Wealthy ROFFIAN- ME!

"Danl" wrote in message
...

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...
For many of us, dozens, half pints or bushels would still do as well.

Wolfgang


Not to put too fine a point on it, but the universal unit of measure is
still, AFAIK, barleycorns per fortnight^2.

Well, and that's o.k.......till the barley gets wet....and it
sprouts......and then it gets too close to the fire......and then somebody
steps on it and crushes it......and then it gets wet again......and it
starts to foam......and then, in a couple of weeks, it ends up on the
neighbors shrubs.......and THEN where's your standard?

Wolfgang
and, no, grapes don't work any better.

"Stan Gula" wrote in message
...
"Joe Ellis" wrote in message
...
then nothing I know of up until

10^100: google (no, I'm not kidding... and it's where the search engine
got it's name.)

Well, actually, to put a nerdy point on it, the number is spelled googol.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=googol

Google explains the name at the bottom of this page:
http://www.google.com/corporate/index.html

Oh, and congratulations Lou! When the money comes in, contact me because
if
you let me borrow a mil. I can get $75 mil. from my source in Nigeria.

Um......I got 75 sources in Nigeria.

Wolfgang
a couple more iterations and we can all retire!

Are you absolutely certain?

mark
"rw" wrote in message
m...
Lat705 wrote:
When you consider that the number of atoms in the known universe could
be
expressed in terms of googleplex,


Based on whose defenition of the totality of the universe??

Actually, there aren't even close to a google of atoms in the
*observable* universe, MUCH LESS a googleplex.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Lat705 wrote:
When you consider that the number of atoms in the known universe could be
expressed in terms of googleplex,


Based on whose defenition of the totality of the universe??

Actually, there aren't even close to a google of atoms in the
*observable* universe, MUCH LESS a googleplex.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 18:28:16 -0400, "Mark H. Bowen"
wrote:

Are you absolutely certain?

Of course he is...Stevie is ALWAYS certain he's right, and they don't
make uncertain types the Mayor of Ketchum, Jr...now, to me, the real fun
question would be "How do you know?"

HTH,
R...chimedes (I like pie...)

mark
"rw" wrote in message
om...
Lat705 wrote:
When you consider that the number of atoms in the known universe could
be
expressed in terms of googleplex,


Based on whose defenition of the totality of the universe??

Actually, there aren't even close to a google of atoms in the
*observable* universe, MUCH LESS a googleplex.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

I wasn't questioning his veracity, I just wanted to know if he held
steadfast to his posted words.

I do know without absolute uncertainty that I don't no were I should not sea
to fine Dipfritter.

Mark
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 18:28:16 -0400, "Mark H. Bowen"
wrote:

Are you absolutely certain?

Of course he is...Stevie is ALWAYS certain he's right, and they don't
make uncertain types the Mayor of Ketchum, Jr...now, to me, the real fun
question would be "How do you know?"

HTH,
R...chimedes (I like pie...)

mark
"rw" wrote in message
om...
Lat705 wrote:
When you consider that the number of atoms in the known universe
could
be
expressed in terms of googleplex,


Based on whose defenition of the totality of the universe??

Actually, there aren't even close to a google of atoms in the
*observable* universe, MUCH LESS a googleplex.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 20:52:00 GMT, "Stan Gula"
wrote:

"Joe Ellis" wrote in message
...
then nothing I know of up until

10^100: google (no, I'm not kidding... and it's where the search engine
got it's name.)

Well, actually, to put a nerdy point on it...

Oops...86,400 seconds too late, and 100 cents US/348.12CDN/.84EURO
short...besides, the glass ceiling of nerdy has long been lying in
shards amongst the peanut shells, sawdust, and assorted feathers on the
floor of the ROFF roadhouse...

HTH,
R
....who wonders, in such matters as number of atoms in the universe and
Kreh numbers, why "who gives a ****?" isn't plenty close enough...

"rw" wrote in message
m...
Lat705 wrote:
When you consider that the number of atoms in the known universe could
be
expressed in terms of googleplex,


Based on whose defenition of the totality of the universe??

Actually, there aren't even close to a google of atoms in the
*observable* universe, MUCH LESS a googleplex.

Umm, the word is GOOGOL. And read this from www.googol.com:
--------------------------------------
Googolhedron - A 3 dimensional shape bounded by 1 x 10100 similar
polygons. This shape would look very much like a sphere. Having this many
sides or facets would make it smoother than any man made object. Although,
you could never have a googolhedron because there are not a googol particles
in the universe.

-------------------------------------------
And your opposition to his statement was completely invalid. You needed to
state a larger area than he did, not a smaller.

--riverman
(logic, spelling, and all that.)

Mark H. Bowen wrote:
Are you absolutely certain?

Yep. I counted them. :-)

For a more complete explanation than you probably want, try:

http://van.hep.uiuc.edu/van/qa/secti.../982241844.htm


--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

No further explanation was necessary, as long as you are absolutely certain
that you didn't miss any atoms, or count any more than once!

Mark
"rw" wrote in message
m...
Mark H. Bowen wrote:
Are you absolutely certain?

Yep. I counted them. :-)

For a more complete explanation than you probably want, try:


http://van.hep.uiuc.edu/van/qa/secti.../982241844.htm


--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.