Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The naming procedure for large numbers is based on taking the number n occurring in 10 3n+3 (short scale) or 10 6n (long scale) and concatenating Latin roots for its units, tens, and hundreds place, together with the suffix -illion. In this way, numbers up to 10 3·999+3 = 10 3000 (short scale) or 10 6·999 = 10 5994 (long scale
Mathematics – Poker: The odds of being dealt a royal flush in poker are 649,739 to 1 against, for a probability of 1.5 × 10 −6 (0.000 15%). [9] Mathematics – Poker: The odds of being dealt a straight flush (other than a royal flush) in poker are 72,192 to 1 against, for a probability of 1.4 × 10 −5 (0.0014%).
The long and short scales are two powers of ten number naming systems that are consistent with each other for smaller numbers, but are contradictory for larger numbers. [1] [2] Other numbering systems, particularly in East Asia and South Asia, have large number naming that differs from both the long and short scales.
A list of articles about numbers (not about numerals). Topics include powers of ten, notable integers, prime and cardinal numbers, and the myriad system.
To put in perspective the size of a googol, the mass of an electron, just under 10 −30 kg, can be compared to the mass of the visible universe, estimated at between 10 50 and 10 60 kg. [5] It is a ratio in the order of about 10 80 to 10 90 , or at most one ten-billionth of a googol (0.00000001% of a googol).
Aegean numbers – Numeral system used by the Minoans and Mycenaeans; Australian Aboriginal enumeration – Counting system used by Australian Aboriginals; Armenian numerals – historic numeral system using the majuscules of the Armenian alphabet
The same suffix may be used with more than one category of number, as for example the orginary numbers secondary and tertiary and the distributive numbers binary and ternary. For the hundreds, there are competing forms: Those in -gent- , from the original Latin, and those in -cent- , derived from centi- , etc. plus the prefixes for 1 through 9 .
This is the minimum number of characters needed to encode a 32 bit number into 5 printable characters in a process similar to MIME-64 encoding, since 85 5 is only slightly bigger than 2 32. Such method is 6.7% more efficient than MIME-64 which encodes a 24 bit number into 4 printable characters.