Star survey reaches 70 sextillion

[atari_eric]

Hopefully Aaron will fix this shortcoming in the next patch.

Story. (http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/07/22/stars.survey/index.html)

[Fyron]

LOL! Think of how unmanageable the game would be with even 1 million stars in it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Keep in mind that not all stars have planets orbiting them. You can think of those stars with no planets as being there, but not having WPs as they are useless systems (except for hidden bases, but those would be minor and better in a Nebula anyways). http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[PvK]

On the other hand, not all SE4 systems have stars in them...

There's a good reason the playing fields are labelled "quadrants" and not "galaxies".

PvK

[geoschmo]

Se4 Risk will have a meta-map with all 70 sextillion stars. We are gonna use an actual map of the universe. Of course by the time it's done the stars will have all moved so much we'll need to revise the map. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[PvK]

Which you will be doing by hand using the SE4 map editor? <g>

PvK

[Rollo]

Well, keep in mind that in the system maps background each of those white or grey specks is a star as well.

I never counted them. Nor do they have impact on the game...

Why am I posting this?

*Rollo wanders off...

[Kamog]

Maybe for SE5, he could make the map infinite in size. You start off with a small map as usual, but when you explore the systems at the edges, more systems are added to the perimeter of the map, so that the galaxy expands. The more you explore, the more the outer envelope expands. The systems will be randomly created at the fringes as you explore further and further out.

[dogscoff]

ANyone remember Frontier: Elite II? That had about a squillion consistent systems in it (and each system had planets, and each planet had terrain). And all that from a 880k floppy in my Amiga 500!

[Taera]

hmm.. how much is it Squillion?

OFF TOPIC what are the names for higher numbers anyways? its Million, Billion...?

[Narf'scompatshop]

trillion.

and there's a googal to, but i forget how large that is. mathematician's son came up with that. sounds about right for a really big number.

[ July 25, 2003, 08:55: Message edited by: Narf'scompatshop ]

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by Taera:
OFF TOPIC what are the names for higher numbers anyways? its Million, Billion...?<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">10^3: Thousand; 10^6: Million; 10^9: Billion; 10^12: Trillion ...
... By one definition of the words, anyway.

Check the italics; they're numbers (or nearly so - I could be a letter off in highlighting them, or there could have been some warp to it over time) in Latin (or is it Greek?) Mi: one; Bi: two; Tri: three. Multiply the matching number by three, add three, and you get the number of zero's that follow a one to get that cardinal number. In theory, you can learn to count in Greek (or is it Latin?) and go as high as you like in that fashion, but it quickly becomes easier to use scientific notation, so almost nobody uses the standard Version for cardinals above a trillion.

[ July 25, 2003, 08:56: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

[Taera]

well, i was just curious about what other names for big numbers are there - like that sextillion, 10^21

[ July 25, 2003, 09:11: Message edited by: Taera ]

[Arkcon]

Scientists don't use words like million, billion, trillion because they mean different numbers in different countries. It's too early in the morning for me to work out the digits. Suffice to say, most European Languages use mill- to mean a thousand. But American english uses the term billion where the British term milliard is otherwise used.

And I doubt anyone uses tetartillion, quintillion, and I might even be giving the wrong words here.

The article uses sextillion, but face it, the journalist just liked the word. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif But then there would be heptillion, octillion, nonillion, decaillion, undecaillion, dodecaillion, ... you all know the sequence. You. Yeah you, guy who played DnD, with the polyhedria dice, I'm talking to you.

[ July 25, 2003, 14:57: Message edited by: Arkcon ]

[oleg]

Originally posted by Narf'scompatshop:
trillion.

and there's a googal to, but i forget how large that is. mathematician's son came up with that. sounds about right for a really big number.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">10^100 It is bigger than number of atoms in Universe, Last time I counted them http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[Arkcon]

Originally posted by oleg:
10^100 It is bigger than number of atoms in Universe, Last time I counted them http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That's the way I heard it as well. Something on the order of 10^40 atoms of hydrogen in the entire universe (as best as we can understand it so far). And perhaps 10^44 seconds in the lifespan of the universe -- from big bang to big crunch or heat death as I recall. That would be in the dodecillions -- if someone wanted to use that name for the number

[ July 26, 2003, 01:18: Message edited by: Arkcon ]

[Narf'scompatshop]

not all the atoms in the universe are hydrogen. most, i guess but not all.

[oleg]

Originally posted by Narf'scompatshop:
not all the atoms in the universe are hydrogen. most, i guess but not all.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Number of all other atoms is completely negligeable. Less than a tiny fraction of percent.

[Erax]

Here's how it goes, AFAIK : million, billion, trillion, quadrillion, quintillion, sextillion, septillion, octillion, nonillion, decillion. This sequence uses the Latin roots for numbers, not the Greek roots (tetra-, penta-, hexa-, hepta-).

Speaking a Latin language can be handy once in a very great while. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

And 'milliard' is actually a French term which was borrowed by British English.

[ July 26, 2003, 14:08: Message edited by: Erax ]

[Arkcon]

Right. So. For American English at least, and for the truly pedantic nerds among us -- (The applicant for your consideration as the biggest nerd speaking here, ahem) -- the list would go like this:
(Wish I knew how to set the small font like everyone else does)

10^3 thousand
10^6 million,
10^9 billion,
10^12 trillion,
10^15 quadrillion,
10^18 quintillion,
10^21 sextillion,
10^24 septillion,
10^27 octillion,
10^30 nonillion,
10^33 decillion
10^36 undecillion
10^39 dodecillion
Insert - 10^40, number of hydrogen atoms in the universe, we guess (well astrophysicists, not me personally)
10^42 tridecilion
Insert - 10^44, number of seconds in the lifetime of the universe, we guess
10^45 quadecilion
10^48 quintdecillion
10^51 sexdecillion
10^54 septdecillion
10^57 octdecillion
10^60 nondecillion
10^63 eicoillion
Insert - 10^64, energy, in joules, of the Big Bang, we guess, unless someone was there. (anyone?)
10^66 uneicoillion
Insert - Official beginning of numbers that have no meaning to human minds

[Fyron]

Insert - Official beginning of numbers that have no meaning to human minds <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually, numbers greater than 4 have no meaning to the human mind. Every number beyond that is thought of as sets of 4s (including partial 4s). Of course, this is at the most basic level of thinking, and we are obviously quite capable of fooling ourselves into thinking we can comprehend big numbers. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[Arkcon]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Insert - Official beginning of numbers that have no meaning to human minds <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually, numbers greater than 4 have no meaning to the human mind. Every number beyond that is thought of as sets of 4s (including partial 4s). Of course, this is at the most basic level of thinking, and we are obviously quite capable of fooling ourselves into thinking we can comprehend big numbers. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Huh http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

I mean to say, ... huh?

Wait, I'm fascinated now. Where does 4 come as the basic unit of human math capacity.

I saw on t.v. that tacky movie Darryl Hannah and the clan of the cave bear, and she could count higher than the head geek neandertal, but seriously who came up with the 4 thing?

[Kamog]

Only 4? Surely humans can comprehend numbers bigger than 4 ??

If we're talking about numbers we can visualize in our minds, I think it's bigger than 4 but probably less than 100. I can visualize geometric shapes like triangle, square, pentagon, hexagon, and octagon, so I know I can visualize at least up to 8. I can visualize the image of two hands, with 10 fingers, so I know I can visualize 10. Or a dozen eggs for 12.

Then in my mind I can picture a group of, say 5 octagons arranged in a pentagon pattern, which make 40 sides, and so on. But it does get more difficult when the number gets much bigger than that.

[Fyron]

I did not mean pictures, I meant the numerical concept of 4 itself.

[Baron Munchausen]

Short-term memory deals with 4-5 objects at a time. This has been verified by extensive psychological testing. Think of trying to remember phone numbers, addresses, etc. You can't handle more than 4 or 5 in short-term memory without losing track of something. That's why phone numbers were organized as they were, btw, in little Groups. It makes many numbers into larger 'chunks' data. Committing information to long-term memory is a different matter, of course, but that takes time.

This is a completely different thing from comprehension of numbers in the abstract. It's certainly true that larger numbers get more and more difficult to truly understand. But the cut-off is not quite as abrupt, or as small, as the number 4.

[ July 26, 2003, 23:24: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

[Arkcon]

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
Short-term memory deals with 4-5 objects at a time. This has been verified by extensive psychological testing. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Wow. O.K. That does explain a lot. I gotta read up on this. Sometimes I have real crappy memory, can't remember what I was just talking about. Do some people have worse short term memory than others? Just how do different people differ in how their memory works?

[Narf'scompatshop]

i was going to post something, but i forgot what about. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[Fyron]

Hrm... I guess the specifics did not make it past short term memory in this case. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[TerranC]

Originally posted by Arkcon:
Insert - Official beginning of numbers that have no meaning to human minds<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">10^100: Google.

[Narf'scompatshop]

i'm pretty sure it's a googal.

[Fyron]

Isn't it a googalplex?

[Phoenix-D]

Actually I think the "plex" number is an even -larger- one..

[Slick]

Yes, 10^100 is a googol. The term was coined by a mathematician (I think Kasner ???) who got the word from his young nephew or relative.

10^googol is a googolplex.

Numbers of this magnitude are rarely used. I have seen them in calculations of things like estimating the number of electrons in the universe and things like that.

Slick.