What is Google. The largest number in the world

There are numbers that are so incredibly, incredibly large that even to write them down would take the entire universe. But here's what really drives you crazy ... some of these inconceivably large numbers are extremely important to understanding the world.

When I say "the largest number in the universe", I really mean the largest significant number, the maximum possible number that is useful in some way. There are many contenders for this title, but I immediately warn you: there is indeed a risk that trying to understand all of this will blow your mind. And besides, with too much math, you have little fun.

Googol and googolplex

Edward Kasner

We could start with two, quite possibly the largest numbers you have ever heard of, and these are indeed the two largest numbers that have generally accepted definitions in English. (There is a fairly accurate nomenclature used to denote numbers as large as you would like, but these two numbers are not currently found in dictionaries.) Google, since it became world famous (albeit with errors, note. in fact it is googol) in the form of Google, was born in 1920 as a way to get kids interested in large numbers.

To this end, Edward Kasner (pictured) took his two nephews, Milton and Edwin Sirotte, for a stroll through the New Jersey Palisades. He invited them to put forward any ideas, and then nine-year-old Milton suggested "googol". Where he got this word is unknown, but Kasner decided that or a number in which there are one hundred zeros behind the unit will henceforth be called googol.

But young Milton did not stop there, he proposed an even larger number, a googolplex. This is a number, according to Milton, in which there is 1 in the first place, and then as many zeros as you could write before you get tired. While this idea is fascinating, Kasner decided that a more formal definition was needed. As he explained in his 1940 book Mathematics and the Imagination, Milton's definition leaves open the risky possibility that the casual jester could become a mathematician superior to Albert Einstein simply because he has more endurance.

So Kasner decided that the googolplex would be equal, or 1, and then the googol of zeros. Otherwise, and in terms similar to those with which we will deal for other numbers, we will say that a googolplex is. To show how mesmerizing this is, Carl Sagan once remarked that it is physically impossible to write down all the zeros of a googolplex, because there simply isn't enough room in the universe. If you fill the entire volume of the observable Universe with fine dust particles approximately 1.5 microns in size, then the number of different ways of arranging these particles will be approximately equal to one googolplex.

Linguistically speaking, googol and googolplex are probably the two largest significant numbers (in English at least), but, as we will now establish, there are infinitely many ways to define “significance”.

Real world

If we are talking about the largest significant number, there is a reasonable argument that this really means that we need to find the largest number with a real value in the world. We can start with the current human population, which is currently about 6,920 million. World GDP in 2010 was estimated at about $ 61.96 billion, but both numbers are insignificant compared to the roughly 100 trillion cells that make up the human body. Of course, none of these numbers can compare with the total number of particles in the Universe, which, as a rule, is considered to be approximately equal, and this number is so large that our language does not have a corresponding word.

We can play a little with the systems of measures, making the numbers bigger and bigger. Thus, the mass of the Sun in tons will be less than in pounds. An excellent way to do this is to use the Planck system of units, which are the smallest possible units for which the laws of physics remain valid. For example, the age of the universe in Planck's time is about. If we go back to the first unit of Planck time after the Big Bang, we will see what the density of the universe was then. We are getting more and more, but we haven't even reached googol yet.

The largest number with any real world application - or, in this case, a real world application - is probably one of the most recent estimates of the number of universes in the multiverse. This number is so large that human brain will literally be unable to perceive all these different universes, since the brain is only capable of roughly configurations. In fact, this number is probably the most big number with any practical sense if you don't take into account the idea of \u200b\u200bthe multiverse as a whole. However, there are still much larger numbers hiding there. But in order to find them, we must venture into the realm of pure mathematics, and there is no better start than prime numbers.

Mersenne primes

Part of the difficulty is coming up with a good definition of what a "significant" number is. One way is to think in terms of prime and composite numbers. A prime number, as you probably remember from school mathematics, is any natural number (note, not equal to one), which is divisible only by and itself. So, and are prime numbers, and and are composite numbers. This means that any composite number can ultimately be represented by its prime divisors. In a sense, a number is more important than, say, because there is no way to express it in terms of the product of smaller numbers.

Obviously, we can go a little further. for example, it is really simple, which means that in a hypothetical world where our knowledge of numbers is limited to a number, a mathematician can still express a number. But the next number is already prime, which means that the only way to express it is to directly know about its existence. This means that the largest known prime numbers play an important role, but, say, googol - which is ultimately just a collection of numbers and, multiplied among themselves - actually does not. And since primes are mostly random, there is no known way to predict that an incredibly large number will actually be prime. To this day, discovering new primes is difficult.

Ancient Greek mathematicians had a notion of primes at least as early as 500 BC, and 2000 years later people still knew which numbers were prime only up to about 750. Thinkers of Euclid's time saw the possibility of simplification, but until the Renaissance mathematicians couldn't really put this into practice. These numbers are known as the Mersenne numbers and are named after the 17th century French scientist Marina Mersenne. The idea is quite simple: the Mersenne number is any number of the kind. So, for example, and this number is prime, the same is true for.

It is much faster and easier to identify Mersenne primes than any other kind of prime, and computers have been working hard to find them for the past six decades. Until 1952, the largest known prime number was a number - a number with digits. In the same year, a computer calculated that the number is prime, and this number consists of numbers, which makes it much larger than a googol.

Computers have been on the hunt ever since, and Mersenne's ith number is currently the largest prime number known to mankind. Discovered in 2008, it is - a number with almost a million digits. This is the largest known number that cannot be expressed in terms of any smaller numbers, and if you want to help find an even larger Mersenne number, you (and your computer) can always join the search at http: //www.mersenne. org /.

Skewes number

Stanley Skewes

Let's turn to prime numbers again. As I said, they behave fundamentally wrong, which means that there is no way to predict what the next prime will be. Mathematicians were forced to turn to some rather fantastic measurements in order to come up with some way to predict future primes, even in some obscure way. The most successful of these attempts is probably the prime counting function that he came up with in late XVIII century legendary mathematician Karl Friedrich Gauss.

I'll save you the more complicated math - one way or another, we still have a lot ahead - but the essence of the function is this: for any integer, you can estimate how many primes there are, less. For example, if, the function predicts that there should be primes, if - primes, less, and if, then there are fewer numbers that are prime.

The arrangement of the primes is indeed irregular and it is just an approximation of the actual number of primes. In fact, we know that there are primes, less, primes less, and primes. This is an excellent grade, to be sure, but it is always only an assessment ... and, more specifically, an upper grade.

In all known cases before, the prime count function slightly exaggerates the actual count of less primes. Mathematicians once thought that it would always be this way, ad infinitum, that this certainly applies to some unimaginably huge numbers, but in 1914 John Edenzor Littlewood proved that for some unknown, unimaginably huge number, this function would begin to produce fewer primes, and then it will switch between upper and lower bound an infinite number of times.

The hunt was at the starting point of the races, and here Stanley Skewes appeared (see photo). In 1933, he proved that the upper bound when a function that approximates the number of prime numbers first gives a lower value is a number. It is difficult to truly understand, even in the most abstract sense, what this number actually represents, and from that point of view it was the largest number ever used in serious mathematical proof. Since then, mathematicians have been able to reduce the upper bound to a relatively small number, but the original number has remained known as the Skuse number.

So how big is the number that makes even the mighty googolplex dwarf? In The Penguin Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Numbers, David Wells describes one way in which Hardy's mathematician was able to comprehend the size of Skuse's number:

“Hardy thought it was“ the largest number ever to serve any specific purpose in mathematics, ”and suggested that if we played chess with all the particles in the universe as pieces, one move would be to swap two particles. and the game would stop when the same position would be repeated a third time, then the number of all possible games would be approximately equal to Skuse's number. ''

One last thing before moving on: we talked about the smaller of the two Skuse numbers. There is another Skuse number that a mathematician found in 1955. The first number is obtained on the basis that the so-called Riemann hypothesis is true - this is a particularly difficult hypothesis of mathematics, which remains unproven, very useful when it comes to prime numbers. However, if the Riemann hypothesis is false, Skuse found that the jump start point increases to.

The magnitude problem

Before we get to the number that even Skuse's number looks tiny next to, we need to talk a little about scale, because otherwise we have no way of assessing where we're going to go. First, let's take a number - it's a tiny number, so small that people can actually have an intuitive understanding of what it means. There are very few numbers that fit this description, as numbers over six cease to be separate numbers and become “several”, “many”, etc.

Now let's take, i.e. ... Although we cannot really intuitively, as it was for a number, it is very easy to understand what it is, to imagine what it is. So far so good. But what happens if we go to? It is equal to, or. We are very far from being able to imagine this value, like any other, very large - we lose the ability to comprehend individual parts somewhere around a million. (True, insane a large number of it would take time to really count to a million of whatever, but the point is, we can still perceive that number.)

However, while we cannot imagine, we are at least able to understand in general terms what 7.6 billion is, perhaps comparing it to something like US GDP. We have moved from intuition to representation and to simple understanding, but at least we still have some gap in understanding what a number is. This is about to change as we move one step up the ladder.

To do this, we need to move on to a notation introduced by Donald Knuth, known as arrow notation. In these designations, it can be written as. When we then go to, the number we get is equal to. This is equal to where there is a total of threes. We have now significantly and truly surpassed all the other numbers we have already spoken of. After all, even the largest of them only had three or four members in the row of indicators. For example, even Skuse's super-number is “only” - even if adjusted for the fact that both the base and the indicators are much larger than, it is still absolutely nothing compared to the size of the number tower with a billion members.

Obviously, there is no way to comprehend such huge numbers ... and yet, the process by which they are created can still be understood. We could not understand the real number that is given by a tower of powers in which there are billions of threes, but we can basically imagine such a tower with many members, and a really decent supercomputer can store such towers in memory even if it cannot calculate their actual values ...

This is becoming more and more abstract, but it will only get worse. You might think that a tower of powers whose exponent length is equal (moreover, in the previous version of this post I made exactly this mistake), but it's simple. In other words, imagine that you have the ability to calculate the exact value of a power tower of triplets, which consists of elements, and then you took that value and created a new tower with as many in it ... that it gives.

Repeat this process with each successive number ( note. starting right) until you do it once, and then you finally get it. This is a number that is simply incredibly large, but at least the steps to get it seem to be understandable if everything is done very slowly. We can no longer understand the number or imagine the procedure by which it is obtained, but at least we can understand the basic algorithm, only in a sufficiently long time.

Now let's prepare the mind to really blow it up.

Graham's number (Graham)

Ronald Graham

This is how you get the Graham number, which ranks in the Guinness Book of World Records as the largest number ever used in mathematical proof. It is completely impossible to imagine how great it is, and it is just as difficult to explain exactly what it is. Basically, Graham's number appears when dealing with hypercubes, which are theoretical geometric shapes with more than three dimensions. Mathematician Ronald Graham (see photo) wanted to find out at what smallest number of dimensions certain properties of the hypercube will remain stable. (Sorry for such a vague explanation, but I'm sure we all need to complete at least two degrees in mathematics to make it more accurate.)

In any case, the Graham number is an upper bound for this minimum number of dimensions. So how big is this upper bound? Let's go back to a number so large that we can only vaguely understand the algorithm for obtaining it. Now, instead of just jumping up one more level to, we will count the number in which there are arrows between the first and last three. Now we are far beyond even the slightest understanding of what this number is or even what needs to be done to calculate it.

Now we repeat this process once ( note. at each next step, we write the number of arrows equal to the number obtained in the previous step).

This, ladies and gentlemen, is the Graham number, which is about an order of magnitude higher than the point human understanding... This number, which is so much larger than any number you can imagine - is much more than any infinity you could ever hope to imagine - it just defies even the most abstract description.

But here's the weird thing. Since Graham's number is basically just triples multiplied among themselves, we know some of its properties without actually calculating it. We cannot represent Graham's number using any notation we know, even if we used the entire universe to write it down, but I can tell you the last twelve digits of Graham's number right now:. And that's not all: we know at least the last digits of Graham's number.

Of course, it is worth remembering that this number is only the upper bound in the original Graham problem. It is possible that the actual number of measurements required to perform the desired property is much, much less. In fact, since the 1980s, it was believed, according to most experts in this field, that in fact the number of dimensions is only six - a number so small that we can understand it intuitively. Since then, the lower bound has been increased to, but there is still a very good chance that the solution to Graham's problem does not lie next to a number as large as Graham's number.

To infinity

So there are numbers greater than Graham's number? There is, of course, the Graham number for starters. As for the significant number… well, there are some devilishly complex areas of mathematics (in particular, the area known as combinatorics) and computer science, in which numbers even larger than Graham's number occur. But we've almost reached the limit of what I can hope to ever be reasonably explained. For those reckless enough enough to go even further, further reading is offered at your own risk.

Well, now an amazing quote attributed to Douglas Ray ( note. to be honest, it sounds pretty funny):

“I see clusters of vague numbers that are hiding there, in the darkness, behind a small spot of light that the candle of the mind gives. They whisper to each other; conspiring who knows what. Perhaps they don't really like us for capturing their little brothers with our minds. Or, perhaps, they simply lead an unambiguous numerical way of life, there, beyond our understanding ''.

History of the term

Googol is larger than the number of particles in the known part of the Universe, of which, according to various estimates, there are from 10 79 to 10 81, which also limits its use.

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

See what "Google" is in other dictionaries:

Googolplex (from the English googolplex) a number represented by a one with a googol of zeros, 1010100. or 1010,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 000 000 Like googol, ... ... Wikipedia

This article is about number. See also the article about English. googol) a number in decimal notation represented by a unit followed by 100 zeros: 10100 \u003d 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ... Wikipedia

- (from the English googolplex) a number equal to ten to the power of googol: 1010100 or 1010,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 000. Like googol, the term ... ... Wikipedia

Perhaps this article contains original research. Add links to sources, otherwise it may be set for deletion. More information can be on the talk page. (May 13, 2011) ... Wikipedia

Gogol is a mogul dessert, the main components of which are whipped egg yolk with sugar. There are many variations of this drink: with the addition of wine, vanillin, rum, bread, honey, fruit and berry juices. Often used as a cure ... Wikipedia

Names of degrees thousand in ascending order Name Meaning American system European system thousand 10³ 10³ million 106 106 billion 109 109 billion 109 1012 trillion 1012 ... Wikipedia

Names of degrees thousand in ascending order Name Meaning American system European system thousand 10³ 10³ million 106 106 billion 109 109 billion 109 1012 trillion 1012 ... Wikipedia

Names of degrees thousand in ascending order Name Meaning American system European system thousand 10³ 10³ million 106 106 billion 109 109 billion 109 1012 trillion 1012 ... Wikipedia

Names of degrees thousand in ascending order Name Meaning American system European system thousand 10³ 10³ million 106 106 billion 109 109 billion 109 1012 trillion 1012 ... Wikipedia

Books

• Magic of the World. Fantastic novel and stories, Vladimir Sigismundovich Vechfinsky. The novel "The Magic of Space". The earthly magician, together with the fairytale heroes Vasilisa, Koshchei, Gorynych and the fairytale cat, are fighting a force seeking to take over the Galaxy. COLLECTION OF STORIES Where ...

As a child, I was tormented by the question of what is the largest number, and I tormented almost everyone with this stupid question. Having learned the number one million, I asked if there was a number greater than a million. Billion? More than a billion? Trillion? More than a trillion? Finally, there was someone clever who explained to me that the question is stupid, since it is enough just to add one to the largest number, and it turns out that it was never the largest, since there are even more numbers.

And now, many years later, I decided to ask another question, namely: what is the largest number that has its own name? Fortunately, now there is an Internet and they can be puzzled by patient search engines that will not call my questions idiotic ;-). Actually, that's what I did, and that's what I found out as a result.

There are two systems for naming numbers - American and English.

The American system is pretty simple. All the names of large numbers are constructed like this: at the beginning there is a Latin ordinal number, and at the end the suffix-million is added to it. The exception is the name "million" which is the name of the number one thousand (lat. mille) and the increasing suffix-million (see table). This is how the numbers are obtained - trillion, quadrillion, quintillion, sextillion, septillion, octillion, nonillion and decillion. The American system is used in the USA, Canada, France and Russia. You can find out the number of zeros in a number written in the American system using the simple formula 3 x + 3 (where x is a Latin numeral).

The English naming system is the most common in the world. It is used, for example, in Great Britain and Spain, as well as in most of the former English and Spanish colonies. The names of numbers in this system are built like this: so: the suffix-million is added to the Latin numeral, the next number (1000 times larger) is built according to the principle - the same Latin numeral, but the suffix is \u200b\u200b-billion. That is, after the trillion in the English system, there is a trillion, and only then a quadrillion, followed by a quadrillion, etc. Thus, a quadrillion in the English and American systems are completely different numbers! You can find out the number of zeros in a number written in the English system and ending with the suffix-million using the formula 6 x + 3 (where x is a Latin numeral) and by the formula 6 x + 6 for numbers ending in -billion.

Only the number billion (10 9) passed from the English system to the Russian language, which would still be more correct to call it as the Americans call it - a billion, since we have adopted the American system. But who in our country does something according to the rules! ;-) By the way, sometimes the word trillion is also used in Russian (you can see for yourself by running a search in Google or Yandex) and it means, apparently, 1000 trillion, i.e. quadrillion.

In addition to numbers written using Latin prefixes according to the American or English system, so-called off-system numbers are also known, i.e. numbers that have their own names without any Latin prefixes. There are several such numbers, but I will talk more about them a little later.

Let's go back to notation using Latin numerals. It would seem that they can write numbers to infinity, but this is not entirely true. Let me explain why. Let's first see how the numbers from 1 to 10 33 are called:

And so, now the question arises, what's next. What's behind the decillion? In principle, of course, it is possible, of course, by combining prefixes to generate such monsters as: andecillion, duodecillion, tredecillion, quattordecillion, quindecillion, sexdecillion, septemdecillion, octodecillion and novemdecillion, but these will already have compound names, but we were interested in numbers. Therefore, according to this system, in addition to those indicated above, you can still get only three - vigintillion (from lat. viginti - twenty), centillion (from lat. centum - one hundred) and a million (from lat. mille - one thousand). The Romans did not have more than a thousand of their own names for numbers (all numbers over a thousand were composite). For example, a million (1,000,000) Romans called decies centena milia, that is, "ten hundred thousand". And now, in fact, the table:

Thus, according to such a system, the number is greater than 10 3003, which would have its own, non-composite name, it is impossible to get! Nevertheless, numbers over a million million are known - these are the very off-system numbers. Let's finally tell you about them.

The smallest such number is myriad (it is even in Dahl's dictionary), which means a hundred hundred, that is, 10,000. This word, however, is outdated and is practically not used, but it is curious that the word "myriad" is widely used, which does not mean a certain number at all, but countless, countless number of things. It is believed that the word myriad came into European languages \u200b\u200bfrom ancient Egypt.

Googol (from the English googol) is the number ten to the hundredth power, that is, one with one hundred zeros. Googol was first written about in 1938 in the article "New Names in Mathematics" in the January issue of Scripta Mathematica by the American mathematician Edward Kasner. According to him, his nine-year-old nephew Milton Sirotta suggested calling a large number "googol". This number became well-known thanks to the search engine named after him. Google ... Please note that "Google" is trademarkand googol is a number.

In the famous Buddhist treatise of the Jaina Sutra, dating back to 100 BC, the number asankheya (from whale. asenci - uncountable) equal to 10 140. It is believed that this number is equal to the number of cosmic cycles required to attain nirvana.

Googolplex (eng. googolplex) is a number also invented by Kasner with his nephew and means one with a googol of zeros, that is, 10 10 100. This is how Kasner himself describes this "discovery":

Words of wisdom are spoken by children at least as often as by scientists. The name "googol" was invented by a child (Dr. Kasner "s nine-year-old nephew) who was asked to think up a name for a very big number, namely, 1 with a hundred zeros after it. He was very certain that this number was not infinite, and therefore equally certain that it had to have a name. At the same time that he suggested "googol" he gave a name for a still larger number: "Googolplex." A googolplex is much larger than a googol, but is still finite, as the inventor of the name was quick to point out.

Mathematics and the Imagination (1940) by Kasner and James R. Newman.

An even larger number than the googolplex, the Skewes "number, was proposed by Skewes in 1933 (Skewes. J. London Math. Soc. 8 , 277-283, 1933.) in proving the Riemann conjecture concerning prime numbers. It means eto the extent eto the extent eto the 79th power, that is, e e e 79. Later, Riele (te Riele, H. J. J. "On the Sign of the Difference P(x) -Li (x). " Math. Comput. 48 , 323-328, 1987) reduced the Skewes number to e e 27/4, which is approximately 8.185 10 370. It is clear that since the value of Skuse's number depends on the number e, then it is not an integer, therefore we will not consider it, otherwise we would have to recall other non-natural numbers - pi, e, Avogadro's number, etc.

But it should be noted that there is a second Skuse number, which in mathematics is denoted as Sk 2, which is even greater than the first Skuse number (Sk 1). Second Skewes number, was introduced by J. Skuse in the same article to denote the number up to which the Riemann hypothesis is valid. Sk 2 is equal to 10 10 10 10 3, that is, 10 10 10 1000.

As you understand, the more there are in the number of degrees, the more difficult it is to understand which of the numbers is larger. For example, looking at the Skuse numbers, it is almost impossible to figure out which of these two numbers is greater without special calculations. Thus, it becomes inconvenient to use powers for very large numbers. Moreover, you can think of such numbers (and they have already been invented) when the degrees of degrees simply do not fit on the page. Yes, what a page! They will not fit, even in a book the size of the entire Universe! In this case, the question arises how to write them down. The problem, as you understand, is solvable, and mathematicians have developed several principles for writing such numbers. True, every mathematician who asked this problem invented his own way of writing, which led to the existence of several unrelated ways to write numbers - these are the notations of Knuth, Conway, Steinhouse, etc.

Consider the notation of Hugo Steinhaus (H. Steinhaus. Mathematical Snapshots, 3rd edn. 1983), which is pretty simple. Stein House proposed to write large numbers inside geometric shapes - a triangle, a square and a circle:

Steinhaus came up with two new super-large numbers. He called the number - Megaand the number is Megiston.

The mathematician Leo Moser refined Stenhouse's notation, which was limited by the fact that if it was required to write numbers much larger than a megiston, difficulties and inconveniences arose, since many circles had to be drawn inside one another. Moser suggested drawing not circles, but pentagons after the squares, then hexagons, and so on. He also proposed a formal notation for these polygons, so that numbers could be written down without drawing complex drawings. Moser's notation looks like this:

Thus, according to Moser's notation, the Steinhouse mega is written as 2, and the megiston as 10. In addition, Leo Moser suggested calling a polygon with the number of sides equal to a mega - mega. And he proposed the number "2 in Megagon", that is 2. This number became known as the Moser number (Moser "s number) or simply as moser.

But Moser is not the largest number either. The largest number ever used in mathematical proof is a limiting value known as graham's number (Graham "s number), first used in 1977 to prove one estimate in Ramsey's theory, it is associated with bichromatic hypercubes and cannot be expressed without the special 64-level system of special mathematical symbols introduced by Knuth in 1976.

Unfortunately, the number written in Knuth's notation cannot be translated into the Moser system. Therefore, we will have to explain this system as well. In principle, there is nothing complicated in it either. Donald Knuth (yes, yes, this is the same Knuth who wrote "The Art of Programming" and created the TeX editor) came up with the concept of superdegree, which he proposed to write down with arrows pointing up:

In general, it looks like this:

I think everything is clear, so back to Graham's number. Graham proposed the so-called G-numbers:

The number G 63 became known as graham number (it is often denoted simply as G). This number is the largest known number in the world and is even included in the Guinness Book of Records. Ah, here's that Graham's number is greater than Moser's.

P.S. In order to bring great benefit to all mankind and become famous for centuries, I decided to come up with and name the largest number myself. This number will be called stasplex and it is equal to the number G 100. Remember it, and when your children ask what is the largest number in the world, tell them that this number is called stasplex.

Update (4.09.2003): Thank you all for the comments. It turned out that I made several mistakes while writing the text. I'll try to fix it now.

1. I made several mistakes at once by simply mentioning Avogadro's number. First, several people pointed out to me that in fact 6,022 · 10 23 is the most natural number. And secondly, there is an opinion, and it seems to me correct, that Avogadro's number is not at all a number in the proper, mathematical sense of the word, since it depends on the system of units. Now it is expressed in "mol -1", but if you express it, for example, in moles or something else, then it will be expressed in a completely different number, but this will not stop being Avogadro's number at all.
2. 10,000 - darkness
   100,000 - legion
   1,000,000 - leodr
   10,000,000 - a raven or a lie
   100,000,000 - deck
   Interestingly, the ancient Slavs also loved large numbers and knew how to count up to a billion. Moreover, such an account was called "small account". In some of the manuscripts, the authors also considered the "great score", reaching the number of 10 50. About numbers greater than 10 50 it was said: "And the human mind cannot understand more than this." The names used in "small count" were carried over to "great count", but with a different meaning. So, darkness meant not 10,000, but a million, legion meant darkness for those (a million million); leodr - legion of legions (10 to 24 degrees), then it was said - ten leodr, one hundred leodr, ..., and, finally, one hundred thousand leodr legion (10 to 47); leodr leodr (10 in 48) was called a raven and, finally, a deck (10 in 49).
3. The topic of national names of numbers can be expanded if we recall the forgotten Japanese system of naming numbers, which is very different from the English and American systems (I will not draw hieroglyphs, if someone is interested, they are):
   10 0 - ichi
   10 1 - jyuu
   10 2 - hyaku
   10 3 - sen
   10 4 - man
   10 8 - oku
   10 12 - chou
   10 16 - kei
   10 20 - gai
   10 24 - jyo
   10 28 - jyou
   10 32 - kou
   10 36 - kan
   10 40 - sei
   10 44 - sai
   10 48 - goku
   10 52 - gougasya
   10 56 - asougi
   10 60 - nayuta
   10 64 - fukashigi
   10 68 - muryoutaisuu
4. Regarding the numbers of Hugo Steinhaus (in Russia, for some reason his name was translated as Hugo Steinhaus). botev assures that the idea of \u200b\u200bwriting super-large numbers in the form of numbers in circles belongs not to Steinhaus, but to Daniil Kharms, who published this idea badly in the article "Raising the Number". I also want to thank Evgeny Sklyarevsky, the author of the most interesting site on entertaining mathematics on the Russian-language Internet - Watermelon, for the information that Steinhaus came up with not only the mega and megiston numbers, but also suggested another number mezzon, equal (in its notation) to "3 in a circle".
5. Now about the number myriad or myrioi. There are different opinions about the origin of this number. Some believe that it originated in Egypt, while others believe that it was born only in Ancient Greece. Be that as it may in reality, but the myriad gained fame thanks to the Greeks. Myriad was the name for 10,000, but there were no names for numbers over ten thousand. However, in the note "Psammit" (ie the calculus of sand), Archimedes showed how one can systematically construct and name arbitrarily large numbers. In particular, placing 10,000 (myriad) grains of sand in a poppy seed, he finds that in the Universe (a sphere with a diameter of a myriad of Earth's diameters) no more than 1063 grains of sand would fit (in our notation). It is curious that modern calculations of the number of atoms in the visible universe lead to the number 10 67 (just a myriad of times more). Archimedes suggested the following names for numbers:
   1 myriad \u003d 10 4.
   1 d-myriad \u003d myriad myriad \u003d 10 8.
   1 three-myriad \u003d di-myriad of di-myriads \u003d 10 16.
   1 tetra-myriad \u003d three-myriad three-myriad \u003d 10 32.
   etc.

If there are any comments -

The famous search engine, as well as the company that created this system and many other products, are named after the number of googol - one of the largest numbers in the infinite set natural numbers... However, the largest number is not even googol, but googolplex.

The number googolplex was first proposed by Edward Kazner in 1938, it is one and an incredible number of zeros. The name comes from another number - googol - one with a hundred zeros. Usually, the number of googol is written as 10 100, or 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

Googolplex, in turn, is the number ten to the power of googol. Usually it is written like this: 10 10 ^ 100, and this is a very, very many zeros. There are so many of them that if you decided to count the number of zeros using individual particles in the universe, the particles would run out before the zeros in the googolplex.

According to Carl Sagan, it is impossible to write this number, because it will take more space to write it than exists in the visible universe.

How brain mail works - the transmission of messages from brain to brain via the Internet

10 secrets of the world that science has finally revealed

Top 10 questions about the universe that scientists are looking for answers right now

2,500 years of scientific mystery: why we yawn

3 most stupid arguments that opponents of the theory of evolution use to justify their ignorance

According to the new theory, parallel universes can actually exist

Any two objects in a vacuum will fall at the same speed.