Comments on: 10 Enormous Numbers
http://listverse.com/2012/03/12/10-enormous-numbers/
Top 10 Lists - ListverseMon, 11 Dec 2017 13:22:44 +0000hourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.8.4By: Annonymus
http://listverse.com/2012/03/12/10-enormous-numbers/#comment-506512
Tue, 24 Jul 2012 23:43:07 +0000https://listverse.wordpress.com/?p=37040#comment-506512Infinity is not a number…
]]>By: Nene
http://listverse.com/2012/03/12/10-enormous-numbers/#comment-501690
Tue, 10 Jul 2012 11:21:50 +0000https://listverse.wordpress.com/?p=37040#comment-501690Hi Clive wow, that’s a great image! Thanks for showing.I’m glad you like this cover. I had noihtng to do with it except seeing the art and thinking it would be good for the book. The painter is Jane Andrews and the designer is Lueds Rodrigues. Jane has given me permission to re-use her art for the ebook but I’m not sure it will work. I’ve been told that ebook covers have to have much larger type and an image that looks good at a small size. Different way of doing things.
]]>By: Mike
http://listverse.com/2012/03/12/10-enormous-numbers/#comment-500002
Tue, 03 Jul 2012 23:47:16 +0000https://listverse.wordpress.com/?p=37040#comment-500002You *seriously* underestimated the amount of space to write down a Googolplex. If you assume 10^80 elementary particles in the observable universe and wrote a zero on each particle, you’d need another 10^20 (100 quintillion to be precise) universes each the size of of our observable universe to write the number down in long form. Remember, each time the exponent number increases by 1 (i.e. 10^80 to 10^81) it multiples the whole number by a factor of 10. Just saying..
]]>By: Jae
http://listverse.com/2012/03/12/10-enormous-numbers/#comment-488631
Tue, 22 May 2012 05:57:04 +0000https://listverse.wordpress.com/?p=37040#comment-488631My brain officially feels fried…
]]>By: careytommy
http://listverse.com/2012/03/12/10-enormous-numbers/#comment-482834
Fri, 27 Apr 2012 17:30:43 +0000https://listverse.wordpress.com/?p=37040#comment-482834#3 was totally crazy!
]]>By: Lizardmancalcos
http://listverse.com/2012/03/12/10-enormous-numbers/#comment-473453
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 16:44:52 +0000https://listverse.wordpress.com/?p=37040#comment-473453The value of t is 3.58333…
]]>By: p1t1o
http://listverse.com/2012/03/12/10-enormous-numbers/#comment-472155
Wed, 21 Mar 2012 19:25:43 +0000https://listverse.wordpress.com/?p=37040#comment-472155I don’t know how you came up with it but you are wrong about the googolplex, it does have 10^100 zeros.
]]>By: Stefan
http://listverse.com/2012/03/12/10-enormous-numbers/#comment-472128
Wed, 21 Mar 2012 16:49:26 +0000https://listverse.wordpress.com/?p=37040#comment-472128Loved the list!
Only infinity is not a number.
Infinity+1= Undefined
Infinity-Infinity=Undefined
One has to use limits to define these “equations”

Lim n+1 = Infinity
n->Inf.

Just for those who are interested

]]>By: tight garbage
http://listverse.com/2012/03/12/10-enormous-numbers/#comment-472061
Wed, 21 Mar 2012 09:42:14 +0000https://listverse.wordpress.com/?p=37040#comment-472061Yo bro, lots of errors in this article. First, googolplex is not 1 followed by googol zeros… it’s simply 1 follow by 1000 zeros. Next, there is no point in stating the Poincare one… the theory of an oscillating universe is all but busted. Next, in the Skewe’s number part, putting “(most numbers are)” is not true if you believe in an infinite infinity. Lastly, why would you say “infinity divided by infinity would probably be one.” That’s quite an assumption especially since you know that infinity minus infinity isn’t 0. Peace bro.
]]>By: king_o3o
http://listverse.com/2012/03/12/10-enormous-numbers/#comment-471976
Wed, 21 Mar 2012 00:40:14 +0000https://listverse.wordpress.com/?p=37040#comment-471976You forgot infinty to the power of infinity infinite times times infinity.
]]>