Talk:Centillion

message: 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)

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Inverse factorial

message: 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)
thread_title: Graham's number

message: 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)
thread_title: Centillion

message: "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)
replies: text: None that I can see. — Shmuel (talk) 21:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seriously, Wikipedia? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Some Calculations