Talk:Names of large numbers

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Names of large numbers article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 6 months

This article was nominated for deletion on July 14, 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep.

One Hundred Quinsexagintillion is also call gargoogol (10^200

Gargoogol has 200 Zeros 77.100.228.242 (talk) 19:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This number is documented on several wikis such as Fandom, but as user-contributed content it may not be a sufficiently reliable source to support inclusion in the article. Certes (talk) 21:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

same. fandom should stay colloquial and not be contributed on wp. [i said that also on the largest number post] 31.133.63.151 (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ten Billion is also call diosge

Disoge has 10 zeros 77.100.228.242 (talk) 19:36, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does any reliable source use this term? Certes (talk) 21:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Me,an editor, could not find any source that uses the term "diosge". Number Numismatist (talk) 12:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

same. this name isnt even in the fandoms, so, sorry, poster. 31.133.63.159 (talk) 08:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Hi. Btw, Gargoogolplexianth in the BIGGEST number out there. Number Numismatist (talk) 19:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, we need to talk, its not called googolplexplex, its called googolplexian. Number Numismatist (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Largest number

I feel like the largest (well defined) number should be mentioned here. The largest number that has been created that isn't explicitly ill defined is the Large Number Garden Number (https://googology.fandom.com/wiki/Large_Number_Garden_Number?so=search). While it is incredibly complicated and useless, it should be put here I think. Kargenumbergardennumber (talk) 20:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fandom sites do not come close to meeting WP:RS guidelines. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:43, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry. Still I think it should be mentioned. I don't know another source that describes it, although it was first described in a blog post which probably isn't a good source either. Kargenumbergardennumber (talk) 15:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it shouldn't. And besides, even the page you linked doesn't say largest...it says largest under some vague, subjective conditions. Also "explicitly ill defined" doesn't even make any sense. Also also, "garden number plus 1", ner ner. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

that is a salad number, and doesn't count Kargenumbergardennumber (talk) 17:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It also hasn't been verified if it is ill defined, but nothing wrong with it has been found yet. Other numbers that are bigger either have some big hole in their definitions, a vague outline of a number, just 'LNGN+1' or infinite. Kargenumbergardennumber (talk) 17:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It says 'largest well defined number that isn't a salad number', which I would say isn't very subjective or vague Kargenumbergardennumber (talk) 17:22, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We will not be adding fandom numbers (or anything else sourced to fandom sites), period, regardless of what you think. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I suppose so, sorry. Kargenumbergardennumber (talk) 20:53, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the original blog post isn't a good source either lol Kargenumbergardennumber (talk) 20:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair the blog post is the original source Kargenumbergardennumber (talk) 20:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USERG has the answer you are looking for ("no"). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:12, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Billiard, Trilliard missing in the Standard dictionaly number table

At least in Sweden, but afaik in Denmark and Norway also, there are words "Biljard" or "Billiard", and "Triljard" or "Trilliard" for ten to the power of 15, and 10 to the power of 21 respectively as standard names. These names are described in the table "number names generated by the system described by Conway and Guy for the short and long scales.", but they are also commonly used.

It's a table of current usage in English, as given in current dictionaries. You can read about milliard etc. elsewhere (esp. in Long and short scales), but they do not belong in this table.Nø (talk) 11:14, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extension of dictionary numbers.

It's either misnomer or spelling error, but I believe the prefix deci means tenth, while deca means ten. So, it should be decacentillion for 1E+333.

If it's spelling, please correct, or if it's supposed to be deca while being nomered deci, well, it's a mathmatical thing.

deca = 10, cent=100 => 110 => 1E+(3x110 + 3) => 1E+333. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.45.33.122 (talk) 08:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is this article about?

This article seems to lack focus WRT topic. It talks about numbering systems: long and short scales, Indian numbering system and Indefinite and fictitious numbers. Describes where the systems are used and when. If this is about large number names, then there is so much distracting info here I can't find the signal for the noise.

Also, how is the topic different from large numbers? Stevebroshar (talk) 12:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's a standard dictionary?

The section Standard dictionary numbers is confusing. What's a standard dictionary? I don't think that's a thing. The section seems to be about what's in various (not what I'd call standard) dictionaries. Thing is, in what way is this information interesting and notable? To me, it's a big who cares; so much noise. Was going to propose removing the Authorties columns. but no, this article is about names. The relevant info is that the long scale has one additional word (milliard) and all the sizes bigger than million differ in size. Ax the table. This table might make sense in long and short scales. Stevebroshar (talk) 12:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About the "diosge" post, and more numbers

well a googolplex in illionic can be simplified to "~trimilli^32illion" or "~tritretriacontillion", even though the exact value's name is wrong. but still, "tri-trigentitrigintitri..." (3.33e99th illion) is still normal. 31.133.63.151 (talk) 17:02, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thousand

Why no table in the article mentions the thousand? That is a pretty big number, isn't it...? --CiaPan (talk) 08:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thousand is not an illion number, sorry, nor a big number. womp-womp... 31.41.15.124 (talk) 09:32, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Googolplexplex

It is not usually "Googolplexplex". It is more scientifically called "Googolplexian" Number Numismatist (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages are not chat rooms. "Googolplexplex" as a proposed name is sourced, and the article notes that it is not widely used. Do you have a reliable source for "Googolplexian," feel free to post it here. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article description

The other day I added a description for this article which was quickly reverted claiming it was vandalism. Are there any maintainers of this article that believe that my edit was in fact, vandalism? BurninButter (talk) 12:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2025

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

10^51 has been incorrectly named Sedecillion, when it's actual name is Sexdecillion. It is just missing the x before the d. 2600:4040:56EA:9500:99FD:1338:153C:1D29 (talk) 08:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done Good eye. _signed,Willondon (talk) 16:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually not a typo. While "sexdecillion" is MUCH more prevalent in usage (and how I would personally spell it), the table in question, as the preceding text before it mentions, lists numbers formed via the Conway–Guy system, not standard dictionary numbers. In the Conway–Guy system, 10⁵¹ is "Sedecillion", not "Sexdecillion".

The paragraph prior to the table before the table in question even mentions this:

Today, sexdecillion and novemdecillion are standard dictionary numbers and, using the same reasoning as Conway and Guy did for the numbers up to nonillion, could probably be used to form acceptable prefixes.

I’ll probably add a note so this is more clear. EmptySora_ (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Googol family

For the googol family section we can add much more. (such as a Gargoogol, 10^200) Although my account cannot edit this page so if someone could skim through the fandom wiki and find some good numbers to add I think it will be a great addition to the page. Real Baguette (talk) 00:58, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That does not sound like a reliable source. It it the only source, it is not stuff we should cover at all (until it perhaps is covered in reliable secondary or tertiary sources). Nø (talk) 12:32, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Error in description of Conway-Guy system

There appears to be a (fairly major) error, unless I'm missing something. In the Units / Tens / Hundreds prefix table, the units = 5 prefix is given as Quinqua. In the big table a little further down, entries in row numbers 15, 25, and 35 (and no others) have a 5 in the units place, and so they use this prefix, BUT the words given in those rows have a prefix of QUIN, rather than QUINQUA as specified in the prefix table.

That this discrepancy could occur is not that surprising. Conway and Guy's original system uses QUINQUA for units = 5, but a later analysis in 2003 of Latin usage by Olivier Miakinen (see https://www.miakinen.net/vrac/zillions) concluded that QUIN is more accurate (and at the same time shorter, which I think is part of its appeal), and so "the Conway/Guy system except with QUIN instead of QUINQUA" has become very popular. Indeed, I think that QUIN is almost always seen now. Some more background on this is here: https://kyodaisuu.github.io/illion/index.html.

So either (a) the prefix table needs to be changed to have QUIN (which should have an asterisk or something to point to a note saying something along of lines of "Conway and Guy originally used QUINQUA but as a result of Miakinen's suggestion QUIN is mostly used nowadays"), or (b) the prefix table is left as it is and the names in lines 15, 25, and 35 in the big table should have QUIN replaced with QUINQUA. The goal is for the prefix table and big table to be consistent. I would vote for the option (a), since QUIN is imho better and also more common now. For another example which uses QUIN see the table here: https://www.olsenhome.com/bignumbers/. Obviously option (b) is simpler and avoids bringing up the whole "QUIN or QUINQUA" question, but then readers would be confused that the big table here doesn't match the names in (many) other sources. Ondiagonal (talk) 00:34, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]