Talk:Names of large numbers#Article+description

Disoge has 10 zeros 77.100.228.242 (talk) 19:36, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

:Does any reliable source use this term? Certes (talk) 21:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

::Me,an editor, could not find any source that uses the term "diosge". Number Numismatist (talk) 12:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

:::same. this name isnt even in the fandoms, so, sorry, poster. 31.133.63.159 (talk) 08:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

::::Oh, Hi. Btw, Gargoogolplexianth in the BIGGEST number out there. Number Numismatist (talk) 19:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::Ok, we need to talk, its not called googolplexplex, its called googolplexian. Number Numismatist (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Why 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)

It 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)

The other day I added a description for this article which was quickly reverted claiming it was vandalism. Are there any maintainers of this article that believe that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Names_of_large_numbers&diff=1269327597&oldid=1269320966 my edit] was in fact, vandalism? BurninButter (talk) 12:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected|Names of large numbers|answered=yes}}

10^51 has been incorrectly named Sedecillion, when it's actual name is Sexdecillion. It is just missing the x before the d. 2600:4040:56EA:9500:99FD:1338:153C:1D29 (talk) 08:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

:{{Done}} Good eye. _signed, Willondon (talk) 16:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

::It's actually not a typo. While "sexdecillion" is MUCH more prevalent in usage (and how I would personally spell it), the table in question, as the preceding text before it mentions, lists numbers formed via the Conway–Guy system, not standard dictionary numbers. In the Conway–Guy system, 10⁵¹ is "Sedecillion", not "Sexdecillion".

::The paragraph prior to the table before the table in question even mentions this:

::{{bq|text=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.}}

::I’ll probably add a note so this is more clear. EmptySora_ (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

For 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)

There 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)