Zompist Bboard Again

malloc wrote: ↑Thu Oct 01, 2026 6:44 pm According to the relevant Wikipedia articles, ancient China and India both had words for massive numbers, such as 載 zǎi for 10⁴⁴ and महौघ mahaugha for 10⁶². Given the absence of anything like trillion-dollar corporations or high energy physics, what exactly were they using such large numbers for?

Whimsy... basically why we have names for certain high numbers, like "googol".

Furthermore, how did they derive these numbers etymologically?

Mahaugha means "great current". Parardha, used for 10¹⁷, means "higher part". It's basically conlanging.

A question I find more interesting is how those particular values ended up being conventionalised.

KamareKitsune wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2026 8:51 am A question I find more interesting is how those particular values ended up being conventionalised.

Presumably the same way ‘googol’ did — one person suggested those values and others followed.

KamareKitsune wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2026 8:51 amA question I find more interesting is how those particular values ended up being conventionalised.

Indeed. The literal translations of many such numbers have no obvious connection to large numbers and using them for particular numbers sounds quite arbitrary. According to the Wiktionary article, the morpheme 載 zǎi otherwise serves as a counter word for years. Nothing about it or even alternative readings of the character suggests an exceptionally large number.

Well, L. Ron Hubbard said that the operating frequency of a thetan was 10^69 Hz, so presumably it's nothing more than the desire to inspire awe with Very BIg Numbers.

alice wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2026 2:50 pm Well, L. Ron Hubbard said that the operating frequency of a thetan was 10^69 Hz, so presumably it's nothing more than the desire to inspire awe with Very BIg Numbers.

That's way shorter than Planck time!

WeepingElf wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2026 3:40 pm

alice wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2026 2:50 pm Well, L. Ron Hubbard said that the operating frequency of a thetan was 10^69 Hz, so presumably it's nothing more than the desire to inspire awe with Very BIg Numbers.

That's way shorter than Planck time!

Planck was clearly an SP.

alice wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2026 2:50 pmWell, L. Ron Hubbard said that the operating frequency of a thetan was 10^69 Hz, so presumably it's nothing more than the desire to inspire awe with Very BIg Numbers.

True enough, although science and other developments have introduced the concrete need for very big (and indeed very small) numbers. Any language capable of functioning in the modern world needs some way of handling such numbers clearly and efficiently, otherwise its speakers will struggle with astrophysics or hyperinflation.

malloc wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2026 4:41 pm True enough, although science and other developments have introduced the concrete need for very big (and indeed very small) numbers. Any language capable of functioning in the modern world needs some way of handling such numbers clearly and efficiently, otherwise its speakers will struggle with astrophysics or hyperinflation.

Well, all you need is math and a way to read it out loud. Take your example of mahaugha = 10⁶². Wikipedia helpfully annotates it as "hundred novemdecillion". I'd put it to you that almost no one could read that and work out what a novemdecillion is.

zompist wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2026 5:23 pm Well, all you need is math and a way to read it out loud. Take your example of mahaugha = 10⁶². Wikipedia helpfully annotates it as "hundred novemdecillion". I'd put it to you that almost no one could read that and work out what a novemdecillion is.

It's obviously 10¹¹⁴. Lots of us have studied Latin, and I, for one, am not dead yet.

bradrn wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2026 8:59 am

KamareKitsune wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2026 8:51 am A question I find more interesting is how those particular values ended up being conventionalised.

Presumably the same way ‘googol’ did — one person suggested those values and others followed.

One has to wonder whether these words truly meet Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion. There seem to be various systems within closely related cultures.

Richard W wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2026 9:06 pmIt's obviously 10¹¹⁴. Lots of us have studied Latin, and I, for one, am not dead yet.

Only true for the long scale. The short scale interprets that number as 10⁶⁰ instead. Just one of the many complications that large numbers seem to entail.

Richard W wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2026 9:16 pm

bradrn wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2026 8:59 am

KamareKitsune wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2026 8:51 am A question I find more interesting is how those particular values ended up being conventionalised.

Presumably the same way ‘googol’ did — one person suggested those values and others followed.

One has to wonder whether these words truly meet Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion. There seem to be various systems within closely related cultures.

Are you one of those perfidious deletionists?

Richard W wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2026 9:06 pm

zompist wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2026 5:23 pm Well, all you need is math and a way to read it out loud. Take your example of mahaugha = 10⁶². Wikipedia helpfully annotates it as "hundred novemdecillion". I'd put it to you that almost no one could read that and work out what a novemdecillion is.

It's obviously 10¹¹⁴. Lots of us have studied Latin, and I, for one, am not dead yet.

It's not obvious that "novemdec-" is intended to be 19, or 90, or whatever. Latin 19 is ūndēvīgintī.

Leider spreche ich kein Lateinisch.

(Anders als im Französischen kann ich im Lateinischen nicht so etwas sagen, wie "Je ne parle pas français".)

(people in this thread): "I don't get it. How can 'butterfly' mean a lepidoptera insect if there is no way a person could reasonably work out that it's a lepidoptera from the semantics of the word's components? And if they made up the word, how could they do that, confident that others will understand them, without a pre-existing insect naming convention? What if someone thinks it's a beetle? How could such a word arise? This is such a mystery!"
(Mark, pinching the bridge of his nose): "Someone called it a butterfly and everybody thought it was cool. That's it. There's no code."

Travis B. wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2026 11:16 pm Leider spreche ich kein Lateinisch.

(Anders als im Französischen kann ich im Lateinischen nicht so etwas sagen, wie "Je ne parle pas français".)

No comma required. And it's more usual to simply say Latein - kein Latein in the first sentence, auf Latein in the second.
"I don't speak Latin" would be Latine non loquor.

Relevant: how people of ancient India came up with big numbers.

(don't worry, it's slow content, not some musicked out brainrot)

Zju wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2026 11:25 am Relevant: how people of ancient India came up with big numbers.

(don't worry, it's slow content, not some musicked out brainrot)

Ooh, Numberphile. I wonder how I hadn't seen this video yet.

Zju wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2026 11:25 amRelevant: how people of ancient India came up with big numbers.

(don't worry, it's slow content, not some musicked out brainrot)

Cool, those are some amazing numbers. So it sounds like religion and mysticism provided considerable impetus for gargantuan numbers in this case.