Talk:Names of large numbers/Archive 2

{{Refimprovesect|date=June 2006}} {{Original research|section|date=January 2007}}

This table illustrates several systems for naming large numbers, and shows how they can be extended past decillion.

Traditional British usage assigned new names for each power of one million (the long scale): 1,000,000 = 1 million; 1,000,000² = 1 billion; 1,000,000³ = 1 trillion; and so on. It was adapted from French usage, and is similar to the system that was documented or invented by Chuquet.

Traditional American usage (which, oddly enough, was also adapted from French usage but at a later date), and modern British usage, assigns new names for each power of one thousand (the short scale.) Thus, a billion is 1000 × 1000² = 10⁹; a trillion is 1000 × 1000³ = 10¹²; and so forth. Due to its dominance in the financial world (and by the US-dollar) this was adopted for official United Nations documents.

Traditional French usage has varied; in 1948, France, which had been using the short scale, reverted to the long scale.

The term milliard is unambiguous and always means 10⁹. It is almost never seen in American usage, rarely in British usage, and frequently in European usage. The term is sometimes attributed to a French mathematician named Jacques Peletier du Mans circa 1550 (for this reason, the long scale is also known as the Chuquet-Peletier system), but the Oxford English Dictionary states that the term derives from post-Classical Latin term milliartum, which became milliare and then milliart and finally our modern term.

With regard to names ending in -illiard for numbers 10^6·n+3, milliard is certainly in widespread use in languages other than English, but the degree of actual use of the larger terms is questionable. For example, as of 2004, Google searches on French-language pages for trillion, quadrillion, and quintillion return 6630, 312, and 127 hits respectively, whilst searches for trilliard and quadrilliard return only 102 and 7 hits respectively. However, one has to take into account that these large numbers are not often needed and that scientists almost always use scientific notation. In German the terms "Milliarde", "Billiarde" etc. are out of question.

The naming procedure for large numbers is based on taking the number n occurring in 10³ⁿ⁺³ (short scale) or 10⁶ⁿ (long scale) and concatenating Latin roots for its units, tens, and hundreds place, together with the suffix -illion. In this way, numbers up to 10^3·999+3 = 10³⁰⁰⁰ (short scale) or 10^6·999 = 10⁵⁹⁹⁴ (long scale) may be named. The choice of roots and the concatenation procedure is that of the standard dictionary numbers if n is 20 or smaller, and, for larger n (between 21 and 999), is due to John Horton Conway and Richard Guy. Since the system of using Latin prefixes will become ambiguous for numbers with exponents of a size which the Romans rarely counted to, like 10^6,000,258, Conway and Guy have also proposed a consistent set of conventions which permit, in principle, the extension of this system to provide English names for any integer whatsoever.^[1]

Names of reciprocals of large numbers do not need to be listed here, because they are regularly formed by adding -th, e.g. quattuordecillionth, centillionth, etc.

For additional details, see Billion (disambiguation) and long and short scales.

More information ...

Value	USA and Modern British (short scale)	Traditional British (long scale)	Traditional European (Peletier) (long scale)
10100	Googol (Ten duotrigintillion)	Googol (Ten thousand sexdecillion)	Googol (Ten sexdecilliard)
${\displaystyle 10^{10^{100}}\,\!}$	Googolplex	Googolplex	Googolplex

Close

Several Web pages make a reference to a passage in Chuquet's book in which he shows a large number marked off into groups of six digits and comments:

Ou qui veult le premier point peult signiffier million Le second point byllion Le tiers poit tryllion Le quart quadrillion Le cinqe quyllion Le sixe sixlion Le sept.e septyllion Le huyte ottyllion Le neufe nonyllion et ainsi des ault's se plus oultre on vouloit preceder

(Or if you prefer the first mark can signify million, the second mark byllion, the third mark tryllion, the fourth quadrillion, the fifth quyillion, the sixth sixlion, the seventh septyllion, the eighth ottyllion, the ninth nonyllion and so on with others as far as you wish to go).

This clearly refers to names in steps of powers of six. But *Robert Munafo's article quotes a different passage,

Au lieu de dire mille milliers, on dira million, au lieu de dire mille millions, on dira byllion, etc..., et tryllion, quadrilion ... octylion, nonyllion, et ainsi des autres si plus oultre on voulait proceder. French: "Instead of saying one thousand thousand, one may say million; instead of saying one thousand million, one may say billion, and trillion, quadrillion, ... octillion, nonillion, and others as well, as far as you wish to go."

and comments

These number names were adopted throughout Europe during the next century (with minor spelling changes for each language). Chuquet intended the names to represent powers of 1000 as the quote above clearly shows.

So, it's not at all clear to me what the Chuquet system really was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpbsmith (talk • contribs) 13:36, 5 June 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article have a bit of text about the fact that none of these words are used in science because of their ambiguous nature? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.122.115.98 (talk) 16:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I have listed other names of large numbers on AfD (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Other_names_of_large_numbers), people watching this page might want to comment on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruud Koot (talk • contribs) 03:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Just thought I would mention I found this article when I actually needed to use the word for 10¹⁵ and did not know it's word.

Thanks for the informative article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by H (talk • contribs) 16:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Why use centillion, not hectillion, for 10³⁰³? In SI prefix, "centi-" is 10⁻², and "hecto-" is 10², and the number is "100-illion", not "0.01-illion"!!! Thus should be hectillion, not centillion.

A suggestion of larger number names is: (in American scale, or short scale)

hectillion = 10³⁰³

kilillion = 10³⁰⁰³

megillion = 10^3×106+3

gigillion = 10^3×109+3

terillion = 10^3×1012+3

petillion = 10^3×1015+3

exillion = 10^3×1018+3

zettillion = 10^3×1021+3

yottillion = 10^3×1024+3

xonillion = 10^3×1027+3

wecillion = 10^3×1030+3

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.8.178.137 (talk) 15:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

10^10^10^100Googolplex‹∞› — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:CD:C882:8D20:4008:B107:4C6A:293C (talk) 17:18, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

My son (Charlie C.) asked about what a number would be called if it had a quadrillion zeros.

He came up with a prefix dind-

So dindquadrillion.

Prefix dind meaning "deco index"

Is this type of number already succintly named? If so, what nomenclature do people use? 2001:8003:ED68:D500:5C75:FE6A:9568:ADDC (talk) 21:48, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we have or need common names for such numbers, simply because there aren't that many of anything. For example, to describe the number of atoms in the universe, we only need 80 zeros. Even there, 10⁸⁰ seems a lot easier to understand than obscure wording such as a hundred quinvigintillion. Certes (talk) 22:56, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Well here it is:

Unmillion Unmilliard Unbillion Untrillion Unquadrillion Unquintillion

Duomillion Duomilliard Duobillion Duotrillion Duoquadrillion Duoquintillion

Tremillion Tremilliard Trebillion Tretrillion Trequadrillion Trequintillion

Quattuormillion Quattuormilliard Quattuorbillion Quattuortrillion Quattuorquadrillion Quattuorquintillion

Quinmillion Quinmilliard Quinbillion Quintrillion Quinquadrillion Quinquintillion

That's all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.88.205.90 (talk) 20:17, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Hectillion = 10^3,078 Unhectillion = 10^3,081 Duohectillion = 10^3,084 Trehectillion = 10^3,087 Quattuorhectillion = 10^3,090 Quinhectillion = 10^3,093 Sexhectillion = 10^3,096 Septenhectillion = 10^3,099 Octohectillion = 10^3,102 Novemhectillion = 10^3,105 213.211.86.128 (talk) 10:23, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, but this article is only for common names used widely in reliable sources. Wikipedia does not publish original research such as inventing new names. Certes (talk) 12:08, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

It's 10^{1,000,000,000,000,000,000} or 10¹⁰18 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.132.8.107 (talk) 14:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Say the number of maximunssextillion Luccasantana (talk) 22:57, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

That's not a real number. Black Yoshi (Yoshi! | Yoshi's Eggs) 22:58, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

There is a reversed prime number (emirp) defined by Jens Kruse Andersen from Denmark (http://primerecords.dk) that has 1089 digits. I don't seem to find a name for it in Wikipedia. 115.64.52.116 (talk) 07:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

The table for googol and googolplex has UM as an authority, but it hasn't been mentioned before and has no link. I believe it's supposed to represent the HM reference, but it doesn't say that. 130.226.139.26 (talk) 07:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. Black Yoshi (Yoshi! | Yoshi's Eggs) 12:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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

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

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)

Fandom sites do not come close to meeting WP:RS guidelines. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:43, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

that is a salad number, and doesn't count Kargenumbergardennumber (talk) 17:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Yeah I suppose so, sorry. Kargenumbergardennumber (talk) 20:53, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I suppose the original blog post isn't a good source either lol Kargenumbergardennumber (talk) 20:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

To be fair the blog post is the original source Kargenumbergardennumber (talk) 20:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:USERG has the answer you are looking for ("no"). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:12, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

At least in Sweden, but afaik in Denmark and Norway also, there are words "Biljard" or "Billiard", and "Triljard" or "Trilliard" for ten to the power of 15, and 10 to the power of 21 respectively as standard names. These names are described in the table "number names generated by the system described by Conway and Guy for the short and long scales.", but they are also commonly used.

It's a table of current usage in English, as given in current dictionaries. You can read about milliard etc. elsewhere (esp. in Long and short scales), but they do not belong in this table.Nø (talk) 11:14, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

It's either misnomer or spelling error, but I believe the prefix deci means tenth, while deca means ten. So, it should be decacentillion for 1E+333.

If it's spelling, please correct, or if it's supposed to be deca while being nomered deci, well, it's a mathmatical thing.

deca = 10, cent=100 => 110 => 1E+(3x110 + 3) => 1E+333. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.45.33.122 (talk) 08:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

This article seems to lack focus WRT topic. It talks about numbering systems: long and short scales, Indian numbering system and Indefinite and fictitious numbers. Describes where the systems are used and when. If this is about large number names, then there is so much distracting info here I can't find the signal for the noise.

Also, how is the topic different from large numbers? Stevebroshar (talk) 12:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

The section Standard dictionary numbers is confusing. What's a standard dictionary? I don't think that's a thing. The section seems to be about what's in various (not what I'd call standard) dictionaries. Thing is, in what way is this information interesting and notable? To me, it's a big who cares; so much noise. Was going to propose removing the Authorties columns. but no, this article is about names. The relevant info is that the long scale has one additional word (milliard) and all the sizes bigger than million differ in size. Ax the table. This table might make sense in long and short scales. Stevebroshar (talk) 12:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

well a googolplex in illionic can be simplified to "~trimilli^32illion" or "~tritretriacontillion", even though the exact value's name is wrong. but still, "tri-trigentitrigintitri..." (3.33e99th illion) is still normal. 31.133.63.151 (talk) 17:02, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Gargoogol has 200 Zeros 77.100.228.242 (talk) 19:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

same. fandom should stay colloquial and not be contributed on wp. [i said that also on the largest number post] 31.133.63.151 (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Disoge has 10 zeros 77.100.228.242 (talk) 19:36, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Does any reliable source use this term? Certes (talk) 21:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Me,an editor, could not find any source that uses the term "diosge". Number Numismatist (talk) 12:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

same. this name isnt even in the fandoms, so, sorry, poster. 31.133.63.159 (talk) 08:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh, Hi. Btw, Gargoogolplexianth in the BIGGEST number out there. Number Numismatist (talk) 19:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Ok, we need to talk, its not called googolplexplex, its called googolplexian. Number Numismatist (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

The other day I added a description for this article which was quickly reverted claiming it was vandalism. Are there any maintainers of this article that believe that my edit was in fact, vandalism? BurninButter (talk) 12:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

This edit request to Names of large numbers has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

10^51 has been incorrectly named Sedecillion, when it's actual name is Sexdecillion. It is just missing the x before the d. 2600:4040:56EA:9500:99FD:1338:153C:1D29 (talk) 08:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done Good eye. _signed, Willondon (talk) 16:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

It's actually not a typo. While "sexdecillion" is MUCH more prevalent in usage (and how I would personally spell it), the table in question, as the preceding text before it mentions, lists numbers formed via the Conway–Guy system, not standard dictionary numbers. In the Conway–Guy system, 10⁵¹ is "Sedecillion", not "Sexdecillion".

The paragraph prior to the table before the table in question even mentions this:

Today, sexdecillion and novemdecillion are standard dictionary numbers and, using the same reasoning as Conway and Guy did for the numbers up to nonillion, could probably be used to form acceptable prefixes.

I’ll probably add a note so this is more clear. EmptySora_ (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2025 (UTC)