Big Numbers - Sixty Symbols

[11000010101]

You know, anything expressed with just usual mathematical operations seems so tiny compared to numbers such as Grahams number ^^

[nessdude14]

Have you ever been told you look like Christopher Lloyd?

[tomaskvapil]

The sound while wiriting is killing me :) ..but great videos, love that

[chrisofnottingham]

I just rediscovered this when youtube suggested it.

The prof briefly mentioned the anthropic principal which is a personal favourite idea of mine. It's not exactly science but it would make an interesting topic for a sixty symbols type video.

Also, isn't it brilliant that such huge numbers can be written down so efficiently using index notation.

[oogrooq]

Young earth creationists can have a go at my 10^40 inch penis.

[Quasi84]

@oogrooq Make that meters. An inch is tiny and an obsolete unit.

[vertexgo]

... dimension - therefore for a lot of applications pi = 3 is enough. it is not an application to apply math on math - that's masturbation (in the real but long ago forgotten sense of this word - which is connected only to one thing in the limited minds).

[vertexgo]

a "number" - meaning a ratio (since all numbers are ratios of numbers that are ratios by themselves) - that cannot be expressed as a fraction is useless. with ratios like pi there's a simple solution to this - one simply stops adding more and more degrees of the scale...

[MultiPaulinator]

@vertexgo "Numbers" by definition are not necessarily ratios; they are values. Rational numbers are numbers whose value can be written in decimal form as a consequence of their definition of being the ratio of two integers 5=10/2, -0.3repeating=-1/3, etc. Irrational numbers are still specific values and thus still numbers, however because of their irrationality, they can't be written in decimal form. The exact value of sqrt(2) can only be written like that or 2^(1/2). It's still a number though.

[sanctionbuster]

As the universe gets older, thus expanding, could the size of the proton increase keeping the ratio constant? We've just not been around long enough to measure it yet!

[corkkyle]

Thanks!

[PizzaManTech]

10^10^100

googolplex



[happyidiottalk]

I must be sad, because I'd be fascinated to sit and listen to you talk about those numbers in the staff room. ;)

[lexagon]

I thought physicists despised the anthropic principle because of it's inability to explain anything.

[BOOGY110011]

I will like tu have N number on my paycheck.

[Quikquik98]

Okay: so, in the American system, a million lots of one million is a billion, a billion lots of one billion is a trillion... and a centillion lots of one centillion is uncentillion. How would you describe the pattern in which they increase as indicated by their prefixes (which are derived from the latin names of numbers).

[anticorncob6]

2^^^^2 = H1

2^^^^....^^^2 = H2 (The number of arrows is H1)

2^^^...^^^^2 where there are Hn ^s = H(n+1)

And then, H1000 = J1, then H(J1) = J2, then up to J1000 = K1, then J(K1) = K2, and then K1000 is equal to MY BIG NUMBER. You wanna see my number written out in full decimal form? Here it is: 2 (2^2 = 2, 2^^2 = 2^2 two times, which is the same thing as 2^2, and it doesn't matter how many arrows you had).

[Yojtnoum]

@anticorncob6 2^2 does not equal 2

[anticorncob6]

@Yojtnoum Yeah I realized it was 4 not long after I posted it...

[RedZone231]

subscribed.

[Jhopnik]

Thanks. You've got another non-mathematician hooked.

[Fomelogo]

excuse me, but 10E-23 and 10E17 are convenient to result in 10E40, they look premeditated...

[455898334]

is Na the same as a mole? do we call it differently in America?

[Gcrowan]

@455898334 1 mole is the mass (in grams) of 6x10^23 molecules of a compound. Na is the number that's used for calculating them. So a mole is a measurement of mass, while Na is a mathematical constant.

[DoctSlick]

Glad there are no 12 year olds on these very interesting videos. Makes me see YouTube in a different light.

[natearnett]

infinity is a direction not a number.

[3rdeye7thdimension]

"Now that number... is how much your mum weighs in tons."

[CelticReject]

It would be interesting to hear your views on the fibonacci sequence.

[HumaninSeoul]

Was it electrons or photons that have no mass? I was always confused on that one.

[MPS186282]

@HumaninSeoul A photon has no mass, and an electron's mass is so negligible that it is very rarely even considered.

9.10938215(45)×10^−31 kg, if you're keeping track. :)

[Naddig74]

This kind of subject is the one I struggle hardest to understand...my science A-levels fell foul of my inability to grasp complex maths. The more I watch these videos, the more inspired I am to try again.

[pwn00bz]

800000000000000000000000000000­000000000000000000000000000000­000000000000000000000 <-- HUGE ASS NUMBER

[fugehdehyou]

I think he explained avagadros number wrong :O its 12g of carbon has avagadros number (6.022X10^23) atoms of carbon. Not one gram.

[fugehdehyou]

@fugehdehyou oops he said it weird. my bad.. how embarrassing.

[MPS186282]

@fugehdehyou Just a clarification, he said "one gram-molecule" of carbon, which IS equivalent to 12 standard grams. :)

[uut0]

if i have calculated something and i get like 12000000000$ am i allowed to write down 12G$?

[chuckmanofgod]

The number 10^40 is 10 duodecillion.

[xxxrandomjamezxxx]

Nice keep it up n let no one bring you down. thats what i do.

[hifhif123]

Thanks... You should do a bit on the Knuth up arrow notation. It's something quite hard to get your head around...

[Ph0Xy]

Great video. The part about 10^40 was very interesting. Kinda though Grahams number would be mentionned since it is the biggest number used in a serious mathematical proof (according to wiki!) and also about the biggest number with a name on it (googolplexian?).

But I guess those are not really scientific numbers and are more for the general knowledge. A quick reference would of been nice though.

Nonetheless, Great video! I've went through almost ALL the sixtysymbols videos! :)

[sixtysymbols]

@Ph0Xy: I'd like to do Graham's Number some time.... I'm a bit obsessed with it myself! :)

[alphamone]

no thanks, just the idea of a number that is so large that most regular methods of notation are insufficent (along the lines of trying to write out a googolplex in full), you get to a point where most people will just stare blankly.

[Kendrana]

It is 3^3^3^3...^3

That is 63 ^3's(plus the first 3), so you end up with a pretty insane number.

[vwerlingyahoocom]

@sixtysymbols Googolplex is a really big number. You should stick with googolplex… if youm use Ghram’s Nuber,… WOAHHH!!!!!!!!!!!

[guyibo1231]

@Ph0Xy

[unfunnyman]

but yeah this goes back to the game at school say the biggest number its always the same rule add one and your higher

like 100,000,000,000

then 100,000,000,001 :)

[unfunnyman]

googel = 100 zeros

googelplex = a googel number of zeros

googelplexian= a googelplex number of zeros

grahams number = one 0 for everyone atom in the universe infinitly expanding so that number is the biggest number of all

[MasterMorg86]

hows it the biggest when numbers dont end?

[elv3nm]

it should be the number of particles, not just , so quarks, antimatter particles and particles we haven't discovered

[wrnchhead76]

Still a finite number.

[elv3nm]

but the largest number htere is none the less!

[stupidguyaabbcc]

stupid ads by google

[sooperfukker]

1:44 .. sorry, that sketch is really funny x,x

[MasterMorg86]

lol 1:44 alien/chupacabra/squrrel thing lol

[reia404]

one of the largest actual number (i.e., defined explicitly and used in mathematics) is the Graham's number. it is far, far larger than the googolplex or even googolplex to the googolplexth power.

[horrabletypoe]

If anyone here can ascribe an actual significance to googol, I'm sure they'd be happy to mention it the next time they make this sort of video. However, considering that there are roughly 10E80 protons in the universe, you're going to have some trouble.

[mutleycrew1]

I guess it's relatively easy to construct and name large numbers arbitrarily, however relating them to some characteristic of the physical world is what was done here

[calvinhobbesliker2]

Because the universe had to exist before the earth could even begin to form.

[CoolMinty]

I <3 Avogadro's number ;)

[pcdoctorjosh]

John Searl discuses the law of square and i have been getting into that. I was wondering if you people from Sixty Symbols uses law of square in circulating the universe age, or other things?

[DonHoraldo]

I was expecting him to mention a googol. 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000­,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0­00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000­,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0­00,000,000,000

or a googolplex 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,00­0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,­000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00­0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,­000,000,000,000

[TheAnnoyingAsian]

A googolplex.. is a 1x10 (to the power of a googol)

A googol has 100, 0's. - 1x10(100)

A googolplex has a googol zeros. - 1x10(googol)

Which is the biggest number and is basically infinity. you could never write a googolplex in a comment let alone a lifetime.

[DonHoraldo]

I stand corrected a googolplex is 10^ a googol

as for the rest of the comment look up the googol überplex witch I mentioned in a differant comment. a googolplex has nothing on Google megaplex=googolplex^^googleple­x or a googolplex raised to itself itself number of times. (hens forth referred to as GMp)

googol überplex=[(GMp^^GMp)^^(GMp^^GM­p)]^^[(GMp^^GMp)^^(GMp^^GMp)]

up arrow notation makes little numbers big and big numbers insane, and infinity is infinitely bigger than this.

[gabosaic]

to say googol uberplex is as far from infinity as is the number one...

[DonHoraldo]

but it is basically. infinity is infinity larger than any other number. it's like an molecule compared to a microbe.

[FinalFantasyTrailers]

The biggest number is imaginary, never can be thought of.

Just say you thought of a number and you think its the biggest number, I can just add 1 to it and its already a bigger number.

If all the numbers in the world where on a number line even googlplex, it wouldn't be finished because you can imagine the number line growing just like space.

[jakkbomb]

Actually no, it is not "basically infinity"

To our subjective perception, a googolplex is so large that we cannot really intuit it. From our subjective POV, it looks the same as infinity. But it isn't.

From the POV of infinity, a googolplex is "basically" no bigger than 1.

Infinity and incomprehensibly large numbers are not the same thing.

[jlmadill]

@jakkbomb I think you mean basically no bigger than "0".

[derrynator]

@jakkbomb do you like Carl Sagan? because what you said is "basically" the same as what he said about infinity :)

[Lyrelia]

@jakkbomb It's larger than anything we can probably conceive of, living in the scale that we do, but it's still infinitely far away from infinity. I like that; it's a bit mind-blowing.

[vertexgo]

@jakkbomb Infinity just tells that if you go into context you can always go further into context - at least mathematicians think like that - while it ain't true for the actual world as feynman showed by ridiculing them with asking them to split up the peel of a fruit into smaller and smaller pieces. But 0 has the same effect as infinity - it's a pointer - it points at the fact that you ...

[vertexgo]

@jakkbomb ...can go down the scale dimension further and further - not known if for humankind there'll be ever a halt - but if one human or a generation only engages in going more and more into the context and/or the details - it will fall down the rabbit hole, will be bent onto the white whale, will be studied by "the sea" of information they gather rather than the other way around (and the last one: will have their eyes and then their whole body being burned down).

[IAMSO619]

The thing about numbers is that you can just add more. You say a googolplex has a googol number of zeros. I'm thinking of a number with 10 googol number of zeros. Whatever number you think of, I'm just going to add 1 to it. Numbers appear to be seemingly endless - but doesn't everything have to have a definite start and end point?

[nightstorm242]

Beside in the beginning, shortly after the big bang, you had Hydrogen. some areas were slightly denser than others, and thus had more mass. More mass = more gravity, so the hydrogen 'clumps' drew in surrounding hydrogen, until (skipping a few steps) fusion happen. Voila, stars. These stars lived and died, their cores forming heavier elements. It took multiple generations of stars to form the elements needed to make us. The solar system is a supernova's epitath.

[CaptainSpaktastic]

Because the Earth took time to form.

[Envergure]

What about Graham's number - the largest number ever used in science?

[nightstorm242]

Run the Ackermann Function with Graham's Number as both arguments.

[1ucasvb]

4.5 billion years is the approximate age of the Earth, not of the Universe.

[danthemango]

ugh, I totally expected you to talk a googol, or a googolplex which was a number made simply for it's size, but oh well, this was still interesting.

[windowlicker1]

fascinating stuff. great video as always :)

[killquest]

a very interesting video - the speaker has a great knack of conveying information in a intriguing way. kudos to you all

[panchoxpanchox]

Lorenzo Avogrado looks hot

[archaedemos]

awesome vid

[shaurz]

Feynmen said "astronomical" numbers should now be called "economical" numbers :-)

[ginogrz]

I'll bet the astronomy professor would enjoy talking about a googol and Sagan's googolplex as far as large numbers go.

[ricardjorg]

googol FTW

[t0nybaker]

A googolplex is infinitesimally small compared to some of the really big numbers.

As a starter, look up Graham's Number. Although I have, as of yet, not been able to fully understand it's magnitude.

[DonHoraldo]

yes graham's number is big but take a look at a googol überplex. defined just 17 days ago.

[kongotech2]

this video was just too interesting, I watched it 2 :D

[pontiacbonny]

would love to sit in on some of their classes. Very interesting.

[leporidus]

This one blew my mind. Please keep those videos coming!

[itsabomberscope]

What a great guy. Very interesting! thanks for the videos.