A googolplex expressed in factorial form?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Saracen Rue
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Factorial Form
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on finding the factorial form of a googolplex, specifically solving for n in the equation n! = 10^(10^100). A rough approximation suggests that n is around 10^100, as n! can be estimated by n^n. The original poster also attempted to use Wolfram Alpha for a solution but encountered time limitations. Ultimately, they provided a guessed value of approximately 1.0248383837709e+98! as a potential answer. The conversation highlights the complexity of calculating large factorials and the relationship between factorials and the gamma function.
Saracen Rue
Messages
150
Reaction score
10
Does anybody know what the factorial form of a googolplex would be?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
So you're asking to calculate the inverse gamma function, since the gamma function and the factorial are closely related. i.e. you want to solve for n in
n!=10^{10^{100}}

I can give you a quick start on the approximate magnitude of n. Since a crude approximation is n!\approx n^n, then choosing n=10^{100} gives us
n^n=\left(10^{100}\right)^{\left(10^{100}\right)}=10^{100\times 10^{100}}=10^{10^{102}}\approx 10^{10^{100}}

hence n is somewhere in the ballpark of a googol.

Unless of course, you meant something else by your OP. Maybe you were asking what 10^{10^{100}}! is?
 
Mentallic said:
So you're asking to calculate the inverse gamma function, since the gamma function and the factorial are closely related. i.e. you want to solve for n in
n!=10^{10^{100}}

I can give you a quick start on the approximate magnitude of n. Since a crude approximation is n!\approx n^n, then choosing n=10^{100} gives us
n^n=\left(10^{100}\right)^{\left(10^{100}\right)}=10^{100\times 10^{100}}=10^{10^{102}}\approx 10^{10^{100}}

hence n is somewhere in the ballpark of a googol.

Unless of course, you meant something else by your OP. Maybe you were asking what 10^{10^{100}}! is?

Yes I was asking what 'n' would have been, and thank you for helping.
 
I tried to get Wolfram Alpha to solve but it exceeded the standard calculation time - maybe someone with a pro account can try it.

Anyway just through guessing I managed to get 102483838377090000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000! (1.0248383837709e+98!) as an answer.
 
Last edited:
I have been insisting to my statistics students that for probabilities, the rule is the number of significant figures is the number of digits past the leading zeros or leading nines. For example to give 4 significant figures for a probability: 0.000001234 and 0.99999991234 are the correct number of decimal places. That way the complementary probability can also be given to the same significant figures ( 0.999998766 and 0.00000008766 respectively). More generally if you have a value that...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
20K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
25
Views
1K