Talk:Names of large numbers
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Names of large numbers article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 6 months  |
 | This article was nominated for deletion on July 14, 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Thousand
editWhy no table in the article mentions the thousand? That is a pretty big number, isn't it...? --CiaPan (talk) 08:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thousand is not an illion number, sorry, nor a big number. womp-womp... 31.41.15.124 (talk) 09:32, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
Googolplexplex
editIt is not usually "Googolplexplex". It is more scientifically called "Googolplexian" Number Numismatist (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Talk pages are not chat rooms. "Googolplexplex" as a proposed name is sourced, and the article notes that it is not widely used. Do you have a reliable source for "Googolplexian," feel free to post it here. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Googol family
editFor the googol family section we can add much more. (such as a Gargoogol, 10^200) Although my account cannot edit this page so if someone could skim through the fandom wiki and find some good numbers to add I think it will be a great addition to the page. Real Baguette (talk) 00:58, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
- That does not sound like a reliable source. It it the only source, it is not stuff we should cover at all (until it perhaps is covered in reliable secondary or tertiary sources). Nø (talk) 12:32, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
- It looks like it's only documented on the "fandom" which the community thinks is an unreliable source. 31.41.15.75 (talk) 10:08, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
Error in description of Conway-Guy system
editThere appears to be a (fairly major) error, unless I'm missing something. In the Units / Tens / Hundreds prefix table, the units = 5 prefix is given as Quinqua. In the big table a little further down, entries in row numbers 15, 25, and 35 (and no others) have a 5 in the units place, and so they use this prefix, BUT the words given in those rows have a prefix of QUIN, rather than QUINQUA as specified in the prefix table.
That this discrepancy could occur is not that surprising. Conway and Guy's original system uses QUINQUA for units = 5, but a later analysis in 2003 of Latin usage by Olivier Miakinen (see https://www.miakinen.net/vrac/zillions) concluded that QUIN is more accurate (and at the same time shorter, which I think is part of its appeal), and so "the Conway/Guy system except with QUIN instead of QUINQUA" has become very popular. Indeed, I think that QUIN is almost always seen now. Some more background on this is here: https://kyodaisuu.github.io/illion/index.html.
So either (a) the prefix table needs to be changed to have QUIN (which should have an asterisk or something to point to a note saying something along of lines of "Conway and Guy originally used QUINQUA but as a result of Miakinen's suggestion QUIN is mostly used nowadays"), or (b) the prefix table is left as it is and the names in lines 15, 25, and 35 in the big table should have QUIN replaced with QUINQUA. The goal is for the prefix table and big table to be consistent. I would vote for the option (a), since QUIN is imho better and also more common now. For another example which uses QUIN see the table here: https://www.olsenhome.com/bignumbers/. Obviously option (b) is simpler and avoids bringing up the whole "QUIN or QUINQUA" question, but then readers would be confused that the big table here doesn't match the names in (many) other sources. Ondiagonal (talk) 00:34, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- You're right, I also agree that something should be changed here. Its been bothering me that the prefix table uses QUINQUA yet the big table uses QUIN. I've changed the prefix table for now and added an explanation, but I'm not sure if a better source might be needed. —lightbulbMEOW!!! (meow) 08:20, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
Keep it simple
editSuggest taking the first paragraph from the same article at simple.wikipedia.org and putting it at the top of this article. It's simple and clear, and all most readers will want to know. 2603:7080:D83D:813C:2C93:AB62:773:D1F5 (talk) 14:12, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
The number is ten duotrigintillion.
editDuotrigintillion
editIs duotrigintillion a real number?@NASA Academy ~2026-26215-89 (talk) 09:23, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
- Yes and no. You can also find it in the table here: Names of large numbers#Extensions of the standard dictionary numbers, but like other numbers beyond the dictionnary numbers, they have probably never been used "in the wild", i.e., outside contexts where the subject matter is names of large numbers. It's a bit like wasting breath discussing wether the collective terms like "murder" (crows), "pandemonium" (parrots), "flamboyance" (flamingoes), "commotion" (coots), "bellowing" (bullfinches), and "mischief" (magpies), are real or not. They are, but only in very limited contexts; basically very little beyond contexts where the subject is exotic collective terms. The real issue for us, then, is wp:DUE.
- IMHO, the paragraphs in the present article should be removed or reduced. A red flag here is the use of the term "googologist". Nø (talk) 11:56, 1 May 2026 (UTC)