Talk:Centillion

I am a Centillioniar, the first in the world. I am Sylvester Vulani Mangolele, a Senior Officer in the South African National Defence Force. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.0.2.242 (talk) 21:20, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inverse factorial

What is the inverse factorial of a centillion?? That is, what number is x approximately equal to when x! is a centillion?? 66.245.95.56

168!=2.53x10^{302}

(American) and

294!=4.4x10^{599}

(European). Rt66lt 21:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is this the largest number to have a name? On the "names of large numbers" page, googolplex is listed (correctly)after this number in size. 64.126.190.197 14:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of this is that a googolplex is not an "official" name, whereas centillion is. "Googol" and "googlplex" are coined names, million, billion, trillion, etc. (to centillion) are based on a system.Rt66lt 05:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Graham's number

Graham's number has a name, and is so far beyond any number expressed in common knowledge notation (such as power towers) that it's retarded. It's greater than Cthulhu and Jesus, and a centillion doesn't even exist next to it. So there. I'm removing the part about googolplex being the largest named number. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.250.35.254 (talk) 16:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Centillion

Its seems, based on this article, that a centillion is more than everything but less than infinity.

Sean7phil (talk) 19:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The total number of atoms (or even subatomic particles) in the entire universe does not even come near to either value of a centillion."

A sourceless claim, unprovable at this time, and irrelevant. I'm removing it.

--24.7.220.175 (talk) 05:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard 10^80 being a loose estimate of the number of atoms in the universe, although if you were to take into account all subatomic particles, the number is definitely a lot higher, although I cannot give an estimate. If you consider all leptons, quarks, and bosons as subatomic particles, and then the composite particles they make up. I do not doubt that there are less than centillion subatomic particles in the universe, my point being is that we do not know this, we cannot know this (what's the definition of a universe? What if there are infinite many other universes?), and whoever put this in the text or whoever they heard it from likely made the claim up.

Also, do not remove parts from talk pages, who ever did that.

--24.7.220.175 (talk) 20:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, Wikipedia?

"Centillion is a big number."

Huh. That's interesting, but completely worthless as a piece of information.

"In Canadian and U.S. usage, two centillion is 10^303+10^303."

So, in those two countries, two of something is equal to one of that thing added to another of that thing. What an amazing coincidence!

Is there any rational explanation for writing the article this way? googolplexian is a big number to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.4.102.173 (talk) 19:57, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Billytrousers (talk) 07:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None that I can see. — Shmuel (talk) 21:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some Calculations

I was curious if it would even be possible for the observable universe to house a centillion of anything. The following are a few calculations attempting to answer this question.

First let us take the diameter of an electron (the smallest measurable particle of which I know) to be 5.62 femtometers (2.81*10^-15 m), approximately [source: Wolframalpha]. Although electrons are generally thought of as being spheres, I'm going to consider them to be a cube for simplicity's sake, so the volume of a cubic electron would be approximately 1.96*10^-19 cubic yoctometers (1.96*10^-43 cubic meters). Next let's take the volume of the currently observable universe to be 4*10^32 cubic light years, or 4*10^80 cubic meters, approximately [source: Wolframalpha]. If we divide the volume of the observable universe by the volume of a cubic electron, the resulting unimaginably large number would be the total number of electrons that could fit in the observable universe (barring black holes and other phenomena which could cause super-compression of the electrons). Thus we find that the universe should be able to hold about 2.25*10^123 electrons, give or take a few trillion-trillion-trillion. Since a US centillion is 1*10^303 it seems pretty clear that there is no way for a centillion of anything to exist within the universe as we can observe it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.23.224.65 (talk) 00:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]