Unimaginable Numbers: What is 1.36 x 10^495 times 20 Million?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the multiplication of large numbers, specifically 1.36 x 10^495 by 20 million, and the naming of resulting large numbers. Participants explore the implications of these calculations in the context of hypothetical scenarios, such as the number of possible alien civilizations and protein combinations in the human body.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Technical explanation, Conceptual clarification, Debate/contested, Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant mentions that Kurzesagt in a Nutshell states the number of possible protein combinations is 6.8 x 10^495 and seeks to multiply it by 20 million, leading to a proposed result of 1.36 x 10^504.
  • Another participant provides a calculation breakdown, suggesting that 20 million can be expressed as 2.0 x 10^7, leading to a revised result of 1.36 x 10^503.
  • Some participants express interest in the naming of large numbers, referencing a list of named numbers and discussing the preference for scientific notation over names for large quantities.
  • There is mention of large numbers such as Googol and Graham's number, with some participants noting the limitations of naming large numbers and the practicality of scientific notation.
  • A few participants question the relevance of the discussion, suggesting that the arithmetic involved is straightforward and not particularly complex.
  • Concerns are raised about the confusion surrounding the definitions of large numbers, particularly the term "billion," which has different meanings in short and long scales.
  • Some participants express frustration with the naming conventions for large numbers, arguing that scientific notation is more efficient and clearer.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the importance of naming large numbers versus using scientific notation. There are differing opinions on the relevance of the calculations and the complexity of the concepts discussed.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved discussions regarding the definitions of large numbers and the implications of using different naming conventions. The calculations presented rely on assumptions about the context of the numbers involved.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those exploring mathematical concepts related to large numbers, scientific notation, and the implications of hypothetical scenarios in mathematics and science.

Maximum7
Messages
124
Reaction score
11
TL;DR
I am trying to figure out a hypothetical number of unimaginable proportions
Kurzesagt in a Nutshell said that the number of possible protein combinations the human body can have is 6.8 x 10^495. I asked GPT to multiple it by 20 million (which is the hypothetical number of possible alien civilizations in the Milky Way galaxy give or take). The chatbot gave me 1.36 x 10^504. Then I asked for the number and it said 136 quattuordecillion. Google gave the benchmark number for 10^500 (which is relatively close) as 100 cenquinsexagintillion which is totally different.
So basically. What is the answer to 1.36 x 10^495 times 20 million and if so, what is the true name of that possible number?
Sorry I know this is math with unimaginable numbers but I did find some websites with Googling that had names for these ridiculous numbers.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Maximum7 said:
TL;DR Summary: I am trying to figure out a hypothetical number of unimaginable proportions

What is the answer to 1.36 x 10^495 times 20 million
20 million = 2.0 x 10^7
6.8 x 2.0 x 10^(495 + 7) = 13.6 x 10^(502) = 1.36 x 10^(503)
Maximum7 said:
and if so, what is the true name of that possible number?
Why do you care? In any case, this is not an A-level thread, and you're not really working with an equation -- it's just arithmetic, albeit with fairly large numbers.
 
Reply
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Vanadium 50
Mark44 said:
20 million = 2.0 x 10^7
6.8 x 2.0 x 10^(495 + 7) = 13.6 x 10^(502) = 1.36 x 10^(503)

Why do you care? In any case, this is not an A-level thread, and you're not really working with an equation -- it's just arithmetic, albeit with fairly large numbers.
I think numbers are awesome and love learning new words as well
 
Reply
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: AlexB23
Reply
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: dextercioby, PeroK and pinball1970
Fairly far down in the list of named numbers that fresh_42 linked to, there is a list of numbers that include million, billion, trillion, and so on. The largest one listed there is decillion (##10^{30}##). If numbers larger than that have names, I'm not aware of them, and really, not many people care about them. Instead, the preferred way to do things is to use scientific notation; for example ##1.36 \times 10^{503}##.
 
Reply
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: malawi_glenn, dextercioby and pinball1970
Maximum7 said:
I am trying to figure out a hypothetical number of unimaginable proportions
If you "figure it out" it is not "unimaginable" is it? :cool:
 
Reply
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: malawi_glenn and Mark44
Maximum7 said:
TL;DR Summary: I am trying to figure out a hypothetical number of unimaginable proportions

Kurzesagt in a Nutshell said that the number of possible protein combinations the human body can have is 6.8 x 10^495. I asked GPT to multiple it by 20 million (which is the hypothetical number of possible alien civilizations in the Milky Way galaxy give or take). The chatbot gave me 1.36 x 10^504. Then I asked for the number and it said 136 quattuordecillion. Google gave the benchmark number for 10^500 (which is relatively close) as 100 cenquinsexagintillion which is totally different.
So basically. What is the answer to 1.36 x 10^495 times 20 million and if so, what is the true name of that possible number?
Sorry I know this is math with unimaginable numbers but I did find some websites with Googling that had names for these ridiculous numbers.
Check out all the above. The very large numbers I have looked at are not as interesting as the way they are put together in my humble opinion.
Graham's number a nice example from @fresh_42 and there is also Tree 3. These are upper limits to actual problems. Numberphile went through with Ron Graham himself and also Tree3.

 
Reply
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: fresh_42
Where is the equation?
 
  • #10
malawi_glenn said:
Where is the equation?
Many people who are less knowledgeable about mathematics believe that any collection of numbers and/or variables is an equation, whether or not the collection contains an = symbol.
 
Reply
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: dextercioby
  • #11
isnt the whole point of scientific notation to avoid having to learn stupid names for numbers? After a trillion it becomes pointless. Wish computer science did this, who wants to waste time with this gobbledygook?

The yottabyte is about 1 septillion bytes -- or, as an integer, 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 bytes. The storage volume is equivalent to a quadrillion gigabytes (GB) or a million trillion megabytes.

just say 10^12 terabytes. No one in physics talks about yottameters or yottagrams, because its just stupid
 
Reply
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: phinds, malawi_glenn, Mark44 and 1 other person
  • #12
BWV said:
isnt the whole point of scientific notation to avoid having to learn stupid names for numbers? After a trillion it becomes pointless. Wish computer science did this, who wants to waste time with this gobbledygook?

The yottabyte is about 1 septillion bytes -- or, as an integer, 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 bytes. The storage volume is equivalent to a quadrillion gigabytes (GB) or a million trillion megabytes.

just say 10^12 terabytes. No one in physics talks about yottameters or yottagrams, because its just stupid

Especially since even the word "billion" doesn't start us off well.

Wiki said:
Billion is a word for a large number, and it has two distinct definitions:

1,000,000,000, i.e. one thousand million, or 109 (ten to the ninth power), as defined on the short scale. This is its only current meaning in English.[1][2]
1,000,000,000,000, i.e. one million million, or 1012 (ten to the twelfth power), as defined on the long scale.

This number, which is one thousand times larger than the short scale billion, is now referred to in English as one trillion. However, this number is the historical meaning in English for the word "billion" (with the exception of the United States), a meaning which was still in official use in British English until some time after World War II.

American English adopted the short scale definition from the French (it enjoyed usage in France at the time, alongside the long-scale definition).[3] The United Kingdom used the long scale billion until 1974, when the government officially switched to the short scale, but since the 1950s the short scale had already been increasingly used in technical writing and journalism. [4]

Other countries use the word billion (or words cognate to it) to denote either the long scale or short scale billion. (For details, see Long and short scales § Current usage.)
 
Reply
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: dextercioby
  • #13
BWV said:
just say 10^12 terabytes. No one in physics talks about yottameters or yottagrams, because its just stupid
... btw ... earth has a mass of approximately 6 Rg. That is six ronnagram, or 6,000 yottagram or 0.006 quettagram.
 
Last edited:
Reply
  • Haha
Likes   Reactions: malawi_glenn, BWV and dextercioby
  • #14
fresh_42 said:
... btw ... earth has a mass of approximately 6 Rg. That is six ronnagram, or 6,000 yottagram or 0.006 quettagram.
But there is an upper limit - for example there are not enough letters in the universe to write out the metric prefix for Graham's number
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #15
BWV said:
But there is an upper limit - for example there are not enough letters in the universe to write out the metric prefix for Graham's number
The funny stuff wasn't the absurd size of Graham's number, say G. The brilliant part of @pinball1970 's video was:

We know it can be done in dimension G (which is a ridiculously large number)
but we believe it already can be done in dimension 13.​
 
Reply
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: pinball1970