There is no such number. In any case, you would not be able to distinguish it from a circle since there are far fewer atoms in the universe than the number of vertices that such a figure would have. I would settle for calling it a googolplexian-gon.
The next whole number larger than a googol is (googol plus 1).-- There is also the number whimsically named a "googolplex", defined as 10googol ,or ' 1 ' followed by a googol zeros.-- There is also the number named a "googolplexian", defined as 10googoolplex ,or ' 1 ' followed by a googolplex zeros.-- There are also numbers with names that are much larger than these, but I don'tknow anything about them.-- There's no such thing as the "largest" number. There might be such a thing asthe largest number with a unique name, but if you choose a number, then no matterhow large it is, I can always add ' 1 ' to your number and make a larger one.
Multiply them by a number larger than its reciprocal.Multiply them by a number larger than its reciprocal.Multiply them by a number larger than its reciprocal.Multiply them by a number larger than its reciprocal.
6 is an larger number if it is dealing with math.... other than that no numbers is larger than 10...
Graham's number is the upper bound of solutions to a certain equation in Ramsey Theory. It is unimaginably larger than a googolplex. If you were to write it as an ordinary decimal number, with digits the size of an atom, there wouldn't be enough room in the observable universe to hold it. But the end of it is ...2,464,195,387. You can find several nice detailed discussions of it if you do a web search for "Graham's number".
Yes. Graham's number.
There is none
a googolplexian + 1
No infinity is smaller than googolplexian
Yes, there is, but it has no name, for grahams number was and is still the largest number with a name. To make a number larger than grahams number, you just need to make grahams number 1, but it would not have a name because it is not official, and if you try to write it down, you could not, because all matter in the universe transformed into pen ink could not write it down. And if you tried to type it, your computer or whatever you where typing it on would fail.
The larger exponential is represented by "googolplexplex" (etc.) or "googolplexian".There are vastly larger numbers, such as "Skewes' number", "Moser's number" and "Graham's number" which can only be represented by large power towers of exponential exponents.(see related question)
There is no such number. In any case, you would not be able to distinguish it from a circle since there are far fewer atoms in the universe than the number of vertices that such a figure would have. I would settle for calling it a googolplexian-gon.
Quadrillion,Quintillion,sextillion,sentillion, octillion, nonillion, decillion, and infinity!
The next whole number larger than a googol is (googol plus 1).-- There is also the number whimsically named a "googolplex", defined as 10googol ,or ' 1 ' followed by a googol zeros.-- There is also the number named a "googolplexian", defined as 10googoolplex ,or ' 1 ' followed by a googolplex zeros.-- There are also numbers with names that are much larger than these, but I don'tknow anything about them.-- There's no such thing as the "largest" number. There might be such a thing asthe largest number with a unique name, but if you choose a number, then no matterhow large it is, I can always add ' 1 ' to your number and make a larger one.
Multiply them by a number larger than its reciprocal.Multiply them by a number larger than its reciprocal.Multiply them by a number larger than its reciprocal.Multiply them by a number larger than its reciprocal.
Of course. That is Googol,Googolplex and Googolplexian.
1 googol = 10100 1 googolplex = 10googol 1 googolplexian = 10googolplex It's possible to write the first number out ... it's a ' 1 ' followed by 100 zeros ... but there's no good reason to do that except to be able to point to it and go "ha ha". Also, there's no good reason to take up that much space on WikiAnswers for only one answer. The first number is larger than the number of subatomic particles in the observable universe. It's not possible to write either of the last two numbers without using exponential form.