Muke Tever wrote: >From: "Andreas Johansson" <[log in to unmask]> > > John Cowan wrote: > > > > > >Henrik Theiling scripsit: > > > > > > > What strange words you have! What for? Not for money, definitely. > > > > Not for atoms in the universe, either! > > > > > >A child, the nephew of the American mathematician Edward Kasner, was > > >asked to name "the largest number he could think of": he gave the name > > >"googol", and defined it as "1 followed by writing 0s until you get >tired." > > >Kasner objected that this varied from person to person, and asked for > > >a more definite value: it became definitely "1 with a hundred zeros". > > >It is not used seriously. > > > > > >Later, Kasner or another defined "googolplex" as 10 to the googol'th >power: > > >a number too large to write down in the Observable Universe, even using > > >atoms for digits. > > > > Actually, that's not that impressive. Feynmann estimated the total >number >of > > elementary particles in the Observbale Universe to a mere 10^80, and >this > > number is probably still up-to-date as it occurs in a publication by the > > Swedish Physicist Association from 2000. So, using atom per digit (each >atom > > on the average containing 3-4 elementary particles), you couldn't write >a > > googol with all the matter in the Observable Universe by a long shot. > >The *googol* is only a 1 with a hundred zeros. You can *write* it >"100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 >00000000000000000000000000" >You just couldn't find anything to count with such a number. Err, yes, that was what I tried to say, but I see I messed myself up terribly. Sorry. Andreas "A preposition is one of the thing syou can't end a sentence with." _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.