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.

Base -illion orders of magnitude

Does this make 1,000 the zeroth base -illion, and 1 the negative first base -illion? 2601:1C0:847C:50C0:A54D:85AC:91BC:7681 (talk) 15:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In a sense yes, since a n-illion is 10³ⁿ⁺³. However, this observation is original research and we are right to leave it out of the article. Certes (talk) 15:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1,000,000,000,000,000,000

Quintillion has 18 zeros 77.100.228.242 (talk) 19:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as stated in the article. It can also have 30 zeros in long scale. Does something need to be amended? Certes (talk) 21:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10^100 (Ten Duotrigintillion)

Ten Duotrigintillion Is Also call Googol 10^100 77.100.228.242 (talk) 19:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as stated in the article. Certes (talk) 21:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

Googolchime has 1,000 zeros It's 10× Bigger than Googol

1,000 zeros is so many 77.100.228.242 (talk) 19:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One Youtuber seems to think that "googol-chime" is a number, but they don't appear to be a reliable source. (Also, that ratio is 10⁹⁰⁰ rather than 10.) Certes (talk) 21:40, 7 May 2024 (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]