Talk:Large numbers

OK, this is a first stab at getting all the large number topics together, please feel free to kick this into shape. The Anome

Can I suggest that we include only pure numbers in this article, not distances and other measurements? Would anyone object if I deleted the astronomical distances, since they are only large numbers when expressed in small units? I suppose I should go further and say that Avogradro's number is also just an arbitrary unit, but I shan't, because I feel I'm on a slippery slope towards excluding everything! -- Heron

Then why do people call large numbers "astronomical", as the article informs us? Perhaps it's because astronomical distances are large when expressed in any human-sized scale. I think the concept of "largeness" needs to be explained. The whole article is subjective anyway -- I wouldn't call 10¹⁰ large, I deal with those sorts of numbers every day. ${\displaystyle 10^{10^{10}}}$ is more like it. -- Tim Starling 09:26 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I agree with you about 10¹⁰. I wouldn't call the number of bits on a hard disk particularly large, either. It is certainly subjective. My point was that measurements of distance etc. are different from pure numbers. Measurements are, by definition, relative, whereas at least pure numbers are absolute. Largeness is another thing. Perhaps one definition would be "a number considered as large at a particular time by a particular culture". For example, I seem to remember that the Old Testament uses the number 40 as a generic large number in several places (e.g. "40 days and 40 nights"). -- Heron

Let me put this another way. I think the present article should be, as it mostly is, about the mathematics of large numbers. Other large quantities, such as astronomical distances, already have a place on the orders of magnitude pages (1e10 m etc.) Perhaps we should just link to them. -- Heron

Yes, you're quite right. Well, about most things. I could argue that physically distance is dimensionless but that would just be arrogant pedantry. The page title is "large number" not just "large", and the order of magnitude pages are pretty good for comparing distances. BTW did you see my reply for you on Wikipedia:Reference desk? -- Tim Starling 13:53 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I don't see any reference to the enormous numbers you get when you calculate permutations and combinations? How many permutations are there in a googolplex? (I hope that's grammatically correct.) {roger} 29 June 2005

You're on the right track! Check out the article on Combinatorics referenced at the beginning of the "even larger numbers" section, or better yet the Permutations and combinations article. Then you'll know to ask "How many permutations are there of 1 googolplex objects without replacement?", and that the the answer is googolplex factorial (written "googolplex!"). Lunkwill 29 June 2005 06:33 (UTC)

The first three examples in the examples section use the abbreviations DTg, Ce, and Ml; recently an IP user added Duotrigintillion to the Google example.

Now, Duotrigintillion is ${\displaystyle 10^{99}}$, so saying a google is 10 Duotrigintillion seems correct. But I'm not sure that employing this sesquipedillion term is useful to the reader. Likewise, I'm unconvinced that the abbreviation "DTg" is any more useful. Likewise for Ce and Ml - few readers are likely to be familiar with these abbreviations and we don't define them anywhere.

I'm suggest simply removing them. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 18:30, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Upon further review, might a chart similar to what is available at basic math be worth including. Seems to me that this would be more pertinent to the lay reader than the "walpaper" of symbols in some of the sections.

We might want to find a better source, and if we're going to keep the abbreviations those should be in the chart. Assuming we can find suitable references. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 17:34, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Well, there already is a chart at Names of large numbers, so I've linked it prominently in the first section after the lead.

But I can't find anything to back up the abbreviations. Since this material is unsourced (and also confusing - it took me awhile to understand what was meant by ${\displaystyle 10^{100}}$/10 DTg</math>, is the slash the symbol for division? and what is DTg?) I'm removing the unsourced abbreviations.

I also cleaned up the lead to give it a more neutral encyclopedic tone. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:42, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Someone added a ^{[citation needed]} tag to the mention, and while P-adic numbers are a real thing that is well sourced, it's not clear to me what their relation is to this article. My inclination is to just remove the mention as unnecessary.

I suppose we might be able to find a reference that expounds on how P-adic numbers are related to large positive integers, but until we do seems that the sentence should just be removed. Opinions? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 00:57, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Seeing no interest in maintaining this mention in the lead and since it is unsourced, I'll simply remove it. If there are objections we can always restore. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 00:07, 30 September 2025 (UTC)