Sometimes people who are not related to mathematics wonder: what is the largest number? On the one hand, the answer is obvious - infinity. The bores will even clarify that "plus infinity" or "+∞" in the notation of mathematicians. But this answer will not convince the most corrosive, especially since this is not a natural number, but a mathematical abstraction. But having well understood the issue, they can open up an interesting problem.
Indeed, there is no size limit in this case, but there is a limit to human imagination. Each number has a name: ten, one hundred, billion, sextillion, and so on. But where does the fantasy of people end?
Not to be confused with a Google Corporation trademark, although they share a common origin. This number is written as 10100, that is, one followed by a tail of one hundred zeros. It is difficult to imagine it, but it was actively used in mathematics.
It's funny what his child came up with - the nephew of the mathematician Edward Kasner. In 1938, my uncle entertained younger relatives with arguments about very large numbers. To the indignation of the child, it turned out that such a wonderful number had no name, and he gave his version. Later, my uncle inserted it into one of his books, and the term stuck.
Theoretically, a googol is a natural number, because it can be used for counting. That's just hardly anyone has the patience to count to its end. Therefore, only theoretically.
As for the name of the company Google, then a common mistake crept in. The first investor and one of the co-founders, when writing the check, was in a hurry, and missed the letter "O", but in order to cash it, the company had to be registered under this spelling.
This number is a derivative of the googol, but significantly larger than it. The prefix "plex" means raising ten to the power of the base number, so guloplex is 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 100, or 101000.
The resulting number exceeds the number of particles in the observable universe, which is estimated at about 1080 degrees. But this did not stop scientists from increasing the number simply by adding the prefix "plex" to it: googolplexplex, googolplexplexplex, and so on. And for especially perverted mathematicians, they invented an option to increase without endless repetition of the prefix "plex" - they simply put Greek numbers in front of it: tetra (four), penta (five) and so on, up to deca (ten). The last option sounds like a googoldekaplex and means a tenfold cumulative repetition of the procedure for raising the number 10 to the power of its base. The main thing is not to imagine the result. You still won’t be able to realize it, but it’s easy to get a trauma to the psyche.
Main characters: Cooper, his computer and a new prime number
Relatively recently, about a year ago, it was possible to discover the next, 48th Mersen number. It is currently the largest prime number in the world. Recall that prime numbers are those that are only divisible without a remainder by 1 and themselves. The simplest examples are 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17 and so on. The problem is that the further into the wilds, the less often such numbers occur. But the more valuable is the discovery of each next one. For example, a new prime number consists of 17,425,170 digits if it is represented in the form of a decimal number system familiar to us. The previous one had about 12 million characters.
It was discovered by the American mathematician Curtis Cooper, who for the third time delighted the mathematical community with such a record. Just to check his result and prove that this number is really prime, it took 39 days of his personal computer.
This is how Graham's number is written in Knuth's arrow notation. It is difficult to say how to decipher this without having a completed higher education in theoretical mathematics. It is also impossible to write it down in the decimal form we are accustomed to: the observable Universe is simply not able to contain it. Fencing degree for degree, as in the case of googolplexes, is also not an option.
Good formula, but incomprehensible
So why do we need this seemingly useless number? Firstly, for the curious, it was placed in the Guinness Book of Records, and this is already a lot. Secondly, it was used to solve a problem that is part of the Ramsey problem, which is also incomprehensible, but sounds serious. Thirdly, this number is recognized as the largest ever used in mathematics, and not in comic proofs or intellectual games, but for solving a very specific mathematical problem.
Attention! The following information is dangerous for your mental health! By reading it, you accept responsibility for all the consequences!
For those who want to test their mind and meditate on the Graham number, we can try to explain it (but only try).
Imagine 33. It's pretty easy - you get 3*3*3=27. What if we now raise three to this number? It turns out 3 3 to the 3rd power, or 3 27. In decimal notation, this is equal to 7,625,597,484,987. A lot, but for now it can be understood.
In Knuth's arrow notation, this number can be displayed somewhat more simply - 33. But if you add only one arrow, it will turn out to be more difficult: 33, which means 33 to the power of 33 or in power notation. If expanded to decimal notation, we get 7,625,597,484,987 7,625,597,484,987 . Are you still able to follow the thought?
Next step: 33= 33 33 . That is, you need to calculate this wild number from the previous action and raise it to the same power.
And 33 is just the first of the 64 members of Graham's number. To get the second one, you need to calculate the result of this furious formula, and substitute the appropriate number of arrows into the 3(...)3 scheme. And so on, 63 more times.
I wonder if anyone besides him and a dozen other supermathematicians will be able to get at least to the middle of the sequence and not go crazy at the same time?
Did you understand something? We are not. But what a thrill!
Why are the largest numbers needed? It is difficult for the layman to understand and realize this. But a few specialists with their help are able to present new technological toys to the inhabitants: phones, computers, tablets. The townsfolk are also not able to understand how they work, but they are happy to use them for their own entertainment. And everyone is happy: the townsfolk get their toys, "supernerds" - the opportunity to play their mind games for a long time.
Many are interested in questions about how large numbers are called and what number is the largest in the world. These interesting questions will be dealt with in this article.
The southern and eastern Slavic peoples used alphabetic numbering to write numbers, and only those letters that are in the Greek alphabet. Above the letter, which denoted the number, they put a special “titlo” icon. The numerical values of the letters increased in the same order in which the letters followed in the Greek alphabet (in the Slavic alphabet, the order of the letters was slightly different). In Russia, Slavic numbering was preserved until the end of the 17th century, and under Peter I they switched to “Arabic numbering”, which we still use today.
The names of the numbers also changed. So, until the 15th century, the number “twenty” was designated as “two ten” (two tens), and then it was reduced for faster pronunciation. The number 40 until the 15th century was called “fourty”, then it was replaced by the word “forty”, which originally denoted a bag containing 40 squirrel or sable skins. The name "million" appeared in Italy in 1500. It was formed by adding an augmentative suffix to the number "mille" (thousand). Later, this name came to Russian.
In the old (XVIII century) "Arithmetic" of Magnitsky, there is a table of names of numbers, brought to the "quadrillion" (10 ^ 24, according to the system through 6 digits). Perelman Ya.I. in the book "Entertaining Arithmetic" the names of large numbers of that time are given, somewhat different from today: septillion (10 ^ 42), octalion (10 ^ 48), nonalion (10 ^ 54), decalion (10 ^ 60), endecalion (10 ^ 66), dodecalion (10 ^ 72) and it is written that "there are no further names."
There are 2 main ways to name large numbers:
From the English system, only the word billion passed into the Russian language, which is still more correct to call it the way the Americans call it - billion (since the American system for naming numbers is used in Russian).
In addition to numbers that are written in the American or English system using Latin prefixes, non-systemic numbers are known that have their own names without Latin prefixes.
| Number | Latin numeral | Name | Practical value | |
| 10 1 | 10 | ten | Number of fingers on 2 hands | |
| 10 2 | 100 | hundred | Approximately half the number of all states on Earth | |
| 10 3 | 1000 | one thousand | Approximate number of days in 3 years | |
| 10 6 | 1000 000 | unus (I) | million | 5 times more than the number of drops in a 10-litre. bucket of water |
| 10 9 | 1000 000 000 | duo(II) | billion (billion) | Approximate population of India |
| 10 12 | 1000 000 000 000 | tres(III) | trillion | |
| 10 15 | 1000 000 000 000 000 | quattor(IV) | quadrillion | 1/30 of the length of a parsec in meters |
| 10 18 | quinque (V) | quintillion | 1/18 of the number of grains from the legendary award to the inventor of chess | |
| 10 21 | sex (VI) | sextillion | 1/6 of the mass of the planet Earth in tons | |
| 10 24 | septem(VII) | septillion | Number of molecules in 37.2 liters of air | |
| 10 27 | octo(VIII) | octillion | Half the mass of Jupiter in kilograms | |
| 10 30 | novem(IX) | quintillion | 1/5 of all microorganisms on the planet | |
| 10 33 | decem(X) | decillion | Half the mass of the Sun in grams | |
For numbers greater than a thousand, the Romans did not have their own names (all the names of numbers below were composite).
In addition to their own names, for numbers greater than 10 33 you can get compound names by combining prefixes.
Compound names for large numbers
| Number | Latin numeral | Name | Practical value |
| 10 36 | undecim (XI) | andecillion | |
| 10 39 | duodecim(XII) | duodecillion | |
| 10 42 | tredecim(XIII) | tredecillion | 1/100 of the number of air molecules on Earth |
| 10 45 | quattuordecim (XIV) | quattordecillion | |
| 10 48 | quindecim (XV) | quindecillion | |
| 10 51 | sedecim (XVI) | sexdecillion | |
| 10 54 | septendecim (XVII) | septemdecillion | |
| 10 57 | octodecillion | So many elementary particles in the sun | |
| 10 60 | novemdecillion | ||
| 10 63 | viginti (XX) | vigintillion | |
| 10 66 | unus et viginti (XXI) | anvigintillion | |
| 10 69 | duo et viginti (XXII) | duovigintillion | |
| 10 72 | tres et viginti (XXIII) | trevigintillion | |
| 10 75 | quattorvigintillion | ||
| 10 78 | quinvigintillion | ||
| 10 81 | sexvigintillion | So many elementary particles in the universe | |
| 10 84 | septemvigintillion | ||
| 10 87 | octovigintillion | ||
| 10 90 | novemvigintillion | ||
| 10 93 | triginta (XXX) | trigintillion | |
| 10 96 | antirigintillion |
Further names can be obtained by direct or reverse order of Latin numerals (it is not known how to correctly):
The second spelling is more in line with the construction of numerals in Latin and avoids ambiguities (for example, in the number trecentillion, which in the first spelling is both 10903 and 10312).
myriad– 10,000. The name is obsolete and practically never used. However, the word “myriad” is widely used, which means not a certain number, but an uncountable, uncountable set of something.
googol ( English . googol) — 10 100 . The American mathematician Edward Kasner first wrote about this number in 1938 in the journal Scripta Mathematica in the article “New Names in Mathematics”. According to him, his 9-year-old nephew Milton Sirotta suggested calling the number this way. This number became public knowledge thanks to the Google search engine, named after him.
Asankheyya(from Chinese asentzi - innumerable) - 10 1 4 0. This number is found in the famous Buddhist treatise Jaina Sutra (100 BC). It is believed that this number is equal to the number of cosmic cycles required to gain nirvana.
Googolplex ( English . Googolplex) — 10^10^100. This number was also invented by Edward Kasner and his nephew, it means one with a googol of zeros.
Skewes number (Skewes' number Sk 1) means e to the power of e to the power of e to the power of 79, i.e. e^e^e^79. This number was proposed by Skewes in 1933 (Skewes. J. London Math. Soc. 8, 277-283, 1933.) in proving the Riemann conjecture concerning prime numbers. Later, Riele (te Riele, HJJ "On the Sign of the Difference P(x)-Li(x"). Math. Comput. 48, 323-328, 1987) reduced Skuse's number to e^e^27/4, which is approximately equal to 8.185 10^370. However, this number is not an integer, so it is not included in the table of large numbers.
Second Skewes Number (Sk2) equals 10^10^10^10^3, which is 10^10^10^1000. This number was introduced by J. Skuse in the same article to denote the number up to which the Riemann hypothesis is valid.
For super-large numbers, it is inconvenient to use powers, so there are several ways to write numbers - the notations of Knuth, Conway, Steinhouse, etc.
Hugo Steinhaus suggested writing large numbers inside geometric shapes (triangle, square and circle).
The mathematician Leo Moser finalized Steinhaus's notation, suggesting that after the squares, draw not circles, but pentagons, then hexagons, and so on. Moser also proposed a formal notation for these polygons, so that the numbers could be written without drawing complex patterns.
Steinhouse came up with two new super-large numbers: Mega and Megiston. In Moser notation, they are written as follows: Mega – 2, Megiston– 10. Leo Moser suggested also calling a polygon with the number of sides equal to mega – megagon, and also suggested the number "2 in Megagon" - 2. The last number is known as Moser's number or just like Moser.
There are numbers bigger than Moser. The largest number that has been used in a mathematical proof is number Graham(Graham's number). It was first used in 1977 in the proof of one estimate in the Ramsey theory. This number is associated with bichromatic hypercubes and cannot be expressed without a special 64-level system of special mathematical symbols introduced by Knuth in 1976. Donald Knuth (who wrote The Art of Programming and created the TeX editor) came up with the concept of superpower, which he proposed to write with arrows pointing up:
In general
Graham suggested G-numbers:
The number G 63 is called the Graham number, often simply referred to as G. This number is the largest known number in the world and is listed in the Guinness Book of Records.
There are numbers that are so incredibly, incredibly large that it would take the entire universe to even write them down. But here's what's really maddening... some of these incomprehensibly large numbers are extremely important to understanding the world.
When I say "the largest number in the universe," I really mean the largest meaningful number, the maximum possible number that is useful in some way. There are many contenders for this title, but I warn you right away: there is indeed a risk that trying to understand all this will blow your mind. And besides, with too much math, you get little fun.
Googol and googolplex
Edward Kasner
We could start with two, very likely the biggest numbers you've ever heard of, and these are indeed the two biggest numbers that have generally accepted definitions in the English language. (There is a fairly precise nomenclature used for numbers as large as you would like, but these two numbers are not currently found in dictionaries.) Google, since it became world famous (albeit with errors, note. in fact it is googol) in the form of Google, was born in 1920 as a way to get children interested in big numbers.
To this end, Edward Kasner (pictured) took his two nephews, Milton and Edwin Sirott, on a New Jersey Palisades tour. He invited them to come up with any ideas, and then the nine-year-old Milton suggested “googol”. Where he got this word from is unknown, but Kasner decided that 
or a number in which one hundred zeros follow the one will henceforth be called a googol.
But young Milton didn't stop there, he came up with an even bigger number, the googolplex. It's a number, according to Milton, that has a 1 first and then as many zeros as you can write before you get tired. While the idea is fascinating, Kasner felt a more formal definition was needed. As he explained in his 1940 book Mathematics and the Imagination, Milton's definition leaves open the perilous possibility that the occasional buffoon might become a superior mathematician to Albert Einstein simply because he has more stamina.
So Kasner decided that the googolplex would be , or 1, followed by a googol of zeros. Otherwise, and in a notation similar to that with which we will deal with other numbers, we will say that the googolplex is . To show how fascinating this is, Carl Sagan once remarked that it was physically impossible to write down all the zeros of a googolplex because there simply wasn't enough room in the universe. If the entire volume of the observable universe is filled with fine dust particles approximately 1.5 microns in size, then the number of different ways in which these particles can be arranged will be approximately equal to one googolplex.
Linguistically speaking, googol and googolplex are probably the two largest significant numbers (at least in English), but, as we will now establish, there are infinitely many ways to define “significance”.
Real world
If we talk about the largest significant number, there is a reasonable argument that this really means that you need to find the largest number with a value that actually exists in the world. We can start with the current human population, which is currently around 6920 million. World GDP in 2010 was estimated to be around $61,960 billion, but both numbers are small compared to the roughly 100 trillion cells that make up the human body. Of course, none of these numbers can compare with the total number of particles in the universe, which is usually considered to be about , and this number is so large that our language does not have a word for it.
We can play around with measurement systems a bit, making the numbers bigger and bigger. Thus, the mass of the Sun in tons will be less than in pounds. A great way to do this is to use the Planck units, which are the smallest possible measures for which the laws of physics still hold. For example, the age of the universe in Planck time is about . If we go back to the first Planck time unit after the Big Bang, we see that the density of the Universe was then . We're getting more and more, but we haven't even reached a googol yet.
The largest number with any real world application—or, in this case, real world application—is probably , one of the latest estimates of the number of universes in the multiverse. This number is so large that the human brain will literally be unable to perceive all these different universes, since the brain is only capable of roughly configurations. In fact, this number is probably the largest number with any practical meaning, if you do not take into account the idea of the multiverse as a whole. However, there are still much larger numbers lurking there. But in order to find them, we must go into the realm of pure mathematics, and there is no better place to start than prime numbers.
Mersenne primes
Part of the difficulty is coming up with a good definition of what a “meaningful” number is. One way is to think in terms of primes and composites. A prime number, as you probably remember from school mathematics, is any natural number (not equal to one) that is divisible only by itself. So, and are prime numbers, and and are composite numbers. This means that any composite number can eventually be represented by its prime divisors. In a sense, the number is more important than, say, because there is no way to express it in terms of the product of smaller numbers.
Obviously we can go a little further. , for example, is actually just , which means that in a hypothetical world where our knowledge of numbers is limited to , a mathematician can still express . But the next number is already prime, which means that the only way to express it is to directly know about its existence. This means that the largest known prime numbers play an important role, but, say, a googol - which is ultimately just a collection of numbers and , multiplied together - actually does not. And since prime numbers are mostly random, there is no known way to predict that an incredibly large number will actually be prime. To this day, discovering new prime numbers is a difficult task.
The mathematicians of ancient Greece had a concept of prime numbers at least as early as 500 BC, and 2000 years later people still only knew what prime numbers were up to about 750. Euclid's thinkers saw the possibility of simplification, but until the Renaissance mathematicians couldn't really use it in practice. These numbers are known as Mersenne numbers and are named after the 17th century French scientist Marina Mersenne. The idea is quite simple: a Mersenne number is any number of the form . So, for example, and this number is prime, the same is true for .
Mersenne primes are much faster and easier to determine than any other kind of prime, and computers have been hard at work finding them for the past six decades. Until 1952, the largest known prime number was a number—a number with digits. In the same year, it was calculated on a computer that the number is prime, and this number consists of digits, which makes it already much larger than a googol.
Computers have been on the hunt ever since, and the th Mersenne number is currently the largest prime number known to mankind. Discovered in 2008, it is a number with almost millions of digits. This is the largest known number that cannot be expressed in terms of any smaller numbers, and if you want to help find an even larger Mersenne number, you (and your computer) can always join the search at http://www.mersenne. org/.
Skewes number
Stanley Skuse
Let's go back to prime numbers. As I said before, they behave fundamentally wrong, which means that there is no way to predict what the next prime number will be. Mathematicians have been forced to turn to some rather fantastic measurements in order to come up with some way to predict future primes, even in some nebulous way. The most successful of these attempts is probably the prime number function, invented in the late 18th century by the legendary mathematician Carl Friedrich Gauss.
I'll spare you the more complicated math - anyway, we still have a lot to come - but the essence of the function is this: for any integer, it is possible to estimate how many primes there are less than . For example, if , the function predicts that there should be prime numbers, if - prime numbers less than , and if , then there are smaller numbers that are prime.
The arrangement of primes is indeed irregular, and is only an approximation of the actual number of primes. In fact, we know that there are primes less than , primes less than , and primes less than . It's a great estimate, to be sure, but it's always just an estimate... and more specifically, an estimate from above.
In all known cases up to , the function that finds the number of primes slightly exaggerates the actual number of primes less than . Mathematicians once thought that this would always be the case, ad infinitum, and that this certainly applies to some unimaginably huge numbers, but in 1914 John Edensor Littlewood proved that for some unknown, unimaginably huge number, this function will begin to produce fewer primes, and then it will switch between overestimation and underestimation an infinite number of times.
The hunt was for the starting point of the races, and that's where Stanley Skuse appeared (see photo). In 1933, he proved that the upper limit, when a function that approximates the number of primes for the first time gives a smaller value, is the number. It is difficult to truly understand, even in the most abstract sense, what this number really is, and from this point of view it was the largest number ever used in a serious mathematical proof. Since then, mathematicians have been able to reduce the upper bound to a relatively small number, but the original number has remained known as the Skewes number.
So, how big is the number that makes even the mighty googolplex dwarf? In The Penguin Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Numbers, David Wells describes one way in which the mathematician Hardy was able to make sense of the size of the Skewes number:
"Hardy thought it was 'the largest number ever to serve any particular purpose in mathematics' and suggested that if chess were played with all the particles of the universe as pieces, one move would consist of swapping two particles, and the game would stop when the same position was repeated a third time, then the number of all possible games would be equal to about the number of Skuse''.
One last thing before moving on: we talked about the smaller of the two Skewes numbers. There is another Skewes number, which the mathematician found in 1955. The first number is derived on the grounds that the so-called Riemann Hypothesis is true - a particularly difficult hypothesis in mathematics that remains unproven, very useful when it comes to prime numbers. However, if the Riemann Hypothesis is false, Skewes found that the jump start point increases to .
The problem of magnitude
Before we get to a number that makes even Skewes' number look tiny, we need to talk a little about scale because otherwise we have no way of estimating where we're going. Let's take a number first - it's a tiny number, so small that people can actually have an intuitive understanding of what it means. There are very few numbers that fit this description, since numbers greater than six cease to be separate numbers and become "several", "many", etc.
Now let's take , i.e. . Although we can't really intuitively, as we did for the number , figure out what , imagine what it is, it's very easy. So far everything is going well. But what happens if we go to ? This is equal to , or . We are very far from being able to imagine this value, like any other very large one - we are losing the ability to comprehend individual parts somewhere around a million. (Admittedly, it would take an insanely long time to actually count to a million of anything, but the point is that we are still able to perceive that number.)
However, although we cannot imagine, we are at least able to understand in general terms what 7600 billion is, perhaps by comparing it to something like US GDP. We have gone from intuition to representation to mere understanding, but at least we still have some gap in our understanding of what a number is. This is about to change as we move one more rung up the ladder.
To do this, we need to switch to the notation introduced by Donald Knuth, known as arrow notation. These notations can be written as . When we then go to , the number we get will be . This is equal to where the total of triplets is. We have now vastly and truly surpassed all the other numbers already mentioned. After all, even the largest of them had only three or four members in the index series. For example, even the Super Skewes number is "only" - even with the fact that both the base and the exponents are much larger than , it is still absolutely nothing compared to the size of the number tower with billions of members.
Obviously, there is no way to comprehend such huge numbers... and yet, the process by which they are created can still be understood. We could not understand the real number given by the tower of powers, which is a billion triples, but we can basically imagine such a tower with many members, and a really decent supercomputer will be able to store such towers in memory, even if it cannot calculate their real values .
It's getting more and more abstract, but it's only going to get worse. You might think that a tower of powers whose exponent length is (moreover, in a previous version of this post I made exactly that mistake), but it's just . In other words, imagine that you were able to calculate the exact value of a power tower of triples, which consists of elements, and then you took this value and created a new tower with as many in it as ... which gives .
Repeat this process with each successive number ( note starting from the right) until you do this once, and then finally you get . This is a number that is simply incredibly large, but at least the steps to get it seem to be clear if everything is done very slowly. We can no longer understand numbers or imagine the procedure by which they are obtained, but at least we can understand the basic algorithm, only in a sufficiently long time.
Now let's prepare the mind to actually blow it up.
Graham's (Graham's) number
Ronald Graham
This is how you get Graham's number, which ranks in the Guinness Book of World Records as the largest number ever used in a mathematical proof. It is absolutely impossible to imagine how big it is, and it is just as difficult to explain exactly what it is. Basically, Graham's number comes into play when dealing with hypercubes, which are theoretical geometric shapes with more than three dimensions. The mathematician Ronald Graham (see photo) wanted to find out what was the smallest number of dimensions that would keep certain properties of a hypercube stable. (Sorry for this vague explanation, but I'm sure we all need at least two math degrees to make it more accurate.)
In any case, the Graham number is an upper estimate of this minimum number of dimensions. So how big is this upper bound? Let's get back to a number so large that we can understand the algorithm for obtaining it rather vaguely. Now, instead of just jumping up one more level to , we'll count the number that has arrows between the first and last triples. Now we are far beyond even the slightest understanding of what this number is or even of what needs to be done to calculate it.
Now repeat this process times ( note at each next step, we write the number of arrows equal to the number obtained at the previous step).
This, ladies and gentlemen, is Graham's number, which is about an order of magnitude above the point of human understanding. It is a number that is so much more than any number you can imagine - it is far more than any infinity you could ever hope to imagine - it simply defies even the most abstract description.
But here's the weird thing. Since Graham's number is basically just triplets multiplied together, we know some of its properties without actually calculating it. We can't represent Graham's number in any notation we're familiar with, even if we used the entire universe to write it down, but I can give you the last twelve digits of Graham's number right now: . And that's not all: we know at least the last digits of Graham's number.
Of course, it's worth remembering that this number is only an upper bound in Graham's original problem. It is possible that the actual number of measurements needed to fulfill the desired property is much, much less. In fact, since the 1980s, it has been believed by most experts in the field that there are actually only six dimensions - a number so small that we can understand it on an intuitive level. The lower bound has since been increased to , but there is still a very good chance that the solution to Graham's problem does not lie near a number as large as Graham's.
To infinity
So there are numbers bigger than Graham's number? There are, of course, for starters there is the Graham number. As for the significant number... well, there are some fiendishly difficult areas of mathematics (in particular, the area known as combinatorics) and computer science, in which there are numbers even larger than Graham's number. But we have almost reached the limit of what I can hope can ever reasonably explain. For those who are reckless enough to go even further, additional reading is offered at your own risk.
Well, now an amazing quote that is attributed to Douglas Ray ( note To be honest, it sounds pretty funny:
“I see clumps of vague numbers lurking out there in the dark, behind the little spot of light that the mind candle gives. They whisper to each other; talking about who knows what. Perhaps they do not like us very much for capturing their little brothers with our minds. Or maybe they just lead an unambiguous numerical way of life, out there, beyond our understanding.''
John SommerPut zeros after any number or multiply with tens raised to an arbitrarily large power. It won't seem like much. It will seem like a lot. But naked recordings, after all, are not too impressive. The heaping zeros in the humanities cause not so much surprise as a slight yawn. In any case, to any largest number in the world that you can imagine, you can always add one more ... And the number will come out even more.
And yet, are there words in Russian or any other language for designating very large numbers? Those that are more than a million, billion, trillion, billion? And in general, a billion is how much?
It turns out that there are two systems for naming numbers. But not Arabic, Egyptian, or any other ancient civilizations, but American and English.
In the American system numbers are called like this: the Latin numeral is taken + - million (suffix). Thus, the numbers are obtained:
Trillion - 1,000,000,000,000 (12 zeros)
Quadrillion - 1,000,000,000,000,000 (15 zeros)
Quintillion - 1 and 18 zeros
Sextillion - 1 and 21 zero
Septillion - 1 and 24 zero
octillion - 1 followed by 27 zeros
Nonillion - 1 and 30 zeros
Decillion - 1 and 33 zero
The formula is simple: 3 x + 3 (x is a Latin numeral)
In theory, there should also be numbers anilion (unus in Latin - one) and duolion (duo - two), but, in my opinion, such names are not used at all.
English naming system more widespread.
Here, too, the Latin numeral is taken and the suffix -million is added to it. However, the name of the next number, which is 1,000 times greater than the previous one, is formed using the same Latin number and the suffix - billion. I mean:
Trillion - 1 and 21 zero (in the American system - sextillion!)
Trillion - 1 and 24 zeros (in the American system - septillion)
Quadrillion - 1 and 27 zeros
Quadribillion - 1 followed by 30 zeros
Quintillion - 1 and 33 zero
Quinilliard - 1 followed by 36 zeros
Sextillion - 1 followed by 39 zeros
Sextillion - 1 and 42 zero
The formulas for counting the number of zeros are:
For numbers ending in - illion - 6 x+3
For numbers ending in - billion - 6 x+6
As you can see, confusion is possible. But let's not be afraid!
In Russia, the American system for naming numbers has been adopted. From the English system, we borrowed the name of the number "billion" - 1,000,000,000 \u003d 10 9
And where is the "cherished" billion? - Why, a billion is a billion! American style. And although we use the American system, we took the "billion" from the English one.
Using the Latin names of numbers and the American system, let's call the numbers:
- vigintillion- 1 and 63 zeros
- centillion- 1 and 303 zeros
- Million- one and 3003 zeros! Oh-hoo...
But this, it turns out, is not all. There are also off-system numbers.
And the first one is probably myriad- one hundred hundreds = 10,000
googol(it is in honor of him that the famous search engine is named) - one and one hundred zeros
In one of the Buddhist treatises, a number is named asankhiya- one and one hundred and forty zeros!
Number name googolplex(like Google) was invented by the English mathematician Edward Kasner and his nine-year-old nephew - unit c - dear mother! - googol zeros!!!
But that's not all...
The mathematician Skewes named the Skewes number after himself. It means e to the extent e to the extent e to the power of 79, i.e. e e e 79
And then a big problem arose. You can think of names for numbers. But how to write them down? The number of degrees of degrees of degrees is already such that it simply does not fit on the page! :)
And then some mathematicians began to write numbers in geometric figures. And the first, they say, such a method of recording was invented by the outstanding writer and thinker Daniil Ivanovich Kharms.
And yet, what is the BIGGEST NUMBER IN THE WORLD? - It is called STASPLEX and is equal to G 100,
where G is the Graham number, the largest number ever used in mathematical proofs.
This number - stasplex - was invented by a wonderful person, our compatriot Stas Kozlovsky, to LJ to which I address you :) - ctac
“I see clumps of vague numbers lurking out there in the dark, behind the little spot of light that the mind candle gives. They whisper to each other; talking about who knows what. Perhaps they do not like us very much for capturing their little brothers with our minds. Or maybe they just lead an unambiguous numerical way of life, out there, beyond our understanding.''
Douglas Ray
Sooner or later, everyone is tormented by the question, what is the largest number. A child's question can be answered in a million. What's next? Trillion. And even further? In fact, the answer to the question of what are the largest numbers is simple. It is simply worth adding one to the largest number, as it will no longer be the largest. This procedure can be continued indefinitely.
But if you ask yourself: what is the largest number that exists, and what is its own name?
Now we all know...
There are two systems for naming numbers - American and English.
The American system is built quite simply. All names of large numbers are built like this: at the beginning there is a Latin ordinal number, and at the end the suffix -million is added to it. The exception is the name "million" which is the name of the number one thousand (lat. mille) and the magnifying suffix -million (see table). So the numbers are obtained - trillion, quadrillion, quintillion, sextillion, septillion, octillion, nonillion and decillion. The American system is used in the USA, Canada, France and Russia. You can find out the number of zeros in a number written in the American system using the simple formula 3 x + 3 (where x is a Latin numeral).
The English naming system is the most common in the world. It is used, for example, in Great Britain and Spain, as well as in most of the former English and Spanish colonies. The names of numbers in this system are built like this: like this: a suffix -million is added to the Latin numeral, the next number (1000 times larger) is built according to the principle - the same Latin numeral, but the suffix is -billion. That is, after a trillion in the English system comes a trillion, and only then a quadrillion, followed by a quadrillion, and so on. Thus, a quadrillion according to the English and American systems are completely different numbers! You can find out the number of zeros in a number written in the English system and ending with the suffix -million using the formula 6 x + 3 (where x is a Latin numeral) and using the formula 6 x + 6 for numbers ending in -billion.
Only the number billion (10 9 ) passed from the English system into the Russian language, which, nevertheless, would be more correct to call it the way the Americans call it - a billion, since we have adopted the American system. But who in our country does something according to the rules! ;-) By the way, sometimes the word trillion is also used in Russian (you can see for yourself by running a search in Google or Yandex) and it means, apparently, 1000 trillion, i.e. quadrillion.
In addition to numbers written using Latin prefixes in the American or English system, the so-called off-system numbers are also known, i.e. numbers that have their own names without any Latin prefixes. There are several such numbers, but I will talk about them in more detail a little later.
Let's go back to writing using Latin numerals. It would seem that they can write numbers to infinity, but this is not entirely true. Now I will explain why. Let's first see how the numbers from 1 to 10 33 are called:
And so, now the question arises, what next. What is a decillion? In principle, it is possible, of course, by combining prefixes to generate such monsters as: andecillion, duodecillion, tredecillion, quattordecillion, quindecillion, sexdecillion, septemdecillion, octodecillion and novemdecillion, but these will already be compound names, and we were interested in our own names numbers. Therefore, according to this system, in addition to those indicated above, you can still get only three - vigintillion (from lat.viginti- twenty), centillion (from lat.percent- one hundred) and a million (from lat.mille- one thousand). The Romans did not have more than a thousand proper names for numbers (all numbers over a thousand were composite). For example, a million (1,000,000) Romans calledcentena miliai.e. ten hundred thousand. And now, actually, the table:
Thus, according to a similar system, numbers are greater than 10 3003 , which would have its own, non-compound name, it is impossible to get! But nevertheless, numbers greater than a million are known - these are the very non-systemic numbers. Finally, let's talk about them.
The smallest such number is a myriad (it is even in Dahl's dictionary), which means a hundred hundreds, that is, 10,000. True, this word is outdated and practically not used, but it is curious that the word "myriad" is widely used, which does not mean a certain number at all, but an uncountable, uncountable set of something. It is believed that the word myriad (English myriad) came to European languages from ancient Egypt.
There are different opinions about the origin of this number. Some believe that it originated in Egypt, while others believe that it was born only in Ancient Greece. Be that as it may, in fact, the myriad gained fame precisely thanks to the Greeks. Myriad was the name for 10,000, and there were no names for numbers over ten thousand. However, in the note "Psammit" (i.e., the calculus of sand), Archimedes showed how one can systematically build and name arbitrarily large numbers. In particular, placing 10,000 (myriad) grains of sand in a poppy seed, he finds that in the Universe (a ball with a diameter of a myriad of Earth diameters) would fit (in our notation) no more than 10 63
grains of sand. It is curious that modern calculations of the number of atoms in the visible universe lead to the number 10 67
(only a myriad of times more). The names of the numbers Archimedes suggested are as follows:
1 myriad = 10 4 .
1 di-myriad = myriad myriad = 10 8
.
1 tri-myriad = di-myriad di-myriad = 10 16
.
1 tetra-myriad = three-myriad three-myriad = 10 32
.
etc.
googol(from the English googol) is the number ten to the hundredth power, that is, one with one hundred zeros. The "googol" was first written about in 1938 in the article "New Names in Mathematics" in the January issue of the journal Scripta Mathematica by the American mathematician Edward Kasner. According to him, his nine-year-old nephew Milton Sirotta suggested calling a large number "googol". This number became well-known thanks to the search engine named after him. Google. Note that "Google" is a trademark and googol is a number.
Edward Kasner.
On the Internet, you can often find mention that - but this is not so ...
In the famous Buddhist treatise Jaina Sutra, dating back to 100 BC, there is a number asankhiya(from Chinese asentzi- incalculable), equal to 10 140. It is believed that this number is equal to the number of cosmic cycles required to gain nirvana.
Googolplex(English) googolplex) - a number also invented by Kasner with his nephew and meaning one with a googol of zeros, that is, 10 10100 . Here is how Kasner himself describes this "discovery":
Words of wisdom are spoken by children at least as often as by scientists. The name "googol" was invented by a child (Dr. Kasner's nine-year-old nephew) who was asked to think up a name for a very big number, namely, 1 with a hundred zeros after it. He was very certain that this number was not infinite, and therefore equally certain that it had to have a name. a googol, but is still finite, as the inventor of the name was quick to point out.
Mathematics and the Imagination(1940) by Kasner and James R. Newman.
Even more than a googolplex number - Skewes number (Skewes" number) was suggested by Skewes in 1933 (Skewes. J. London Math. soc. 8, 277-283, 1933.) in proving the Riemann conjecture concerning primes. It means e to the extent e to the extent e to the power of 79, i.e. ee e 79 . Later, Riele (te Riele, H. J. J. "On the Sign of the Difference P(x)-Li(x)." Math. Comput. 48, 323-328, 1987) reduced Skuse's number to ee 27/4 , which is approximately equal to 8.185 10 370 . It is clear that since the value of the Skewes number depends on the number e, then it is not an integer, so we will not consider it, otherwise we would have to recall other non-natural numbers - the number pi, the number e, etc.
But it should be noted that there is a second Skewes number, which in mathematics is denoted as Sk2 , which is even larger than the first Skewes number (Sk1 ). Skuse's second number, was introduced by J. Skuse in the same article to denote a number for which the Riemann hypothesis is not valid. Sk2 is 1010 10103 , i.e. 1010 101000 .
As you understand, the more degrees there are, the more difficult it is to understand which of the numbers is greater. For example, looking at the Skewes numbers, without special calculations, it is almost impossible to understand which of these two numbers is larger. Thus, for superlarge numbers, it becomes inconvenient to use powers. Moreover, you can come up with such numbers (and they have already been invented) when the degrees of degrees simply do not fit on the page. Yes, what a page! They won't even fit into a book the size of the entire universe! In this case, the question arises how to write them down. The problem, as you understand, is solvable, and mathematicians have developed several principles for writing such numbers. True, every mathematician who asked this problem came up with his own way of writing, which led to the existence of several, unrelated, ways to write numbers - these are the notations of Knuth, Conway, Steinhaus, etc.
Consider the notation of Hugo Stenhaus (H. Steinhaus. Mathematical Snapshots, 3rd edn. 1983), which is quite simple. Steinhouse suggested writing large numbers inside geometric shapes - a triangle, a square and a circle:
Steinhouse came up with two new super-large numbers. He named a number Mega, and the number is Megiston.
The mathematician Leo Moser refined Stenhouse's notation, which was limited by the fact that if it was necessary to write numbers much larger than a megiston, difficulties and inconveniences arose, since many circles had to be drawn one inside the other. Moser suggested drawing not circles after squares, but pentagons, then hexagons, and so on. He also proposed a formal notation for these polygons, so that numbers could be written without drawing complex patterns. Moser notation looks like that:
Thus, according to Moser's notation, Steinhouse's mega is written as 2, and megiston as 10. In addition, Leo Moser suggested calling a polygon with the number of sides equal to mega - megagon. And he proposed the number "2 in Megagon", that is, 2. This number became known as the Moser's number or simply as moser.
But the moser is not the largest number. The largest number ever used in a mathematical proof is the limiting value known as Graham number(Graham "s number), first used in 1977 in the proof of one estimate in Ramsey theory. It is associated with bichromatic hypercubes and cannot be expressed without a special 64-level system of special mathematical symbols introduced by Knuth in 1976.
Unfortunately, the number written in the Knuth notation cannot be translated into the Moser notation. Therefore, this system will also have to be explained. In principle, there is nothing complicated in it either. Donald Knuth (yes, yes, this is the same Knuth who wrote The Art of Programming and created the TeX editor) came up with the concept of superpower, which he proposed to write with arrows pointing up:
In general, it looks like this:
I think that everything is clear, so let's get back to Graham's number. Graham proposed the so-called G-numbers:
The number G63 became known as Graham number(it is often denoted simply as G). This number is the largest known number in the world and is even listed in the Guinness Book of Records. And, here, that the Graham number is greater than the Moser number.
P.S. In order to bring great benefit to all mankind and become famous for centuries, I decided to invent and name the largest number myself. This number will be called stasplex and it is equal to the number G100 . Memorize it, and when your children ask what is the largest number in the world, tell them that this number is called stasplex
So there are numbers bigger than Graham's number? There are, of course, for starters there is a Graham number. As for the significant number... well, there are some fiendishly difficult areas of mathematics (in particular, the area known as combinatorics) and computer science, in which there are numbers even larger than Graham's number. But we have almost reached the limit of what can be rationally and clearly explained.
