The goospolplex is equal to 10107 = 1010,000,000.[1] The term was coined by Wikia user Username5243. It is equal to 1 followed by 10 million zeros. It is 10,000,001 digits long.
Writing down the full decimal expansion would take 10 books of 400 pages each, with 2,500 digits on each page (except for the first, which would have 2,501). It is definitely smaller than a googolplex (1010100, or a 1 with 1 googol (10 duotrigintillion) zeros).
It is also called decixmusmillion[2] by OneFan.
Florenciramir calls this number googolmold.[citation needed]
24thehappyfan also calls this number Goosimillion.[3]
DeepLineMadom calls the number troocrorol and troosolplex, and is equal to 10[3]10,000,000 = 10[3]10[3]7 in DeepLineMadom's Array Notation.[4]
Names in -illion systems[]
In the short scale, it is also called:
According to Landon Curt Noll's The English name of a number, goospolplex is also known as:
According to Jonathan Bowers -illions, goospolplex is also known as:[5]
Using Russ Rowlett's illions, it is also known as:[6]
Approximations[]
Notation | Lower bound | Upper bound |
---|---|---|
Scientific notation | \(1\times10^{10\,000\,000}\) | |
Arrow notation | \(10\uparrow10\uparrow7\) | |
Steinhaus-Moser Notation | 7[3][3] | 8[3][3] |
Copy notation | 9[9[7]] | 1[1[8]] |
Taro's multivariable Ackermann function | A(3,A(3,21)) | A(3,A(3,22)) |
Pound-Star Notation | #*((3))*1239 | #*((4))*1239 |
BEAF | {10,{10,7}} | |
Hyper-E notation | E7#2 | |
Bashicu matrix system | (0)(1)[4] | (0)(1)[5] |
Hyperfactorial array notation | (9!)! | (10!)! |
Fast-growing hierarchy | \(f_2(f_2(20))\) | \(f_2(f_2(21))\) |
Hardy hierarchy | \(H_{\omega^22}(20)\) | \(H_{\omega^22}(21)\) |
Slow-growing hierarchy | \(g_{\omega^{\omega^7}}(10)\) |
Sources[]
- ↑ Part 1 - My Large Numbers
- ↑ Decixmusmillion Grounds Centimillilion | Big Numbers
- ↑ Goosimillion
- ↑ Pointless Googolplex Stuffs - DLMAN Part 1 (retrieved 9 November 2024)
- ↑ AR Googol - List of Bowers' -illions. Retrieved 2024-12-10.
- ↑ AR Googol - Rowlett's -illions (part 2). Retrieved 2024-12-10.
Note: The readers should be careful that numbers defined by Username5243's Array Notation are ill-defined as explained in Username5243's Array Notation#Issues. So, when an article refers to a number defined by the notation, it actually refers to an intended value, not an actual value itself (for example, a[c]b = \(a \uparrow^c b\) in arrow notation). In addition, even if the notation is ill-defined, a class category should be based on an intended value when listed, not an actual value itself, as it is not hard to fix all the issues from the original definition, hence it should not be removed.