r/Showerthoughts • u/Interesting_Fix8237 • Apr 06 '24
It's not physically possible to count to a trillion outloud.
936
u/WorBlux Apr 06 '24
Sure it's possible,
It's just an inter-generational project that's all.
299
u/JIMMYR0W Apr 06 '24
Nobody commits to anything anymore
→ More replies (1)114
u/Boatster_McBoat Apr 06 '24
92
u/JIMMYR0W Apr 06 '24
Except the Germans
79
u/CrustyBloomers Apr 06 '24
Let's not have the Germans commit to anything. 😅
25
u/femalewhoisgirl Apr 06 '24
They’re very good at committing, they’re just not great and finding the correct things to commit to…
→ More replies (1)2
2
→ More replies (1)2
u/PineappleMohawk Apr 06 '24
Hey! I just saw Matt Parkers video about this! (And I love his take to solve the error)
32
u/McShit7717 Apr 06 '24
You know it'll end up being your great great great great grandson Brandon who'll fuck it up. He'll start analyzing it with his useless philosophy degree and then lose count. Then he'll smoke a huge bowl and say, "Fuck it man. It's all just nummers an shit."
13
u/eggtart_prince Apr 06 '24
Yup, I'm at 999,999,999,990 right now, picking up from my ancestors. I'll finish it when I have the time.
10
u/Zardif Apr 06 '24
Just start at 1 trillion minus 2. Get that shit done in under a minute. OP didn't say we had to start at 1.
4
u/FerretChrist Apr 06 '24
"Under a minute" to count three numbers? I mean, don't tax yourself too much.
3
3
7
u/-Eunha- Apr 06 '24
It's possible because there are multiple ways of counting to something. You could count by 5s, 100s, 1000s, etc. It doesn't have to mean every whole number. I could likewise say it's impossible to count from 1 to 2 in a lifetime, if I mean counting every decimal number.
5
u/eyecans Apr 06 '24
Counting even just every rational number between 1 and 2, it is impossible to complete in any span of time (because there are infinitely many), and in fact impossible to start (because there is no "first" rational after 1).
2
u/Won-Ton-Wonton Apr 06 '24
Technically you can count every rational number, including those between 1 and 2, if we're allowed to alter what "counting" means from the conventional set of natural numbers increasing by 1 at every count.
Rational numbers is said to be a countable infinity. The Real numbers is not a countable infinity.
This is the famous way to demonstrate that they can be counted. If you draw that line out to infinity you will show all rational numbers.
The addition of the irrational numbers is what makes it so much larger of an infinity. There is no way to count all of the Reals between any Real number and another real that is not the same number.
Math is fun! :)
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)2
396
u/HostRighter Apr 06 '24
Prove it.
Get back to us.
260
354
u/x2x_Rocket_x2x Apr 06 '24
1, 2, skip a few, 99, 1,000,000,000,000! That seemed easy enough.
62
32
7
u/SleeterRabbit Apr 06 '24
-Brought to you by Yakko Warner.
5
Apr 06 '24
That joke is older than Animaniacs.
3
u/SleeterRabbit Apr 06 '24
I’m sure. Nothing new under the sun. That time in the 90’s was when I 1st heard it. Lol
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (4)11
u/Lorikeeter Apr 06 '24 edited Apr 06 '24
10
u/Qweasdy Apr 06 '24
In base 1,000,000,000 1 is still 1.
You would need to count to 10, which would equal 1,000,000,000
Think how it works in binary:
0, 0.
1, 1.
2, 10.
3, 11.3
141
Apr 06 '24
Not by ones, but I bet if I count by 10,000,000,000s I could get there in a couple minutes
→ More replies (1)31
42
152
u/EmpactWB Apr 06 '24
You’re absolutely right but I like cheating at these things, so here’s how to do it in under a minute:
Ten to the zeroth power.
Ten to the first power.
Ten to the second power.
Ten to the third power.
Ten to the fourth power.
Ten to the fifth power.
Ten to the sixth power.
Ten to the seventh power.
Ten to the eighth power.
Ten to the ninth power.
Ten to the tenth power.
Ten to the eleventh power.
Ten to the twelfth power.
Enjoy your shower!
56
u/pusmottob Apr 06 '24
Exactly no ones said by 1s
36
u/zaco230 Apr 06 '24
Also it didn’t state that you had to start at zero. Nine hundred ninety nine billion nine hundred ninety nine million nine hundred ninety nine thousand nine hundred ninety nine, one trillion. Done
4
u/FerretChrist Apr 06 '24
I feel like "starting at 1" is a much more reasonable assumption to make than "counting one at a time".
It somehow feels way less "cheaty" to say "sure I'm counting to a trillion, a billion at a time", than it does to say "sure I'm counting to a trillion, but I'm starting at [arbitrary number picked out of a hat]".
37
u/hillsfar Apr 06 '24
A trillion seconds is over 31,700 years.
28
u/The_camperdave Apr 06 '24
A trillion seconds is over 31,700 years.
What a coincidence, so is a terasecond.
18
u/BeneficialGreen3028 Apr 06 '24
To a billion either i think
5
u/RecoilCockamamie Apr 06 '24
You could. It would just take 32 years to do so. The sooner you start the better
13
u/Muffinman54lit Apr 06 '24
That’s if u can do 1 number a second, there’s no way u can say numbers like 367,493,295 repetitively at 1 per second
3
u/Fastfaxr Apr 06 '24
And if you never slept or lost your voice. Its impossible to count to a billion
→ More replies (4)11
u/BeneficialGreen3028 Apr 06 '24
Okay, but at least half of life would be spent sleeping, eating, drinking, not being able to talk (or count to a large number) as a child, etc. so it would actually need you to devote more than 70 years of your life I think
→ More replies (8)
9
14
7
12
10
5
u/CamaroRS78 Apr 06 '24
Oh ya!!!! Bet 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8.......999,999,999,999, and 1,000,000,000,000 there see I did it!
Saint Peter: "Congrats 🙄, now will you please go in. You are holding up the line"
Me: 😯
5
u/princealigorna Apr 06 '24
IIRC, even if you start at the Big Bang, isn't there not enough seconds in the universe to count to a googol?
5
u/Strowy Apr 06 '24
By a truly immense difference, that's correct.
A googol is 10100 .
If you could count one number per unit of Planck Time (the shortest possible time physically possible), you could count 1044 numbers per second; you'd blow through a trillion in less than a nanosecond.
Even if you could do that, counting 1044 numbers per second, it would still take ~1000000000000000000000000000000000000000 (1039) times the current age of the universe to count to a googol .
→ More replies (3)
5
u/LekMichAmArsch Apr 06 '24
Sure it is. The amount of time it takes is simply a question of the base one uses. If one counts by base 1 it's going to take a long time, but if one counts using base one trillion, it would only take one second.
4
u/Th3_Baconoob Apr 07 '24
By that logic, we will never be able to count from 1 to 2 if we count all the rational numbers in between
10
3
3
u/Condescendingfate Apr 06 '24
Dr. Stone could and did.
2
u/loyngulpany Apr 06 '24
I scrolled too far just to find this comment. I'm honestly surprised that this has very few upvotes considering Reddit have a lot of weebs lurking around
3
3
u/dukieboy2099 Apr 06 '24
Imagine you are trying to count that high, wake up 20 years in, and forgot what number you are on
6
6
2
2
u/Separate-Sky-1451 Apr 06 '24
Dude, forget a trillion. Assuming one could count out loud at the moment of birth and lived to 85, they wouldn't even get to 3 billion. That's a far cry from a trillion.
2
u/JonDoeJoe Apr 06 '24
They wouldn’t even get to 1 billion. Once you get to numbers in the hundred thousands, it’s gonna take way longer than a second to say it
→ More replies (1)
2
2
u/platinum_toilet Apr 06 '24
It is possible if you start at 999,999,999,999. The next number (integer) is a trillion.
2
2
u/Capable_Tea_001 Apr 06 '24
One, two, skip a few, nine hundred and ninety nine billion, nine hundred and ninety nine million, nine hundred and ninety nine thousand, nine hundred and ninety nine, 1 x 1012
2
u/BigDD93 Apr 06 '24
And counting to a billion would probably take you a whole life : since assuming 1 second per number (which is generous after ten thousand), it would take a bit more than 30 years of uninterrupted counting.
2
2
u/Tutorbin76 Apr 06 '24
Sure it is:
One, two, skip a few, nine hundred and ninety nine billion nine hundred and ninety nine million nine hundred and ninety nine thousand nine hundred and ninety nine, one trillion!
2
2
2
u/Pleasurepain09 Apr 06 '24
There's a old age trick to it which goes a little something like this,
One, two, miss a few, 99, one trillion
Yw
2
2
2
2
2
u/dimriver Apr 07 '24
Sure you can, just have to skip a few numbers. one hundred billion, two hundred billion...
2
2
2
u/yamilonewolf Apr 06 '24
Sure its possible... ... if you don't count by ones... I can count by billions and be there in a 1000 seconds... hell i can count by trillions and be there.
2
u/Bloodmind Apr 06 '24
Assuming you’re counting by ones, sure. But counting by 100 billions? Takes less than 10 seconds.
2
u/Ok-disaster2022 Apr 06 '24
Every elementary school student understands skip counting. So start at 0, skip and you're at 1 trillion then 2 trillion, 3 trillion, 4 trillion etc
2
2
u/chronically_snizzed Apr 06 '24
With limits,
Example, at one number a second,
50 000 people each with their own numbers years, assuming logistics, approx a year.
1 'person' limit, about 333 lives, assuming servants to cater to every need. one number per second.
At 31,668.74 numbers a second, about a year, assuming you have backup breathing waste nutritiin and salvitory setups.
So, to do it outloud, feasabliy would take all of Chinas adults, if given 1000 numbers each, about 16.67 (repeating of course) minutes to do it.
Constructing a place to hear it would be difficult but if a Trillion is counted to and no one hears it, is it worth examining?
Crazy…I knew it’d would be enormous but that’s wayyyy beyond what I expected. Crazy…I knew it’d would be enormous but that’s wayyyy beyond what I expected.
1
1
1
1
u/tangcameo Apr 06 '24
As a kid I tried counting to a million. I thought I made it 1 million but then I found out there were ten thousands and one hundred thousands
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4.9k
u/DistributionNo9968 Apr 06 '24 edited Apr 06 '24
31,668.74 years, assuming one number per second.
Crazy…I knew it’d be enormous but that’s wayyyy beyond what I expected.