Re: Googling

Muke Tever wrote:
>From: "Andreas Johansson" <and_yo@...>
> > 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.