K.C. Cole is an award-winning science writer, whose 1998 book *The Universe and the Teacup—The Mathematics of Truth and Beauty*, I typically found at a used book sale. My wife chided me that it could now have only antiquarian interest. But I figured mathematics can’t have changed that much in 16 years. Two and two still make four, no?

The book broadly (and somewhat poetically) talks about the intersection between mathematics and life. It has some good stuff. One chapter discusses how goofy our risk perceptions can be. People worry about pesticide residues on fruit (annual U.S. death toll: zero) but not going for a drive (death toll: 30,000). Similarly, those terrified of child abduction drive kids to school – exposing them to the vastly greater auto accident risk. (All this echoed the “Freedom from Fear” chapter in my own very excellent book, *The Case for Rational Optimism.)*

However, not only did I also find some things I disagreed with, but some major bloopers.

Cole brings up one of my favorite paradoxes: “This sentence is false.” It contradicts itself. If the sentence is true, that means it’s false, so it can’t be true; but if it’s not, then it *is* true. However, Cole concludes this is no more paradoxical than the conflict between an American who thinks June is a summer month and an Australian who calls it winter. But that paradox is resolved with just a little more information. No additional information will resolve “this sentence is false.”

And how about this: “Those of us reared on Euclid swallowed without thinking all those axioms about the obviousness of such propositions as: two parallel lines never meet. Yet one only needs to look at the lines of longitude – which are parallel at the equator – to see that they do.” *Hello?* That’s *non-Euclidean* geometry! Euclid’s geometry applies only to flat surfaces, not curved ones (like the Earth’s).*

Then Cole says a googolplex is “a googol multiplied by itself a hundred times.” I’m no award-winning science writer, but even I knew this is wrong. (To confirm that, I googled it, of course.)

A googol is the number 10 to the hundredth power; i.e., 10 multiplied by itself a hundred times; i.e., 1 followed by 100 zeroes. A googolplex (contrary to Cole) is the number 10 to the googol power; i.e., 1 followed by a googol zeroes.

These are *very* big numbers. Cole observes that we have trouble grasping how much bigger a billion is than a million, or a trillion than a billion. A billion is 1 followed by nine zeroes; a trillion by 12 zeroes; a quadrillion by 15 zeroes, and so on, for every three zeroes, through quintillion, sextillion, septillion, etc., each a thousand times bigger than the last. But we run out of those “illion” names long before reaching the end of all hundred zeroes in a googol.

(NOTE: The following has been modified, from what I originally posted, based upon helpful comments from my friend Professor Judy Halstead).

Now, I asked myself, might Cole’s definition of a googolplex – a googol to the hundredth power – actually *equal *(the correct) 10 to the googol power? I didn’t think so, but how can one do this math? Not on a calculator! Too many zeroes. Indeed, there literally would not be enough space in the Universe for all the zeroes. But one can do it using exponents. (Since I don’t know how exponents might be displayed on your screen, I will use the notation “10^100” to stand for ten to the hundredth power).

Ten to the googol power (a true googolplex) can be written as 10^(10^100). Cole’s false googolplex, a googol to the hundredth power, would be (10^100)^100. To multiply a googol by itself once, you add the superscripts; 100+100=200; that is, you get a number with 200 zeroes. Twice, and it’s 300 zeroes. So a googol to the hundredth power would be 1 followed by 10,000 zeroes. And that, of course, is *way* less than 1 followed by a googol zeroes!

By the way, yes, Google was named for googol, to evoke the vastness of the information accessible. But they inadvertently (?) got the spelling wrong!

When my daughter Elizabeth was eight, I explained googol to her. She was fascinated. Then she asked if the Universe would last a googol years.

Not a simple question. So I answered, “possibly.”

“Well,” she said, “if I’m eight now, then I’ll be a googol and eight.”

Now there’s an optimist for you.

* In fairness, Cole later does discuss non-Euclidean geometry.

Tags: mathematics

December 30, 2014 at 3:17 pm

Frank, I think you may be mistaken.

A googol is 10 to the 100th power.

Cole’s googolplex is (10 to the 100th power) to the 100th power, which is 10 to the 10,000th power, or 1 followed by 10,000 zeros.

Your definition of googolplex is 10 to the googol power, or 1 followed by a googol zeros.

The ratio of your googolplex to Cole’s is 1 followed by (googolplex minus 4) zeros.

The problem came when you said that a googol squared is one followed by 10,000 zeros. It is actually one followed by 200 zeros.

Having said all that, I have never been sure of the value of naming 10 to the 100th power as a “googol”. Does this in any way make computation easier? I doubt it.

December 30, 2014 at 4:20 pm

Joel, thanks, you are correct, I guess you didn’t see the updated and corrected version of this blog post!!

December 30, 2014 at 11:47 pm

I read that book too. It’s not one of the great ones. There are some good “recreational math” books around, though. When my memory returns to me I can give you a few titles.

January 6, 2015 at 1:24 pm

WELL, HOWEVER BIG A “GOOGOL” IS, OBAMA SEEMS TO BE TRYING TO MATCH IT IN REGARDS TO THE NATIONAL DEBT!