Sesvigintillion[]
In names of large numbers, it is spelled as sesvigintillion. In wolfram, sexvigintillion results in "Interpreting "sexvigintillion" as "sesvigintillion". Therefore, I guess sesvigintillion is a more qualified spelling, but as you know wikipedia is not qualified enough. Does someone have a good source such as dictionary which defines this number? ๐ Fish fish fish ... ๐ 20:23, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- I got confused. Is it a common name, or coined by Sbiis Saibian? If it is a common name, citing Sbiis Saibian's site as a first source is inappropriate, and hence we should remove it from the artcle. If it is coined by Sbiis Saibian, then the source is the first source, and hence we have no problem on the spelling.
- p-adic 12:38, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- By reading the article of Wikipedia, I understand that it was taken from Conway and Guy's "The book of Numbers", so the citation should be the book. I have the book and checked. I found the description in pp. 14-15. In p. 15, I found a table which is cited in the article of wikipedia. According to Conway and Guy, we can construct N'th zillion 10^(3N+3) in short scale and 10^6N in Britain from this table. The number of this article is 26th zillion number, so we can construct with "Se" and "Viginti" and "llion". As Viginti is marked as "MS", and it includes S, "se" changes to "ses" or "sex", as described in the caption of the table, so both "sesvigintillion" and "sexvigintillion" are correct, as Conway and Guy did not provide specific name for this number. ๐ Fish fish fish ... ๐ 15:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Then we have a new issue. If Conway does not coin a specific number, then it is not allowed to be the first source of the number due to the tradition in this wiki. This wiki does not allow a manuscript to be the first source of a number if the name itself does not appear in it. For example, a book in which a naming system is written cannot be the first source of a specific number in the naming system in this wiki unless the name appears. Indeed, many articles have been deleted by this reason.
- p-adic 05:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Actually, after defining upto 999th zillion, Conway and Guy write
- With Allan Wechsler we propose to extend this system indefinitely by combining these according to the convention that "XilliYilliZillion" (say) denotes the (1000000X + 1000Y + Z)th zillion, using "nillion" for the zeroth "zillion" when this is needed as a placeholder. So for example the million-and-third zillion is a "millinillitrillion."
- You can now use the usual rules for combining this complete system of zilion words (which first appears in the present Book of Numbers) so as to obtain correct 'English names', like
- "four millinillitrillion (and) fifteen,"
- meaning
- 4.103000012 + 15 (American) or 4.1060000018 + 15 (British),
- for all of the integers!
- Maybe we can respect Robert Munafo for naming the system as Conway-Wechsler System. ๐ Fish fish fish ... ๐ 07:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- By the way, by reading the caption of p.15, "when it is immediately before a component marked with s or x, "tre" increases to "tres" and "se" to "ses" or "sex" as appropriate.", I think sesvigintillion is the intended name as viginti is marked as s, where "sex" is used only for x, octoginta. ๐ Fish fish fish ... ๐ 07:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- I do not have a specific idea for the new title. At least, I think that we do not have to delete indivisul pages, as long as they have the first sources of the names. For example, if Sbiis Saibian is the first one who actually coined this number using Conway's system, then Sbiis Saibian's web site can be the first source of the number (to be more precise, the first source of the fact that Sbiis Saibian actually coined the number using Conway's naming system). The point is that I do not know whether it is true or not.
- p-adic 07:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Anyone can name this number by referring to Conway's book. Maybe someone cited the book and made a list of numbers, and someone saw the list and copied, and so on, and it is so common that it is implemented in Mathworld. So who is the first one? Who can be sure about it? ๐ Fish fish fish ... ๐ 08:06, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- No, the cite above was Cookiefoster's site. Sbiis explaines Conway & Guys Latin Based -illion Series and Russ Rowlett's Greek Based -illions. It seems that Sbiis follows Rowlett's system. So we can use internet archive. ๐ Fish fish fish ... ๐ 08:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- So I edited the page. I think that sexvigintillion is a so popular name that Rowlett's page can be identified as the first source and can be cited. The greek name icosiheptillion is not so popular now and as the site is dead it is not worth describing now. For Conway's sesvigintillion, Cookiefoster's site can be identified as a site which describes the number explicitly, and made it a tentative first source, and added Conway's original and Munafo's site as reference. If someone finds another first source for explicitly describing Conway's sesvigintillion, the first source can be replaced. ๐ Fish fish fish ... ๐ 09:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- > So who is the first one? Who can be sure about it?
- As I said, it can be just the first source of the fact that Saibian coined it using the naming system, if it is actually such a source. I did not mean that Saibian is the first one who coined it.
- > Hmm... according to the above page, sesvigintillion is Conway's system, and sexvigintillion is the modified Conway's system or Rowlett's System.
- โใโ
- > So I edited the page.
- Anyway, thank you. Sorts of illion numbers frequently give us similar issues.
- p-adic 09:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- > Sorts of illion numbers frequently give us similar issues.
- Yes. That is why I asked "So who is the first one? Who can be sure about it?" For sesvigintillion and sexvigintillion, Conway's book and Rowlett's page are uniquely identified, as there are many names which coincide. Besides, there are so many websites that write the -ilion numbers, and it is not safe to say that the page "coined" the number, as it is evident that they made the page later than Conway and Rowlett. Therefore, for using the page as the first source, I think it is necessary that the author correctly identifies the source of the name such as Conway or Rowlett. Conway is older than Rowlett, but Conway did not construct each name explicitly. So maybe for other numbers, referring to both Rowlett and Conway would be adequate. ๐ Fish fish fish ... ๐ 10:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)