Again, I read in a mag that there is a number that is scientifically.?

Question

But too large to write even with scientific notation.

Sorry that's Scientifically significant

Answer 1

You might be thinking of Graham's number?

Answer 2

Well, there are numbers that are, *in practical terms*, too large to write, even in scientific notation. By "in practical terms," I mean that even if you wrote them in scientific notation in 8-point Times font, the text would be larger than the surface area of the earth. Or, worse, that would have more digits than there are atoms in the universe!

There is, however, no number that cannot *in theory* be expressed in scientific notation.

Answer 3

balderdash !

scientific calculations arrise from measurements and calculations based on those measurements must be able to be manipulated by our system of mathematics.
Graham's number was used in a proof, (I believe as a limit).
While it is an exceedingly large number, It can't be scientifically relevant since our system does not allow for its manipulation.

I could create an even larger number by defining Graham's number as G and calling my new number G^(G^G), but what use would it have ?

Answer 4

In fact there are numbers that can't be expressed in scientific notation. Those are the noncomputable numbers.

Computable numbers are the algebraic numbers (such as rational numbers and their roots) as well as some transcendental numbers such as e and pi.

But computable numbers are just a countable subset of the uncountable set of real numbers. Virtually every real number is noncomputable which, in essence, makes them impossible to write down.

Answer 5

That is scientifically what?

ETA: Are you talking about Graham's number???