Talk:Large numbers

Old Comments

OK, this is a first stab at getting all the large number topics together, please feel free to kick this into shape. The Anome

Can I suggest that we include only pure numbers in this article, not distances and other measurements? Would anyone object if I deleted the astronomical distances, since they are only large numbers when expressed in small units? I suppose I should go further and say that Avogradro's number is also just an arbitrary unit, but I shan't, because I feel I'm on a slippery slope towards excluding everything! -- Heron

Then why do people call large numbers "astronomical", as the article informs us? Perhaps it's because astronomical distances are large when expressed in any human-sized scale. I think the concept of "largeness" needs to be explained. The whole article is subjective anyway -- I wouldn't call 10¹⁰ large, I deal with those sorts of numbers every day. $10^{10^{10}}$ is more like it. -- Tim Starling 09:26 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I agree with you about 10¹⁰. I wouldn't call the number of bits on a hard disk particularly large, either. It is certainly subjective. My point was that measurements of distance etc. are different from pure numbers. Measurements are, by definition, relative, whereas at least pure numbers are absolute. Largeness is another thing. Perhaps one definition would be "a number considered as large at a particular time by a particular culture". For example, I seem to remember that the Old Testament uses the number 40 as a generic large number in several places (e.g. "40 days and 40 nights"). -- Heron

Let me put this another way. I think the present article should be, as it mostly is, about the mathematics of large numbers. Other large quantities, such as astronomical distances, already have a place on the orders of magnitude pages (1e10 m etc.) Perhaps we should just link to them. -- Heron

Yes, you're quite right. Well, about most things. I could argue that physically distance is dimensionless but that would just be arrogant pedantry. The page title is "large number" not just "large", and the order of magnitude pages are pretty good for comparing distances. BTW did you see my reply for you on Wikipedia:Reference desk? -- Tim Starling 13:53 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

New Comment

I don't see any reference to the enormous numbers you get when you calculate permutations and combinations? How many permutations are there in a googolplex? (I hope that's grammatically correct.) {roger} 29 June 2005

You're on the right track! Check out the article on Combinatorics referenced at the beginning of the "even larger numbers" section, or better yet the Permutations and combinations article. Then you'll know to ask "How many permutations are there of 1 googolplex objects without replacement?", and that the the answer is googolplex factorial (written "googolplex!"). Lunkwill 29 June 2005 06:33 (UTC)

P-adic numbers in the lead

Someone added a tag to the mention, and while P-adic numbers are a real thing that is well sourced, it's not clear to me what their relation is to this article. My inclination is to just remove the mention as unnecessary.

I suppose we might be able to find a reference that expounds on how P-adic numbers are related to large positive integers, but until we do seems that the sentence should just be removed. Opinions? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 00:57, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Seeing no interest in maintaining this mention in the lead and since it is unsourced, I'll simply remove it. If there are objections we can always restore. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 00:07, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

"10^120" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 10^120 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 August 7 § 10^120 until a consensus is reached. Mathguy2718 (talk) 04:34, 7 August 2026 (UTC)