3 ms·
> Try multiplying a billion billion billion billion by a trillion trillion trillion trillion, then multiply that by a thousand, and that (10 to the 31st power)
by trehalose 7y ago
> Try multiplying a billion billion billion billion by a trillion trillion trillion trillion, then multiply that by a thousand, and that (10 to the 31st power) is the mind-numbing estimate of how many individual viral particles are estimated to populate the planet.
What definitions of "billion" and "trillion" are they using? 10 to the 31st would be only ten million trillion trillion, going by the common definition of million as 10 to the 6th and trillion as 10 to the 12th.
- im3w1l 7y agoYeah, if you multiply "a billion billion billion billion by a trillion trillion trillion trillion, then multiply that by a thousand" you get a larger number than the atoms in the observable universe.
- civil_engineer 7y agoThat’s a lot of viruses! I’m staying inside.
- FabHK 7y ago4 x 9 + 4 x 12 + 3 = 87 4 x 3 + 4 x 4 + 3 = 31. That’s the only genesis of this error I could come up with - somehow they associated billion with 3 and trillion with 4 (conceivably because “N-illion” = 1000^(N+1) [1], and then forgot about the factor of three embedded in the base of 1000). [1] in the US system. In Germany and historically the UK, apparently, it’s 1000,000^N = 1000^(2N), which I personally prefer.
- zaarn 7y agoIn germany the step size is twice as large; million, milliard, billion, billiard, etc. Makes things neater IMO.
- FabHK 7y agoFWIW, the article has been corrected now to read: > Try multiplying a billion by a billion, then multiply that by ten trillion, and that (10 to the 31st power) is the mind-numbing estimate of how many individual viral particles are estimated to populate the planet. (I can't find a "correction" notice... It's Stanford Medicine, not a proper newspaper.)