M
Mark Parnell
Whoops...
Whoops...
P
Paul Martin
"Beware geeks bearing GIFs"
P
Pope David
Martin Dann said:
Why is 1 followed by 100 zeroes called a google and not 10 googol?
Seems like since 1 followed by 3 zeroes is a thousand, and one
followed by, say, 9 zeroes is a billion, then when we get up trought
trillions quadrillions, etc to reach the googol range, that 1 googol
would be 1 followed by 99 zeroes.
David
B
Bill Unruh
(e-mail address removed) (Pope David) writes:
]> In message <[email protected]>
]>
]> > >
]>
]> 1000000 is 1E6
]> 1000000000 is 1E9
]>
]> 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
]> is a googol
]>
]> Can be seen in many scientific and mathematical books going back decades.
]>
]> Martin.
]Why is 1 followed by 100 zeroes called a google and not 10 googol?
]Seems like since 1 followed by 3 zeroes is a thousand, and one
]followed by, say, 9 zeroes is a billion, then when we get up trought
]trillions quadrillions, etc to reach the googol range, that 1 googol
]would be 1 followed by 99 zeroes.
Because google was defined to be 10^100. It is not in the "give separate
names to numbers which are power of 10^3" set. (Just like ten and one
hundred are not). One might argue it is in the Japanese system of "give
names to numbers which are powers of 10^4" ( and who had names up to
10^52 half a millenium ago apparently). But it was simply an joking
attempt to give a name to a very large number, and 100 seemed like a
large choice (also used in the even larger googleplex--10 to the power
of a google.
]> In message <[email protected]>
]>
]> > >
]>
]> 1000000 is 1E6
]> 1000000000 is 1E9
]>
]> 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
]> is a googol
]>
]> Can be seen in many scientific and mathematical books going back decades.
]>
]> Martin.
]Why is 1 followed by 100 zeroes called a google and not 10 googol?
]Seems like since 1 followed by 3 zeroes is a thousand, and one
]followed by, say, 9 zeroes is a billion, then when we get up trought
]trillions quadrillions, etc to reach the googol range, that 1 googol
]would be 1 followed by 99 zeroes.
Because google was defined to be 10^100. It is not in the "give separate
names to numbers which are power of 10^3" set. (Just like ten and one
hundred are not). One might argue it is in the Japanese system of "give
names to numbers which are powers of 10^4" ( and who had names up to
10^52 half a millenium ago apparently). But it was simply an joking
attempt to give a name to a very large number, and 100 seemed like a
large choice (also used in the even larger googleplex--10 to the power
of a google.
C
C A Upsdell
Pope David said:
P
Paul Martin
You've mis-spelt googol. Google is a trademark.
10**(10**100) is a googolplex.
P
Paul Martin
Well, if 1 Jan 2000 was the first of this millennium, then by the same
reasoning we're in year 4 of the millennium number 2.
On the other hand, if it started on 1 Jan 2001, we're in the fourth
year of the third millennium.
C versus Pascal array indices.
P
pbs
Paul said:
This is something which confuses Oracle among others:
http://www.ixora.com.au/notes/julian_zero.htm
P
pbs
Pope said:
Until the 1970's the British tended to call 9 zeroes is a thousand
million or a milliard, it was the American which called this number
a billion. A UK billion before that was was a million million and a
trillion was a million million million. I believe that many European
continental countries still use the more traditional British number
system:
http://www.jimloy.com/math/billion.htm
http://www.uni-bonn.de/~manfear/numbers_names.php
P
pbs
pbs said:
In 1974, the government of Prime Minister Harold Wilson announced that
henceforth "billion" would mean 10^9 and not 10^12 in official British
reports and statistics http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/large.html
N
Neil Ellwood
The reason that googol was 1+100 zeroes was that was what was decided and
after that a googolplex was named that was 1+ a googol of zeroes ( take a
bit of time to type that).
With regard to the billion 1 followed by 9 zeroes is a USA billion the
European is 1 followed by 12 zeroes.
N
Neil Ellwood
As the year count started at 1 then 1/1/2000 was the first day of the last
year of the second millenium and 1/1/2001 was the first day of the third
millenium.
If jan 1 2000 was 1st. day of the millenium then we would be in the fifth
year of the millenium.
R
Rich Daley
pbs said:
Someone should have told that to the authors of the Ladybird books I
used to get my knowledge from when I was small (and a lot of other
people). I was at university before I realised that "£5bn" in a British
newspaper meant 5x10^9 not 5x10^12 as my Ladybird book had so reliably
informed me was the case for the UK. Grr.
~ Rich
S
Steven Pampling
M
Michael Gilbert
Steven Pampling said:
The prevalent time-counting method at the introduction of the AD concept
was AUC - "ab urbe condita". This counted from the founding of the City of
Rome. Like everything else in this world, the first anniversary of this
event would have been the day on which the City was one year old.
The AD thing was worked out by Dionysius Exiguus under the instructions
of a sixth century Pope. That's way past the development of the concept
of zero. He just fudged it, basically.Of course not-)
B
Bill Unruh
]> In 1974, the government of Prime Minister Harold Wilson announced that
]> henceforth "billion" would mean 10^9 and not 10^12 in official British
]> reports and statistics http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/large.html
]Someone should have told that to the authors of the Ladybird books I
]used to get my knowledge from when I was small (and a lot of other
]people). I was at university before I realised that "£5bn" in a British
]newspaper meant 5x10^9 not 5x10^12 as my Ladybird book had so reliably
]informed me was the case for the UK. Grr.
You neither say when you were at school, not when the Ladybird books
were published. billion DID used to represent 10^12 in the UK, and after
years of confusion with US English, the US term finally won out. (Well,
not sure that even now it has entirely in the UK)
]> henceforth "billion" would mean 10^9 and not 10^12 in official British
]> reports and statistics http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/large.html
]Someone should have told that to the authors of the Ladybird books I
]used to get my knowledge from when I was small (and a lot of other
]people). I was at university before I realised that "£5bn" in a British
]newspaper meant 5x10^9 not 5x10^12 as my Ladybird book had so reliably
]informed me was the case for the UK. Grr.
You neither say when you were at school, not when the Ladybird books
were published. billion DID used to represent 10^12 in the UK, and after
years of confusion with US English, the US term finally won out. (Well,
not sure that even now it has entirely in the UK)
N
Neal
Which other people were you?
C
C A Upsdell
Bill Unruh said:
When I was in university in Canada in the late 60's and early 70's, a UK
billion was 10**12: I remember having to read textbooks using both systems,
and learning to translate as needed ... just as I had to translate between
metric and US and Imperial measures.
G
Gareth Williams
I always thought there was at least there was some logic to the British
billion/trillion etc, i.e.
"one million million = two blocks of a million = a bi(i)llion";
"one million million million = three blocks of a million = a tri(i)llion"
.... and so on
The American system seems to follow a "Gee, that's big!" principle and
the "googol", which ISTR was a word coined by Carl Sagan's little
daughter, would appear to have followed on in that tradition.
N
Neal
Close. Wasn't Sagan though, it was Ed Kasner. And it was his nephew
(Milton Sirotta).