Recent from talks
Nothing was collected or created yet.
Names of large numbers
View on Wikipedia
Depending on context (e.g. language, culture, region), some large numbers have names that allow for describing large quantities in a textual form; not mathematical. For very large values, the text is generally shorter than a decimal numeric representation although longer than scientific notation.
Two naming scales for large numbers have been used in English and other European languages since the early modern era: the long and short scales. Most English variants use the short scale today, but the long scale remains dominant in many non-English-speaking areas, including continental Europe and Spanish-speaking countries in the Americas. These naming procedures are based on taking the number n occurring in 103n+3 (short scale) or 106n (long scale) and concatenating Latin roots for its units, tens, and hundreds place, together with the suffix -illion.
Names of numbers above a trillion are rarely used in practice; such large numbers have practical usage primarily in the scientific domain, where powers of ten are expressed as 10 with a numeric superscript. However, these somewhat rare names are considered acceptable for approximate statements. For example, the statement "There are approximately 7.1 octillion atoms in an adult human body" is understood to be in short scale of the table below (and is only accurate if referring to short scale rather than long scale).
The Indian numbering system uses the named numbers common between the long and short scales up to ten thousand. For larger values, it includes named numbers at each multiple of 100; including lakh (105) and crore (107).[1]
English also has words, such as zillion, that are used informally to mean large but unspecified amounts.
Standard dictionary numbers
[edit]| x | Name (SS/LS, LS) |
SS (103x+3) |
LS (106x, 106x+3) |
Authorities | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AHD4[2] | CED[3] | COD[4] | MW[5] | OED[6][7] | RHD2[8] | SOED3[9] | W3[10] | HM[11] | |||||
| 1 | million | 106 | 106 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
| milliard | 109 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||
| 2 | billion | 109 | 1012 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
| 3 | trillion | 1012 | 1018 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
| 4 | quadrillion | 1015 | 1024 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
| 5 | quintillion | 1018 | 1030 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
| 6 | sextillion | 1021 | 1036 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||
| 7 | septillion | 1024 | 1042 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||
| 8 | octillion | 1027 | 1048 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||
| 9 | nonillion | 1030 | 1054 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||
| 10 | decillion | 1033 | 1060 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||
| 11 | undecillion | 1036 | 1066 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||
| 12 | duodecillion | 1039 | 1072 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||
| 13 | tredecillion | 1042 | 1078 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||
| 14 | quattuordecillion | 1045 | 1084 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||
| 15 | quindecillion | 1048 | 1090 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||
| 16 | sexdecillion | 1051 | 1096 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||
| 17 | septendecillion | 1054 | 10102 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||
| 18 | octodecillion | 1057 | 10108 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||
| 19 | novemdecillion | 1060 | 10114 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||
| 20 | vigintillion | 1063 | 10120 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||
| 100 | centillion | 10303 | 10600 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||
Usage:
- Short scale: US, English Canada, modern British, Australia, and Eastern Europe
- Long scale: French Canada, older British, Western & Central Europe
Apart from million, the words in this list ending with -illion are all derived by adding prefixes (bi-, tri-, etc., derived from Latin) to the stem -illion.[12] Centillion[13] appears to be the highest name ending in -illion that is included in these dictionaries. Trigintillion, often cited as a word in discussions of names of large numbers, is not included in any of them, nor are any of the names that can easily be created by extending the naming pattern (unvigintillion, duovigintillion, duoquinquagintillion, etc.).
| Name | Value | Authorities | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AHD4[2] | CED[3] | COD[4] | MW[5] | OED[6][7] | RHD2[8] | SOED3[9] | W3[10] | HM[11] | |||
| googol | 10100 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
| googolplex | 10googol (1010100) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
All of the dictionaries included googol and googolplex, generally crediting it to the Kasner and Newman book and to Kasner's nephew (see below). None include any higher names in the googol family (googolduplex, etc.). The Oxford English Dictionary comments that googol and googolplex are "not in formal mathematical use".
Usage of names of large numbers
[edit]Some names of large numbers, such as million, billion, and trillion, have real referents in human experience, and are encountered in many contexts, particularly in finance and economics. At times, the names of large numbers have been forced into common usage as a result of hyperinflation. The highest numerical value banknote ever printed was a note for 1 sextillion pengő (1021 or 1 milliard bilpengő as printed) printed in Hungary in 1946. In 2009, Zimbabwe printed a 100 trillion (1014) Zimbabwean dollar note, which at the time of printing was worth about US$30.[14] In global economics, the name of a significantly larger number was used in 2024, when the Russian news outlet RBK stated that the sum of legal claims against Google in Russia totalled 2 undecillion (2×1036) rubles, or US$20 decillion (US $2×1034); a value worth more than all financial assets in the world combined.[15] A Kremlin spokesperson, Dmitry Peskov, stated that this value was symbolic.[16]
Names of larger numbers, however, have a tenuous, artificial existence, rarely found outside definitions, lists, and discussions of how large numbers are named. Even well-established names like sextillion are rarely used, since in the context of science, including astronomy, where such large numbers often occur, they are nearly always written using scientific notation. In this notation, powers of ten are expressed as 10 with a numeric superscript, e.g. "The X-ray emission of the radio galaxy is 1.3×1045 joules." When a number such as 1045 needs to be referred to in words, it is simply read out as "ten to the forty-fifth" or "ten to the forty-five". This is easier to say and less ambiguous than "quattuordecillion", which means something different in the long scale and the short scale.
When a number represents a quantity rather than a count, SI prefixes can be used—thus "femtosecond", not "one quadrillionth of a second"—although often powers of ten are used instead of some of the very high and very low prefixes. In some cases, specialized units are used, such as the astronomer's parsec and light year or the particle physicist's barn.
Nevertheless, large numbers have an intellectual fascination and are of mathematical interest, and giving them names is one way people try to conceptualize and understand them.
One of the earliest examples of this is The Sand Reckoner, in which Archimedes gave a system for naming large numbers. To do this, he called the numbers up to a myriad myriad (108) "first numbers" and called 108 itself the "unit of the second numbers". Multiples of this unit then became the second numbers, up to this unit taken a myriad myriad times, 108·108=1016. This became the "unit of the third numbers", whose multiples were the third numbers, and so on. Archimedes continued naming numbers in this way up to a myriad myriad times the unit of the 108-th numbers, i.e. and embedded this construction within another copy of itself to produce names for numbers up to Archimedes then estimated the number of grains of sand that would be required to fill the known universe, and found that it was no more than "one thousand myriad of the eighth numbers" (1063).
Origins of the "standard dictionary numbers"
[edit]
The words bymillion and trimillion were first recorded in 1475 in a manuscript of Jehan Adam. Subsequently, Nicolas Chuquet wrote a book Triparty en la science des nombres which was not published during Chuquet's lifetime. However, most of it was copied by Estienne de La Roche for a portion of his 1520 book, L'arismetique. Chuquet's book contains a passage in which he shows a large number marked off into groups of six digits, with the comment:
Ou qui veult le premier point peult signiffier million Le second point byllion Le tiers point tryllion Le quart quadrillion Le cinqe quyllion Le sixe sixlion Le sept.e septyllion Le huyte ottyllion Le neufe nonyllion et ainsi des ault's se plus oultre on vouloit preceder
(Or if you prefer the first mark can signify million, the second mark byllion, the third mark tryllion, the fourth quadrillion, the fifth quyillion, the sixth sixlion, the seventh septyllion, the eighth ottyllion, the ninth nonyllion and so on with others as far as you wish to go).
Adam and Chuquet used the long scale of powers of a million; that is, Adam's bymillion (Chuquet's byllion) denoted 1012, and Adam's trimillion (Chuquet's tryllion) denoted 1018.
Googol family
[edit]The names googol and googolplex were invented by Edward Kasner's nephew Milton Sirotta and introduced in Kasner and Newman's 1940 book Mathematics and the Imagination[17] in the following passage:
The name "googol" was invented by a child (Dr. Kasner's nine-year-old nephew) who was asked to think up a name for a very big number, namely 1 with one hundred zeroes after it. He was very certain that this number was not infinite, and therefore equally certain that it had to have a name. At the same time that he suggested "googol" he gave a name for a still larger number: "googolplex". A googolplex is much larger than a googol, but is still finite, as the inventor of the name was quick to point out. It was first suggested that a googolplex should be 1, followed by writing zeros until you got tired. This is a description of what would happen if one tried to write a googolplex, but different people get tired at different times and it would never do to have Carnera a better mathematician than Dr. Einstein, simply because he had more endurance. The googolplex is, then, a specific finite number, equal to 1 with a googol zeros after it.
| Value | Name | Authority |
|---|---|---|
| 10100 | googol | Kasner and Newman, dictionaries (see above) |
| 10googol = 1010100 | googolplex | Kasner and Newman, dictionaries (see above) |
John Horton Conway and Richard K. Guy[18] have suggested that N-plex be used as a name for 10N. This gives rise to the name googolplexplex for 10googolplex = 101010100. Conway and Guy[18] have proposed that N-minex be used as a name for 10−N, giving rise to the name googolminex for the reciprocal of a googolplex, which is written as 10−(10100). None of these names are in wide use.
The names googol and googolplex inspired the name of the Internet company Google and its corporate headquarters, the Googleplex, respectively.[19]
Extensions of the standard dictionary numbers
[edit]This section illustrates several systems for naming large numbers, and shows how they can be extended past vigintillion.
Traditional British usage assigned new names for each power of one million (the long scale): 1,000,000 = 1 million; 1,000,0002 = 1 billion; 1,000,0003 = 1 trillion; and so on. It was adapted from French usage, and is similar to the system that was documented or invented by Chuquet.
Traditional American usage (which was also adapted from French usage but at a later date), Canadian, and modern British usage assign new names for each power of one thousand (the short scale). Thus, a billion is 1000 × 10002 = 109; a trillion is 1000 × 10003 = 1012; and so forth. Due to its dominance in the financial world (along with the US dollar), this was adopted for official United Nations documents.
Traditional French usage has varied; in 1948, France, which had originally popularized the short scale worldwide, reverted to the long scale.
The term milliard is unambiguous and always means 109. It is seldom seen in American usage and rarely in British usage, but frequently in continental European usage. The term is sometimes attributed to French mathematician Jacques Peletier du Mans c. 1550 (for this reason, the long scale is also known as the Chuquet-Peletier system), but the Oxford English Dictionary states that the term derives from post-Classical Latin term milliartum, which became milliare and then milliart and finally our modern term.
Concerning names ending in -illiard for numbers 106n+3, milliard is certainly in widespread use in languages other than English, but the degree of actual use of the larger terms is questionable. The terms "milliardo" in Italian, "Milliarde" in German, "miljard" in Dutch, "milyar" in Turkish, and "миллиард", milliard (transliterated) in Russian, are standard usage when discussing financial topics.
The naming procedure for large numbers is based on taking the number n occurring in 103n+3 (short scale) or 106n (long scale) and concatenating Latin roots for its units, tens, and hundreds place, together with the suffix -illion. In this way, numbers up to 103·999+3 = 103000 (short scale) or 106·999 = 105994 (long scale) may be named. The choice of roots and the concatenation procedure is that of the standard dictionary numbers if n is 9 or smaller. For larger n (between 10 and 999), prefixes can be constructed based on a system described by Conway and Guy.[18] Today, sexdecillion and novemdecillion are standard dictionary numbers and, using the same reasoning as Conway and Guy did for the numbers up to nonillion, could probably be used to form acceptable prefixes. The Conway–Guy system for forming prefixes:[18]: 15
| Units | Tens | Hundreds | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Un | N Deci | NX Centi |
| 2 | Duo | MS Viginti | N Ducenti |
| 3 | Tre[a] | NS Triginta | NS Trecenti |
| 4 | Quattuor | NS Quadraginta | NS Quadringenti |
| 5 | Quinqua[b] | NS Quinquaginta | NS Quingenti |
| 6 | Se[a] | N Sexaginta | N Sescenti |
| 7 | Septe[a] | N Septuaginta | N Septingenti |
| 8 | Octo | MX Octoginta | MX Octingenti |
| 9 | Nove[a] | Nonaginta | Nongenti |
- ^ a b c d When preceding a component marked S or X, "tre" changes to "tres" and "se" to "ses" or "sex"; similarly, when preceding a component marked M or N, "septe" and "nove" change to "septem" and "novem" or "septen" and "noven".
- ^ Conway and Guy originally used "quinqua" but as a result of Miakinen's suggestion "quin" is mostly used.
The Conway–Guy system disagrees with some standard dictionary names, like "quindecillion", "sexdecillion", and "novemdecillion". Oliver Miakinen argued that since "quindecillion" is a widely accepted term, and the Latin for 15 is actually quindecim and not quinquadecim, the prefix "quinqua-" should be replaced with "quin-". This new prefix is more commonly used nowadays.[20]
Since the system of using Latin prefixes will become ambiguous for numbers with exponents of a size which the Romans rarely counted to, like 106,000,258, Conway and Guy co-devised with Allan Wechsler the following set of consistent conventions that permit, in principle, the extension of this system indefinitely to provide English short-scale names for any integer whatsoever.[18] The name of a number 103n+3, where n is greater than or equal to 1000, is formed by concatenating the names of the numbers of the form 103m+3, where m represents each group of comma-separated digits of n, with each but the last "-illion" trimmed to "-illi-", or, in the case of m = 0, either "-nilli-" or "-nillion".[18] For example, 103,000,012, the 1,000,003rd "-illion" number, equals one "millinillitrillion"; 1033,002,010,111, the 11,000,670,036th "-illion" number, equals one "undecillinilliseptuagintasescentillisestrigintillion"; and 1029,629,629,633, the 9,876,543,210th "-illion" number, equals one "nonilliseseptuagintaoctingentillitresquadragintaquingentillideciducentillion".[18]
The following table shows number names generated by the system described by Conway and Guy for the short and long scales.[21]
| Base -illion (short scale) |
Base -illion (long scale) |
Value | US, Canada and modern British (short scale) |
Traditional British (long scale) |
Traditional European (Peletier long scale) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 | 106 | million | million | million |
| 2 | 1 | 109 | billion | thousand million | milliard |
| 3 | 2 | 1012 | trillion | billion | billion |
| 4 | 2 | 1015 | quadrillion | thousand billion | billiard |
| 5 | 3 | 1018 | quintillion | trillion | trillion |
| 6 | 3 | 1021 | sextillion | thousand trillion | trilliard |
| 7 | 4 | 1024 | septillion | quadrillion | quadrillion |
| 8 | 4 | 1027 | octillion | thousand quadrillion | quadrilliard |
| 9 | 5 | 1030 | nonillion | quintillion | quintillion |
| 10 | 5 | 1033 | decillion | thousand quintillion | quintilliard |
| 11 | 6 | 1036 | undecillion | sextillion | sextillion |
| 12 | 6 | 1039 | duodecillion | thousand sextillion | sextilliard |
| 13 | 7 | 1042 | tredecillion | septillion | septillion |
| 14 | 7 | 1045 | quattuordecillion | thousand septillion | septilliard |
| 15 | 8 | 1048 | quindecillion | octillion | octillion |
| 16 | 8 | 1051 | sedecillion[a] | thousand octillion | octilliard |
| 17 | 9 | 1054 | septendecillion | nonillion | nonillion |
| 18 | 9 | 1057 | octodecillion | thousand nonillion | nonilliard |
| 19 | 10 | 1060 | novendecillion[a] | decillion | decillion |
| 20 | 10 | 1063 | vigintillion | thousand decillion | decilliard |
| 21 | 11 | 1066 | unvigintillion | undecillion | undecillion |
| 22 | 11 | 1069 | duovigintillion | thousand undecillion | undecilliard |
| 23 | 12 | 1072 | tresvigintillion | duodecillion | duodecillion |
| 24 | 12 | 1075 | quattuorvigintillion | thousand duodecillion | duodecilliard |
| 25 | 13 | 1078 | quinvigintillion | tredecillion | tredecillion |
| 26 | 13 | 1081 | sesvigintillion | thousand tredecillion | tredecilliard |
| 27 | 14 | 1084 | septemvigintillion | quattuordecillion | quattuordecillion |
| 28 | 14 | 1087 | octovigintillion | thousand quattuordecillion | quattuordecilliard |
| 29 | 15 | 1090 | novemvigintillion | quindecillion | quindecillion |
| 30 | 15 | 1093 | trigintillion | thousand quindecillion | quindecilliard |
| 31 | 16 | 1096 | untrigintillion | sedecillion[a] | sedecillion[a] |
| 32 | 16 | 1099 | duotrigintillion | thousand sedecillion[a] | sedecilliard[a] |
| 33 | 17 | 10102 | trestrigintillion | septendecillion | septendecillion |
| 34 | 17 | 10105 | quattuortrigintillion | thousand septendecillion | septendecilliard |
| 35 | 18 | 10108 | quintrigintillion | octodecillion | octodecillion |
| 36 | 18 | 10111 | sestrigintillion | thousand octodecillion | octodecilliard |
| 37 | 19 | 10114 | septentrigintillion | novendecillion[a] | novendecillion[a] |
| 38 | 19 | 10117 | octotrigintillion | thousand novendecillion[a] | novendecilliard[a] |
| 39 | 20 | 10120 | noventrigintillion | vigintillion | vigintillion |
| 40 | 20 | 10123 | quadragintillion | thousand vigintillion | vigintilliard |
| 50 | 25 | 10153 | quinquagintillion | thousand quinvigintillion | quinvigintilliard |
| 60 | 30 | 10183 | sexagintillion | thousand trigintillion | trigintilliard |
| 70 | 35 | 10213 | septuagintillion | thousand quintrigintillion | quintrigintilliard |
| 80 | 40 | 10243 | octogintillion | thousand quadragintillion | quadragintilliard |
| 90 | 45 | 10273 | nonagintillion | thousand quinquadragintillion | quinquadragintilliard |
| 100 | 50 | 10303 | centillion | thousand quinquagintillion | quinquagintilliard |
| 101 | 51 | 10306 | uncentillion | unquinquagintillion | unquinquagintillion |
| 110 | 55 | 10333 | decicentillion | thousand quinquinquagintillion | quinquinquagintilliard |
| 111 | 56 | 10336 | undecicentillion | sesquinquagintillion | sesquinquagintillion |
| 120 | 60 | 10363 | viginticentillion | thousand sexagintillion | sexagintilliard |
| 121 | 61 | 10366 | unviginticentillion | unsexagintillion | unsexagintillion |
| 130 | 65 | 10393 | trigintacentillion | thousand quinsexagintillion | quinsexagintilliard |
| 140 | 70 | 10423 | quadragintacentillion | thousand septuagintillion | septuagintilliard |
| 150 | 75 | 10453 | quinquagintacentillion | thousand quinseptuagintillion | quinseptuagintilliard |
| 160 | 80 | 10483 | sexagintacentillion | thousand octogintillion | octogintilliard |
| 170 | 85 | 10513 | septuagintacentillion | thousand quinoctogintillion | quinoctogintilliard |
| 180 | 90 | 10543 | octogintacentillion | thousand nonagintillion | nonagintilliard |
| 190 | 95 | 10573 | nonagintacentillion | thousand quinnonagintillion | quinnonagintilliard |
| 200 | 100 | 10603 | ducentillion | thousand centillion | centilliard |
| 300 | 150 | 10903 | trecentillion | thousand quinquagintacentillion | quinquagintacentilliard |
| 400 | 200 | 101203 | quadringentillion | thousand ducentillion | ducentilliard |
| 500 | 250 | 101503 | quingentillion | thousand quinquagintaducentillion | quinquagintaducentilliard |
| 600 | 300 | 101803 | sescentillion | thousand trecentillion | trecentilliard |
| 700 | 350 | 102103 | septingentillion | thousand quinquagintatrecentillion | quinquagintatrecentilliard |
| 800 | 400 | 102403 | octingentillion | thousand quadringentillion | quadringentilliard |
| 900 | 450 | 102703 | nongentillion | thousand quinquagintaquadringentillion | quinquagintaquadringentilliard |
| 1000 | 500 | 103003 | millinillion[22] | thousand quingentillion | quingentilliard |
Unit prefixes
[edit]The following table lists the unit prefixes for powers of 1000 and 1024 according to the International System of Quantities (ISQ).
| Decimal | Binary | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Value | SI | Value | IEC | ||||
| 1000 | k | kilo | 1024 | Ki | kibi | ||
| 10002 | M | mega | 10242 | Mi | mebi | ||
| 10003 | G | giga | 10243 | Gi | gibi | ||
| 10004 | T | tera | 10244 | Ti | tebi | ||
| 10005 | P | peta | 10245 | Pi | pebi | ||
| 10006 | E | exa | 10246 | Ei | exbi | ||
| 10007 | Z | zetta | 10247 | Zi | zebi | ||
| 10008 | Y | yotta | 10248 | Yi | yobi | ||
| 10009 | R | ronna | 10249 | Ri | robi | ||
| 100010 | Q | quetta | 102410 | Qi | quebi | ||
Other named large numbers used in mathematics, physics and chemistry
[edit]- Avogadro number – Number of particles in one mole, 6.02214076×1023
- Eddington number – Number of protons in the observable universe, about 1.57×1079
- Shannon number – Lower bound on the game-tree complexity of chess, about 10120
- Skewes's number – Large upper bound related to the prime-counting function, about 10101034
- Moser's number
- Graham's number – Upper bound on the answer to a problem in Ramsey theory
- TREE(3)
- SSCG(3)
- Rayo's number – Claimed to be the largest named number
See also
[edit]- -yllion – Mathematical notation
- Infinity – Mathematical concept
- Aleph number – Infinite cardinal number
- Asaṃkhyeya – Buddhist name for a large number
- Chinese numerals – Characters used to denote numbers in Chinese
- History of large numbers
- Indefinite and fictitious numbers
- Indian numbering system – Indian convention of naming large numbers
- Japanese numerals – Number words used in the Japanese language
- Knuth's up-arrow notation – Method of notation of very large integers
- Law of large numbers – Averages of repeated trials converge to the expected value
- List of numbers
- Long and short scale – Two meanings of "billion" and "trillion"
- Metric prefix – Order of magnitude indicator
- Names of small numbers
- Number names – Word or phrase which describes a numerical quantity
- Number prefix – Prefix derived from numerals or other numbers
- Orders of magnitude – Scale of numbers with a fixed ratio
- Orders of magnitude (data) – Computer data measurements and scales
- Orders of magnitude (numbers)
- Power of 10 – Ten raised to an integer power
References
[edit]- ^ Bellos, Alex (2011). Alex's Adventures in Numberland. A&C Black. p. 114. ISBN 978-1-4088-0959-4.
- ^ a b The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th ed.). Houghton Mifflin. 2000. ISBN 0-395-82517-2.
- ^ a b "Collins English Dictionary". HarperCollins.
- ^ a b "Cambridge Dictionaries Online". Cambridge University Press.
- ^ a b "Merriam-Webster: America's Most Trusted Dictionary". Merriam-Webster.
- ^ a b The Oxford English Dictionary (2nd ed.). Clarendon Press. 1991. ISBN 0-19-861186-2.
- ^ a b "Oxford English Dictionary". Oxford University Press.
- ^ a b The Random House Dictionary of the English Language (2nd ed.). Random House. 1987.
- ^ a b Brown, Lesley; Little, William (1993). The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0198612710.
- ^ a b Webster, Noah (1981). Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster. ISBN 0877792011.
- ^ a b Rowlett, Russ. "How Many? A Dictionary of Units of Measures". Russ Rowlett and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Archived from the original on 1 March 2000. Retrieved 25 September 2022.
- ^ Emerson, Oliver Farrar (1894). The History of the English Language. Macmillan and Co. p. 316.
- ^ "Entry for centillion in dictionary.com". dictionary.com. Retrieved 25 September 2022.
- ^ "Zimbabwe rolls out Z$100tr note". BBC News. 16 January 2009. Retrieved 25 September 2022.
- ^ Cunningham, Doug (31 October 2024). "Russian court levies huge $20 decillion fine against Google". United Press International. Retrieved 1 November 2024.
- ^ "Russia says $20 decillion fine against Google is 'symbolic'". The Guardian. Agence France-Presse. 31 October 2024. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 1 November 2024.
- ^
Kasner, Edward; Newman, James (1940). Mathematics and the Imagination. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 0-486-41703-4.
{{cite book}}: ISBN / Date incompatibility (help) - ^ a b c d e f g Conway, J. H.; Guy, R. K. (1998). The Book of Numbers. Springer Science & Business Media. pp. 15-16. ISBN 0-387-97993-X.
- ^ "How we started and where we are today". About Google. Retrieved 20 April 2025.
- ^ Miakinen. "Les zillions selon Conway, Wechsler... et Miakinen". Retrieved 28 June 2025.
- ^ Fish. "Conway's illion converter". Retrieved 1 March 2023.
- ^ Stewart, Ian (2017). Infinity: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press. p. 20. ISBN 978-0-19-875523-4.
Names of large numbers
View on GrokipediaHistorical Development
Origins of Standard Names
The foundational names for powers of ten in Western traditions trace their etymological roots to Latin and Greek, reflecting a conceptual buildup from smaller units. The word "million," introduced in the late 13th century, derives from the Old French million, itself from the Italian milione, an augmentative form of mille—Latin for "thousand"—implying a "great thousand" or the square of a thousand (thousand thousands). This augmentative suffix -one emphasized magnitude, aligning with the need to denote 10^6 in emerging commercial and scientific contexts. Ancient numbering systems further influenced these developments, particularly the Greek concept of the myrias (μυριάς), denoting 10^4 or ten thousand, which served as a practical upper limit in classical arithmetic before more expansive notations arose. In parallel, Chinese systems employed a similar unit, wàn (萬), also meaning 10^4, as a foundational block for higher powers in their traditional counting rods and texts. However, Western adoption of the myriad remained limited, functioning primarily as a fixed large unit rather than a scalable base for exponential naming, unlike its more integrated role in Eastern traditions.[6] The conceptual framework for large numbers evolved significantly through medieval Arabic and Indian numeral systems, which transmitted innovations like zero and positional place value from India (circa 6th-7th century CE) via scholars such as al-Khwarizmi in the 9th century. These advancements, detailed in works like al-Khwarizmi's On the Calculation with Hindu Numerals, replaced additive Roman methods with a decimal system where digit position determined value, profoundly impacting the ability to conceptualize and express vast quantities without inventing myriad individual symbols. This place-value innovation, reaching Europe by the 12th century, underpinned the linguistic shifts toward systematic names for powers of ten.[7][8] In the 15th century, French contributions formalized these roots into structured nomenclature. Jehan Adam, in his 1475 manuscript Traicté en Arismétique, defined "million" as 10^6 and extended it with terms like "bymillion" (for 10^12) and "trimillion" (for 10^18), marking the earliest recorded use of such multipliers to denote escalating powers. Building on this, Nicolas Chuquet's 1484 treatise Triparty en la science des nombres introduced "billion" explicitly as a million millions (10^12), establishing a precursor to the long scale where each subsequent name multiplies the prior by 10^6, thus systematizing the naming of large numbers for arithmetic and algebraic purposes.[9][10]Standardization in Dictionaries
In the 19th century, American dictionaries began adopting the short scale for large numbers, defining terms like billion as 10^9 to align with emerging U.S. numeration practices distinct from British traditions. Noah Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language exemplified this shift, noting that under the "French and American method of numeration," billion refers to a thousand millions (1,000,000,000), while acknowledging the English method as a million millions (1,000,000,000,000).[11] This dual notation reflected ongoing transatlantic influences but prioritized the short scale for American usage, influencing subsequent U.S. lexicographical works. The debate between the short scale (where each successive term multiplies the previous by 1,000) and the long scale (multiplying by 1,000,000) persisted into the 20th century, with French lexicographical traditions favoring the short scale as early as the 18th century. The Dictionnaire de l'Académie française, from its 1762 edition onward, defined billion as a thousand millions, aligning with short-scale definitions in some lexicographical works, though long-scale usage predominated in French practice and contributed to ongoing debates on standardization.[12] However, in practice, France continued using the long scale, officially adopting the short scale in 1948 before reverting to the long scale in 1961 via government decree, where billion denotes . By the 1920s, this preference gained broader endorsement amid growing global economic and scientific exchanges, though formal institutional shifts varied by region. Institutions like the Oxford English Dictionary played a pivotal role in codifying these names for English speakers, systematically documenting terms up to nonillion (10^30 on the short scale) based on historical attestations and contemporary usage. The OED's entries, drawing from citations dating back to the 17th century, helped solidify the nomenclature in scholarly and formal contexts while noting regional variations.[13] Similarly, British dictionaries such as Chambers's Twentieth Century Dictionary (1901 edition) listed names extending to decillion, reflecting long scale conventions at the time but anticipating convergence toward short scale norms.[14] Regional variations culminated in official adoptions, notably the British government's 1974 endorsement of the short scale to resolve ambiguities in international communication. Prime Minister Harold Wilson stated in Parliament that "billion" would thenceforth mean 1,000 million in official UK usage, aligning with American and global standards to prevent confusion in financial and scientific reporting.[15] This decision marked a key milestone in dictionary standardization, as subsequent editions of major references like the OED and others uniformly adopted the short scale for terms beyond million.Core Naming System
Standard Dictionary Numbers
The standard dictionary names for large numbers in the short scale system, prevalent in English-speaking countries like the United States and modern British usage, denote powers of 10 beginning from 10^3. These names follow a systematic pattern derived from Latin numerical prefixes combined with the suffix "-illion," where "million" represents the base (10^6), "billion" the second power (10^9), "trillion" the third (10^12), and so on up to "decillion" as the tenth (10^33). This pattern, known as the -illion system, was formalized in dictionaries during the 19th and 20th centuries to provide consistent terminology for numerical scales in scientific, financial, and general writing. The term "thousand" (10^3) precedes the -illion series as a foundational unit, originating from Old English but standardized in modern dictionaries independently of the Latin-based pattern. In contrast, the long scale, used in many parts of continental Europe and occasionally in British English until the 20th century, assigns different values, such as "billion" for 10^12 (a million million); contemporary global standards increasingly favor the short scale for clarity in international contexts.[15] For reference, the following table lists the standard short-scale names, their corresponding powers of 10, and the Latin root prefixes (noting that "thousand" and "million" are exceptions to the strict prefix pattern):| Name | Power of 10 | Latin Root Prefix |
|---|---|---|
| thousand | 10^3 | (none; from Latin mille) |
| million | 10^6 | (none; from Latin mille) |
| billion | 10^9 | bi- (2) |
| trillion | 10^12 | tri- (3) |
| quadrillion | 10^15 | quad- (4) |
| quintillion | 10^18 | quint- (5) |
| sextillion | 10^21 | sext- (6) |
| septillion | 10^24 | sept- (7) |
| octillion | 10^27 | oct- (8) |
| nonillion | 10^30 | non- (9) |
| decillion | 10^33 | dec- (10) |
Usage in Contexts
The short scale, where a billion denotes 10^9 and a trillion 10^12, predominates in American English and modern global English-language media, facilitating concise expression of vast quantities. In contrast, the long scale, defining a billion as 10^12 and a trillion as 10^18, continues to be used in some continental European countries and scientific literature, reflecting historical French influences on numerical nomenclature. This divergence has occasionally led to cross-cultural misunderstandings in international collaborations, though the short scale has gained traction worldwide due to American economic and cultural dominance.[15] In finance, terms like trillion are routinely invoked to describe national debts, such as the United States' federal debt exceeding $38 trillion as of November 2025, underscoring the scale of fiscal policy impacts on global economies.[16] Astronomy frequently employs billions to quantify celestial phenomena, with estimates placing the number of stars in the Milky Way galaxy at approximately 100 to 400 billion, aiding in conceptualizing the universe's immensity. Everyday language integrates these names more casually, as in references to "a million bucks" for modest windfalls or "billions served" in fast-food marketing, embedding them in popular discourse without invoking precise computation. The International Organization for Standardization's ISO 80000-1:2009 standard endorses the short scale for scientific nomenclature by aligning decimal prefixes like giga- (10^9) and tera- (10^12) with these values, promoting uniformity in technical documentation and measurements.[17] Media reporting has not been immune to errors stemming from scale ambiguities, such as conflating billion and trillion in budget discussions, which amplified confusion during the UK's gradual transition to short-scale usage post-1974, with lingering mix-ups noted into the 2010s.[18] To enhance clarity, style guides recommend pairing named large numbers with scientific notation, such as expressing a trillion as 10^{12}, which mitigates misinterpretation in technical writing and journalism while preserving readability.[19] This practice is particularly vital in interdisciplinary fields where audiences may vary in their familiarity with scale conventions.Notable Extensions
The Googol Family
The googol is defined as the number , or 1 followed by 100 zeros.[20] This term was coined in 1938 by American mathematician Edward Kasner while seeking a memorable name for an extraordinarily large quantity to illustrate concepts in popular mathematics.[21] The name originated from Kasner's nine-year-old nephew, Milton Sirotta, who suggested "googol" during a family discussion on naming vast numbers.[22] Kasner popularized the term in his 1940 book Mathematics and the Imagination, co-authored with James R. Newman, where it served as an accessible example of exponential growth beyond everyday scales. Building on the googol, Kasner introduced the googolplex as , or 1 followed by a googol zeros, emphasizing its incomprehensible magnitude.[5] He described the googolplex as so vast that it cannot be written out in full, even if every atom in the observable universe were used to inscribe its digits, highlighting the limits of physical representation for such numbers.[23] In the book, Kasner noted that the googolplex exceeds not only the particles in the universe but also any practical enumeration, underscoring its role in demonstrating the power of iterated exponentiation. The googol has served as a benchmark in mathematics for comparing exponential scales, such as approximating , which is just shy of a googol and illustrates binary exponentiation nearing decimal powers of ten.[20] Beyond academia, the term gained cultural prominence when it inspired the name of the technology company Google in 1998; founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin adopted a playful misspelling of "googol" to reflect their ambition to organize the world's vast information.[24] This connection has embedded the googol in popular culture, often evoking ideas of infinity and computational scale.Systematic Extensions
The illion naming system, which assigns names to powers of 10 based on multiples of three zeros, extends beyond standard dictionary terms like nonillion () by incorporating additional Latin numerical prefixes to denote higher exponents in the short scale. For instance, undecillion denotes , duodecillion , and this pattern continues systematically with prefixes such as tredec- for 13 (), quattuordec- for 14 (), and so on, reaching vigintillion for 20 () and novemvigintillion for 29 ().[1] The system culminates in centillion for 100 (). Centillion is the highest -illion name considered part of the standard dictionary nomenclature in the short scale; further extensions beyond this are non-standard and include more complex prefix combinations or systems like the Conway-Guy method. These extensions rely on more complex prefix combinations, such as uncentillion () or ducentillion (), allowing for names up to and beyond .[1] These extensions maintain consistency with the core illion pattern, where the prefix indicates the number of groups of three zeros beyond the initial three, ensuring scalability for mathematical and scientific contexts requiring verbal descriptions of vast quantities.[1] For numbers far exceeding centillion, the Conway–Guy system provides a rigorous framework for generating names using Latin-derived prefixes for both prime and composite indices, developed in the 1990s as part of broader explorations in number theory.[25] The method treats the exponent (where is the index), naming the -illion by expressing in Latin numerals broken into units, tens, and hundreds, then appending "-illion" after assimilation rules to handle vowel and consonant junctions (e.g., inserting an "i" or "e" for smoothness).[26] For example, (Latin mille, meaning thousand) yields millillion for , while larger composites like become duomillillion ().[25] This chained approach extends recursively: for (named million in the base system), the result is millionillion (), enabling names for arbitrarily large powers of 10 through linguistic composition rather than ad-hoc invention.[26] Although notations like Knuth's up-arrow provide symbolic representations for hyperoperations yielding immense non-power-of-10 values (e.g., ), verbal extensions in the illion tradition prioritize pronounceable names for powers of 10, bridging linguistic and mathematical needs without direct overlap.[27] These systematic verbal methods, however, face practical limitations for exponents beyond approximately , where the required prefix chains become excessively long and phonetically cumbersome, leading to ambiguities in spelling, pronunciation, and comprehension (e.g., near-homophones like sexoctogintillion versus sexoctingentillion).[26] Such complexity renders the names unwieldy for everyday or even specialized discourse, often favoring numerical notation instead.Specialized Applications
Binary Prefixes
Binary prefixes, also known as IEC binary prefixes, are a standardized system of naming conventions for powers of two, primarily used in computing to denote quantities of information such as bytes and bits. These prefixes address the historical ambiguity where terms like "kilo" were applied to both decimal (powers of 10) and binary (powers of 2) multiples, leading to confusion in data storage and memory capacities. The International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) introduced this system in Amendment 2 to IEC 60027-2 in 1998, with the prefixes formally defined as contractions like "kibi" for kilobinary, to clearly differentiate them from SI decimal prefixes such as kilo- (10^3).[28][29] The core definitions include kibi (Ki) for 2^10 = 1024, mebi (Mi) for 2^20 ≈ 1.048576 million, and gibi (Gi) for 2^30 ≈ 1.073742 billion, extending upward to larger scales. This nomenclature ensures precision in technical contexts, where binary alignment with computer architecture is essential. However, common misuse persists: the term "kilobyte" (KB) is often used informally to mean 1024 bytes in software and operating systems, despite the strict SI definition of 1000 bytes, contributing to discrepancies in reported storage sizes.[29][30]| Prefix Name | Symbol | Value (Power of 2) | Approximate Decimal Equivalent |
|---|---|---|---|
| kibi | Ki | 2^10 = 1024 | 1.024 × 10^3 |
| mebi | Mi | 2^20 = 1,048,576 | 1.049 × 10^6 |
| gibi | Gi | 2^30 = 1,073,741,824 | 1.074 × 10^9 |
| tebi | Ti | 2^40 = 1,099,511,627,776 | 1.100 × 10^12 |
| pebi | Pi | 2^50 = 1,125,899,906,842,624 | 1.126 × 10^15 |
| exbi | Ei | 2^60 = 1,152,921,504,606,846,976 | 1.153 × 10^18 |
| zebi | Zi | 2^70 = 1,180,591,620,717,411,303,424 | 1.181 × 10^21 |
| yobi | Yi | 2^80 = 1,208,925,819,614,629,174,706,176 | 1.209 × 10^24 |
