Comments on: 10 Enormous Numbers http://listverse.com/2012/03/12/10-enormous-numbers/ Top 10 Lists - Listverse Fri, 25 Jan 2013 00:19:50 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1 By: Annonymus http://listverse.com/2012/03/12/10-enormous-numbers/#comment-506512 Annonymus Tue, 24 Jul 2012 23:43:07 +0000 https://listverse.wordpress.com/?p=37040#comment-506512 Infinity is not a number…

]]> By: Nene http://listverse.com/2012/03/12/10-enormous-numbers/#comment-501690 Nene Tue, 10 Jul 2012 11:21:50 +0000 https://listverse.wordpress.com/?p=37040#comment-501690 Hi 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 Mike Tue, 03 Jul 2012 23:47:16 +0000 https://listverse.wordpress.com/?p=37040#comment-500002 You *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 Jae Tue, 22 May 2012 05:57:04 +0000 https://listverse.wordpress.com/?p=37040#comment-488631 My brain officially feels fried…

]]> By: careytommy http://listverse.com/2012/03/12/10-enormous-numbers/#comment-482834 careytommy Fri, 27 Apr 2012 17:30:43 +0000 https://listverse.wordpress.com/?p=37040#comment-482834 #3 was totally crazy!

]]> By: Lizardmancalcos http://listverse.com/2012/03/12/10-enormous-numbers/#comment-473453 Lizardmancalcos Mon, 26 Mar 2012 16:44:52 +0000 https://listverse.wordpress.com/?p=37040#comment-473453 The value of t is 3.58333…

]]> By: p1t1o http://listverse.com/2012/03/12/10-enormous-numbers/#comment-472155 p1t1o Wed, 21 Mar 2012 19:25:43 +0000 https://listverse.wordpress.com/?p=37040#comment-472155 I 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 Stefan Wed, 21 Mar 2012 16:49:26 +0000 https://listverse.wordpress.com/?p=37040#comment-472128 Loved 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 tight garbage Wed, 21 Mar 2012 09:42:14 +0000 https://listverse.wordpress.com/?p=37040#comment-472061 Yo 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 king_o3o Wed, 21 Mar 2012 00:40:14 +0000 https://listverse.wordpress.com/?p=37040#comment-471976 You forgot infinty to the power of infinity infinite times times infinity.

]]>