15 billions light years big containing trillions and trillions of super huge stars with each star containing quadrillions and quadrillions of atoms.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    Newbie
    Joined
    May 2008
    Posts
    2
    I know, it's useless and can't be used for anything because it's so big.


    But is the name googolplexian regarded worldwide as the largest number with a name?
    Last edited by The Chosen; May 11th 2008 at 05:28 PM.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #4
    MHF Contributor arbolis's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2008
    From
    Teyateyaneng
    Posts
    1,000
    Awards
    1
    But is the name googolplexian regarded worldwide as the largest number with a name?
    If you mean a Googolplex, then I guess so. The infinity is greater than this (but that's not a number!) and of course it's very important in maths, physics, etc.
    From wikipedia, we can learn that despite its gigantic size, a Googolplex is smaller than 9^{9^{9^{9^{9^9}}}}.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  5. #5
    Global Moderator

    Joined
    Nov 2005
    From
    New York City
    Posts
    10,616
    Thanks
    10
    A google can have some signifigance in mathematics. For example, there are some result in number theory which were proven to work for large numbers. Such as the Goldbach Conjecture. I forget the number, but it was proven that for sufficiently large numbers the Goldbach Conjecture holds.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  6. #6
    MHF Contributor Reckoner's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2008
    From
    Baltimore, MD (USA)
    Posts
    1,024
    Thanks
    75
    Awards
    1

    Smile

    I have never heard it referred to as "googolplexian." I think the proper name is "googolplex."

    However, I wouldn't say it's the largest named number, or the largest number with a concise, nonsystematic name. For that we have the absurdly large Graham's number,

    <br />
G = \left.<br />
\begin{matrix}<br />
3\underbrace{\uparrow\ldots\uparrow}3\\<br />
\underbrace{\vdots}\\<br />
3\uparrow\uparrow\uparrow\uparrow3<br />
\end{matrix}<br />
\right\}\text{64 layers}<br />

    which is not only many, many times larger than a googolplex, it has also actually been used in a mathematical proof.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  7. #7
    Moo
    Moo is offline
    A Cute Angle Moo's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2008
    From
    P(I'm here)=1/3, P(I'm there)=t+1/3
    Posts
    5,618
    Thanks
    6
    But is the name googolplexian regarded worldwide as the largest number with a name?
    What about \aleph_0 ? It has a name, it's far superior to a googolplex and is not the least one
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  8. #8
    Flow Master
    mr fantastic's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2007
    From
    Zeitgeist
    Posts
    16,948
    Thanks
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Moo View Post
    What about \aleph_0 ? It has a name, it's far superior to a googolplex and is not the least one
    But it's not finite ....
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  9. #9
    Moo
    Moo is offline
    A Cute Angle Moo's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2008
    From
    P(I'm here)=1/3, P(I'm there)=t+1/3
    Posts
    5,618
    Thanks
    6
    Yep, I didn't get the right definition of "number"
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  10. #10
    Flow Master
    mr fantastic's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2007
    From
    Zeitgeist
    Posts
    16,948
    Thanks
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Moo View Post
    But it's countable o.O
    No it's not. It's the cardinality of a countable set.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  11. #11
    Global Moderator

    Joined
    Nov 2005
    From
    New York City
    Posts
    10,616
    Thanks
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Moo View Post
    What about \aleph_0 ? It has a name, it's far superior to a googolplex and is not the least one
    Quote Originally Posted by mr fantastic View Post
    But it's not finite ....
    Quote Originally Posted by Moo View Post
    Yep, I didn't get the right definition of "number"
    Quote Originally Posted by mr fantastic View Post
    No it's not. It's the cardinality of a countable set.
    It depends on how you choose to define "number". Though it is possible to extend + and \cdot and exponentiation for all cardinal numbers \aleph_{\alpha} it has no point outside of set theory. Therefore, like Mr.Fantastic said we do not think of it as a number. However, in the realm of set theory we regard the cardinals as numbers.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  12. #12
    Member ~berserk's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    82
    a Googolplexian is roughly how long it takes for a black hole to evaporate into nothing, at least thats how long it takes for the one at the center of the Andromeda Galaxy I think. I am pretty sure its probably the same for any black hole, but you'll have to ask Stephen Hawking.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  13. #13
    Flow Master
    mr fantastic's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2007
    From
    Zeitgeist
    Posts
    16,948
    Thanks
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by ~berserk View Post
    a Googolplexian is roughly how long it takes for a black hole to evaporate into nothing, at least thats how long it takes for the one at the center of the Andromeda Galaxy I think. I am pretty sure its probably the same for any black hole, but you'll have to ask Stephen Hawking.
    Not so. Read Hawking radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  14. #14
    Member ~berserk's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    82
    I guess it is just dependent on the mass of the black hole so in theory there can be one that takes that long to evaporate. Since I have no idea how to solve to find the necessary amount of mass you can use this equation I guess.


    ex:for the one solar mass black hole it takes 10^67 years to evaporate
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  15. #15
    Grand Panjandrum
    Joined
    Nov 2005
    From
    someplace
    Posts
    14,972
    Thanks
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Moo View Post
    What about \aleph_0 ? It has a name, it's far superior to a googolplex and is not the least one
    There is no largest transfinite number either:

    \aleph_0<2^{\aleph_0}<2^{2^{\aleph_0}}< ..

    RonL
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum