Talk:Googol

Googol not accurate

The beginning of the article is not accurate, it says 10⁹⁹, == 1 with 100 zeros, this is not accurate, its eather 10*10⁹⁹ or 99 zeros , coz 10² =100, two zeros!!

The article is accurate and I believe you answered your own question. 10² is 100 which is one followed by two zeros. 10³ is 1000 which is one followed by three zeros. 10¹⁰⁰ is one followed by one-hundred zeros.

According to some scientists, a googol is probably greater than the number of atoms in the universe. Since this is also the number of zeroes in a googolplex, it would not be possible to write down or store this number (googolplex) in decimal notation, even if all the matter in the universe were converted into paper and ink or disk drives.

hang on, we do write this in decimal above don't we? Do we mean that a gp is greater than the no of atoms?212.42.97.53 11:49, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

A googol can be written in decimal, however a googolplex can not because it contains a googol number of zeros- meaning it has more zeros than all the atoms in the universe. Er.. but you probably knew that. I dunno. Evil saltine 11:57, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Based on the assumption that there was a big bang, and that there was only one big bang, and that far away things have a different colour, and some kind of weird space observations, some think that there are less than a googol atoms in the universe. And even though the alien lord Fnord Meow Squeak told me otherwise, through the voices in my head, some stubborn people still think the universe is that small. Κσυπ Cyp 12:00, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC) (Posted via edit conflict.)

Well, 10^100=10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 so I guess I could write it down googol :) However to the point of this article, attempting to calculate the googolplex using Mathematica causes overflow error. Oh well.. mattabat

| --81.134.180.92 15:15, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Adding the googolgon picture

I just put in the message about drawing a googolgon into this article now that googolgon is on its final day of Vfd and will probably have a consensus of re-directing here. Can anyone put in the picture?? 66.245.126.39 13:54, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I finally put it in. Any comments about improving the googol article?? 66.245.19.157 16:45, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Reverted Basekid25

It isn't necessary to note it is a 1 followed by 100 zeroes since that is at the very beginning of the article. Also it doesn't fit the category which is how to write a googol. The definition is already provided. --RoyBoy 22:50, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Anonymous opinion about Googol

The googol is of no particular significance in mathematics, nor does it have any practical uses, other than to give you a sense of how powerful Google has become.

The first half of that might have merit, but since I heard of the term googol long before Google started (probably before I was aware of the Internet), the end is pure fantasy. - Cafemusique 11:46, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ditto -- but I still understand where this person is coming from. --Lenoxus

Cubic Planck Lengths

I've just corrected this paragraph:

Fewer than a googol Planck times have elapsed since the Big Bang (the current figure stands at around 8×10⁶⁰ Planck times). Similarly, the size of the observable universe is about 9×10¹⁸⁵ cubic Planck lengths.

I don't see the similarity between the two sentences referred to by the word "similarly". The major point made by the first sentence is that the elapsed Planck times is less than a Googol. The size of the observable universe in cubic Planck lengths does not share this property so introducing the sentence with "similarly" is confusing. I have replaced the paragraph with

Fewer than a googol Planck times have elapsed since the Big Bang (the current figure stands at around 8×10⁶⁰ Planck times). On the other hand, the size of the observable universe is about 9×10¹⁸⁵ cubic Planck lengths.

I wasn't sure what to do with the following paragraph:

From the previous figures it can be seen that a list of positions of every particle at every possible instant of time, at the maximum possible accuracy, would contain well over a googol entries (of the order of 10³²⁵), but still far less than a googolplex.

Well, yeah... but even the list of positions of every particle at a single instant of time is more than a googol entries, so the point is??