homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Pubcon Platinum Sponsor 2014
Visit PubCon.com
Home / Forums Index / Local / Foo
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: incrediBILL & lawman

Foo Forum

A little google fact for the day
Trivia, trivia, trivia...

 12:31 am on Jan 27, 2004 (gmt 0)

Read an interesting little fact the other day.

Google was (supposedly) named after the googol (a hundred billion billion). I always thought this was the largest named number. But apparently there is a larger named number, which is the googolplex (1 followed by a billion billion zeros).

Googol - Google
Googolplex - Googleplex

I didn't know this but it may be common knowledge to everyone else. But I thought it has a decent symmetry to it.



 2:29 pm on Jan 27, 2004 (gmt 0)

It was common knowledge for me since I read Cosmos many years ago. The only thing I forgot about was the spelling difference.


 3:10 pm on Jan 27, 2004 (gmt 0)

Perhaps they went with the name Google instead of Googol simply because the domain googol.com had already been registered (April 1995)?


 2:17 am on Jan 28, 2004 (gmt 0)

according to G's corporate history [google.com] it had something to do with an investor writing a check for a 100 Grand made out to Google, Inc - and the boys didn't even have a corporation yet.


 2:19 am on Jan 28, 2004 (gmt 0)

I can still hear Carl Sagan... "Billions and billions"


 4:13 pm on Feb 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

. . . the googol (a hundred billion billion) . . . the googolplex (1 followed by a billion billion zeros).

Neither of these is true; and both numbers are far bigger. A googol is 10100, or 1 followed by 100 zeros. It looks like this:


A googleplex is 10googol, or 1 followed by a googol of zeros. This is a huge number (not just twice the length of the one above). By comparison, a hundred billion billion is a paltry 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 in the US or 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 in Europe and "1 followed by a billion billion zeros" would be 10,000 times smaller than a googleplex even if you took the European definition and multiplied it by itself four times (raised it to the power of 4).

The two numbers were given their names by the nephew of mathematician Dr Edward Kasner, who wanted to make the point that even a very very big finite number (such as a googleplex) is not infinite.

[www-users.cs.york.ac.uk ]


 4:23 pm on Feb 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

Ho, ho. If you really want to see a googleplex, I just found this page:

[fpx.de ]

It has a downloadable program which will print a googleplex for you. But make sure to read the page first, because you're going to have to

a) live a very long time and
b) buy a new PC to use in the meantime.



 5:41 pm on Feb 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

If we switch to base Googolplex, you can print it simply as 10


Hey, that page is really good reading


 5:52 pm on Feb 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

EBear, that's a nice read. thanks.


 6:37 pm on Mar 29, 2004 (gmt 0)

EBear, you are wrong on some points as well...

Here's how it is:

- A Googol is 10^100, or 1 followed by 100 zeros.

- Googolplex (not Googleplex) is the number 10 raised to the power of a Googol (1 followed by a Googol, 10^100, zeros.)

- 100 billion billion (European) = 100 * 1e12 * 1e12 = 1e26, times itself four times = 1e26^4 = 1e104. (If this is what you meant, EBear?)

- 1e104, is 1 with 104 zeros after it, whereas a Googolplex is 1 with a GOOGOL ZEROS after it. There are not even a Googol atoms in the universe. A Googol is surely far greater than 10,000 times the count of 104.


 10:34 am on Mar 30, 2004 (gmt 0)

I need a drink.



 10:38 am on Mar 30, 2004 (gmt 0)

AFAIK Google and Googleplex (ie with those spellings) first appeared in "Hitch hikers Guide to the Galaxy"

Guess they are fans.


 11:46 am on Mar 30, 2004 (gmt 0)

It's also a cricketing term for "a low running ball which appears to be delivering one thing and actually delivers something else "...
Sometimes performed in an underhand manner......

Lot like the current serps and the new "enhanced" try to distinguish the results from the adwords pages .... : )


 11:53 am on Mar 30, 2004 (gmt 0)


That'd be a googly [cricketnext.com]. One of the hardest deliveries in cricket :)


 12:51 pm on Mar 30, 2004 (gmt 0)

Leosghost, that "googly" a cricket ball bowled as if to break one way that actually breaks in the opposite way.


 2:21 pm on Mar 30, 2004 (gmt 0)

Sorry EBear, I misread your post... and I was wrong. I assumed you were still speaking of one hundred billion billion when you switched mid-sentence onto "one followed by a billion billion zeros". Read it too quickly. You were right.


 9:45 pm on Mar 31, 2004 (gmt 0)

Do they still make GooGoo clusters?



 9:56 pm on Mar 31, 2004 (gmt 0)

Want a headache?

Go to Google, type:

world's worst website

And hit "I'm Feeling Lucky!"


 10:00 pm on Mar 31, 2004 (gmt 0)

obryen, is this self promotion? :)


 10:06 pm on Mar 31, 2004 (gmt 0)


I may not be the best web designer in the world (which is why I pay others to do my work), but I think even I could do better than that!

And to make matters worse, I'm jealous of that site. Being ranked #1 in Google isn't easy!


 11:14 pm on Mar 31, 2004 (gmt 0)

obryen, prepare to feel more jealous

Its also No.1 for just 'worst website' ;)


 11:28 pm on Mar 31, 2004 (gmt 0)

That's insane! I think from now on I'm no longer paying the $200-$800 per project, but I'll do it myself with the Angelfire page builder or something. It may not be well-designed, but it's getting attention.... my sites are very well designed, but most aren't even on the first three pages of Google!

Forget it.... I'll just make a site like the original Google itself used to be (get a laugh out of this)!



 2:21 am on Apr 5, 2004 (gmt 0)

That's great. Somehow as they've gotten more complicated their design has gotten simpler.


 5:17 am on Apr 5, 2004 (gmt 0)

Leosghost, that "googly" a cricket ball bowled as if to break one way that actually breaks in the opposite way.

Although, if you are Muttiah Muralitharan it is called a "doosra" and isn't bowled but rather "chucked" at the batter.




 6:44 pm on Apr 7, 2004 (gmt 0)

As with many others here (I'm sure), I've had to take over and fix websites like that when previous "webmasters" quit. That page hurt my eyes (yet I forwarded the URL on to about eight people to share).

I was fascinated by numbers as a wee one, and having my dad explain what a googol was kept me occupied for hours thinking of how big that was. I once tried to count to a million. I made it to about four thousand before I gave in and ate a sandwich.


 7:18 pm on Apr 7, 2004 (gmt 0)

>>"chucked" at the batter

That is highly unwarranted, Warren.


 9:34 am on Apr 8, 2004 (gmt 0)

<<Although, if you are Muttiah Muralitharan it is called a "doosra" and isn't bowled but rather "chucked" at the batter. >>

I agree with Chundra ...I've seen the videos in "slomo" ..for me he's legit ....

And as one who was forced to learn cricket in skool ( wher I didn't learn grammuh) ..I never could understand why we couldn't "chuck" the ball anyway ( which I repeat IMHO he doesn't ) ....

Either you want the ball to hit the bails or you dont ..insisting that it get there via a totally unatural arm action which actually reduces the possible accuracy and velocity is again IMHO perverse and typical of the English public skool system ...world view ... ; )

Ps ..before you start ...
I'm Irish educated in England in a "Harry Potter" type skool ....

Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  

Home / Forums Index / Local / Foo
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved