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

Results 1 to 15 of 17

- May 11th 2008, 04:07 PM #1

- Joined
- May 2008
- Posts
- 2

- May 11th 2008, 04:14 PM #2

- 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.

- May 11th 2008, 04:18 PM #3

- Joined
- May 2008
- Posts
- 2

- May 11th 2008, 05:36 PM #4But is the name googolplexian regarded worldwide as the largest number with a name?

From wikipedia, we can learn that despite its gigantic size, a Googolplex is smaller than $\displaystyle 9^{9^{9^{9^{9^9}}}}$.

- May 11th 2008, 06:29 PM #5

- 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.

- May 11th 2008, 06:54 PM #6
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,

$\displaystyle

G = \left.

\begin{matrix}

3\underbrace{\uparrow\ldots\uparrow}3\\

\underbrace{\vdots}\\

3\uparrow\uparrow\uparrow\uparrow3

\end{matrix}

\right\}\text{64 layers}

$

which is not only many, many times larger than a googolplex, it has also actually been used in a mathematical proof.

- May 12th 2008, 03:23 AM #7

- May 12th 2008, 04:23 AM #8

- May 12th 2008, 04:26 AM #9

- May 12th 2008, 04:32 AM #10

- May 12th 2008, 08:53 AM #11

- Joined
- Nov 2005
- From
- New York City
- Posts
- 10,616
- Thanks
- 10

It depends on how you choose to define "number". Though it is possible to extend $\displaystyle +$ and $\displaystyle \cdot$ and exponentiation for all cardinal numbers $\displaystyle \aleph_{\alpha}$ 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.

- May 21st 2008, 06:29 PM #12
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.

- May 21st 2008, 06:38 PM #13
Not so. Read Hawking radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

- May 21st 2008, 07:01 PM #14
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

- May 21st 2008, 08:47 PM #15

- Joined
- Nov 2005
- From
- someplace
- Posts
- 14,972
- Thanks
- 5