googolplexplexplex

From googolplexplex +‎ -plex.

googolplexplexplex

1. (rare) The number 10 raised to the power of one googolplexplex.

   Synonym: googoltriplex

   • 1990, Gary Noland, Teatime in Purgatory: For Narrator, Piano Improviser, and Pantomimists: Opus 16, Berkeley, Calif.: Freeland Publications, →OCLC, pages 27–28:

     Thereupon, we shall label the number designated by a one followed by googolplexplex zeros as "googolplexplexplex," and then the number designated by a one followed by googolplexplexplex zeros as "googolplexplexplexplex," and so on, until we've added googolplex "plexes" to our original "googol," a number that (for lack of anything else coming to mind) we'll name after this author, hence: ["]Nolandplex."

   • 2000 August 7, Gerry Quinn, “Simple (?) probability problem”, in rec.puzzles‎^[1] (Usenet), archived from the original on 30 December 2025:

     But the math is very nice and simple when you accept my claim! On the other hand, if I accept your claim it becomes quite horrific. Let's take the value g to represent the probability that the number will be between 1/googolplexplex and googolplexplex. What is the chance that it will be between googolplexplex and googolplexplexplex (a much larger range)? Greater or lesser than g? How soon before your totals add up to more than 1?

   • 2010 February 10, “To Infinity and Beyond...”, in Horizon, season 46, episode 12, spoken by Steven Berkoff, London: BBC Television, →ISBN, →OCLC:

     One, two, three... four, five, six... seven, eight, nine... […] For most people, I suppose the biggest number they’ll likely meet will be somewhere in the billions or maybe the trillions, which might be something like the budget deficit or military spending or something like that. Mathematicians tend to use bigger numbers than that. Googolplexplexplex three, googolplexplexplex four... You made me do this! Googolplexplexplex five, googolplexplexplex six... When I get to 199, then that would be too hard, I would have to stop.

   • 2020 September 8, Jim Burns, “Arbitrariness in set theory: "Every" is not "all".”, in sci.logic‎^[2] (Usenet), archived from the original on 30 December 2025:

     If omega were a reallyreallyreallybig but finite number, such as googolplexplexplex, the sequence would end before googolplexplexplex, it would have an immediate predecessor, you could step to it, though only in principle. All the properties you have insisted that omega must have, on pain of being found inconsistent. But that's not what omega is.