Googleplex
posted by: pouliot
March 17, 2007
7:42 pm
To: Protect the Rock
RE: "I remember my dad told me about a number called a googaplex"
The word is "googleplex." In the book by Kasner & Newman one of the authors (I think it was Kasner) tells how his nephew invented the &googleplex," Kasner was discussing numbers with his nephew, a boy of about 8, I believe. The young fellow invented the name "google" for the number formed by writing a hundred zeros after the number 1. (To grasp the size of that number think for a moment that "100" is the number 1 with only 2 zeros after it. From a different viewpoint, a "google" is large enough to count all the hydrogen atoms in the universe.)
Sometime later, the nephew said that he had identified a number larger than a "google." Kasner asked him what it was and the nephew said "the number 1 with a google of zeros after it." The name for that number is "googleplex." To grasp the enormity of a "googleplex", consider: there isn't enough time estimated to remain in the life of the universe to write that number out.
As if this weren't enough, I've heard the nephew went on to invent a way of writing even larger numbers down. This is basically a system of notation that depends on recursive definitions and geometric shapes. It is too difficult to illustrate in text alone. I've forgotten what the numbers are called (mega-something I think) but one day I may remember.
posted by: pouliot
March 18, 2007
6:11 pm
To: The wayfarer to this lonely outpost
I think it was "megiston".
posted by: wljewell
March 23, 2007
3:16 pm
God loves you .
And, of every particle of every atom, uncountable by any name, God knows, holds in grace and yields to His children for their place before returning Home.
Remember, I love you, too
Through Christ, with Christ, in Christ,
Pristinus Sapienter
(wljewell @catholicexchange.com or ... yahoo.com)
posted by: pouliot
March 30, 2007
5:40 pm
To: P.S.
Posing me conundrums are you? You have me over a barrel. That could be your own imagery or you may have borrowed from the eastern Master. The parallelism is very close, almost too close to be coincidental. But I cannot be certain. So help me out: Is that your own verse or have you borrowed to some amount?
posted by: wljewell
April 1, 2007
5:57 am
God loves you .
+
Hello, Sigma,
+
My 'conundrum' is plain logic from out of astrophysics and philosophy, and His own Word.
+ God from love of His children made all and maintains all.
+ + God made all, all matter, including His children from 'nothing but love', and of incredibly small and simply functional particles in complex relationships.
+ + + God holds all, and for His love of us, all and sundry of particle to atom to molecule to organ to Old Sigma, in the palm of His hand.
The extension of relationships from God's creative perspective is:
+ for us to be awed by His power - i.e., learn fear of the Lord - in observing the particles and their harmony of functions;
+ for us to be stewards of His created, useful goodness for us;
+ for us to love and be loved with each other, through, with and in love and for love of God.
Simple logic . . . yes? . . . no?
Remember, I love you, too
Through Christ, with Christ, in Christ,
Pristinus Sapienter
(wljewell @catholicexchange.com or ... yahoo.com)
posted by: pouliot
April 1, 2007
2:04 pm
To: P.S.
posted by: mkochan
April 1, 2007
5:10 pm
I learned this bit years ago:
The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.
And that inverted Bowl we call The Sky,
Whereunder crawling coop't we live and die,
Lift not thy hands to It for help — for It
Rolls impotently on as Thou or I.
This though is fatalism. The God we wroship is not here described, for He is Love. He dies for us; He does not toy with us.
posted by: pouliot
April 3, 2007
4:59 pm
To: MKochan
Hmmm. It seems I've confounded Kayyam with aomeone else (or it's two of his poems I've mingled). The image I see in the last lines I quoted is of a caring master who places the "'pieces" back into the closet from whence they came. Sort of a return to the potter.