Talk:10^120 (number)

Number of Board Positions

Hmmm... well, it occured to me that the total number of posible board positions couldn't be more than 64!/32!... that is, the total number of ways of arranging 32 distinguishable pieces on a board of 64 spaces. But I didn't consider the affect of promoting pawns, and all the various choices that might be available in that case, and the extra board positions that this would create... still though, if promoting pawns was disallowed, it would limit the positions to 64!/32! (as well as noticably changing the dynamics of the game)... just a curious thought. (The Swami 08:36, 17 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]

64! / 32! = 482219923991114978843459072919892677776312893440000000, but that's not what Shannon's number is. Soo 16:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's not, I was just posting some musings on the derivation of said number... but here's a few more while I'm thinking of it... I think the total number of board positions could not excede 64!/32! ^ 6^32; this would be the total thirty two pieces maximum on the board, each of which can be one of six types. The game-tree complexity may be larger than this, I'm just saying that the total number of board positions could not (I believe) excede this. (The Swami 02:53, 28 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Shannon Number

There are several possible problems with this page. First, "One novemtriginillion is known as the Shannon number." It seems like the Shannon Number is actually 900⁴⁰, which is 1.478...×10¹¹⁸, for which 10¹²⁰ is a poor approximation. If 900⁴⁰ is indeed the Shannon Number, then that doesn't really belong in this article. Also, for the number of atoms in the universe: can that figure really be estimated with so much precision? Ardric47 05:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed where it claimed that it was the Shannon number. While it might not be the Shannon number, it's pretty close in size to it. 152.163.100.10 00:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It only seems pretty close because the exponents are pretty close, but really it is larger than the Shannon Number by a factor of about 67...saying that this is pretty close would be like saying that pi is pretty close to 200 (3.14...×10⁰ vs. 2×10²). Ardric47 02:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually can't find any reliable-looking source through Google that even mentions something called the "Shannon number" at all...could this be a neologism? Ardric47 21:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move?

This article is about the Shannon number. Now that it has been decided that the Shannon number is not 10^120, shouldn't the article be moved back to Shannon number? Melchoir 01:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the googol article, it says "The Shannon number is a rough estimate of the number of possible chess games, and is more than a googol: 10120". Is it wrong? 64.194.43.49 13:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it's wrong, and I'll change it. While it is unclear exactly what the Shannon number is, whether it's 900^40 or some more accurate estimate, this article does not state that 10^120 is the Shannon number, so its title is misplaced. In general, you should trust the more specialized Wikipedia article above other articles mentioning it. Melchoir 19:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

10^120 (number) should not redirect to Shannon number. Ardric47 21:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I thought of that. After the move, the redirect can be deleted. Melchoir 21:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, something very wrong has happened here. I'm not sure how to sort it out... Melchoir 21:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the redirect. 152.163.100.11 21:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite frankly, it would have been best if you hadn't done anything; see Wikipedia:How to fix cut and paste moves. This is a short article, not really worth the trouble to fix... just be more careful in the future. Melchoir 21:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]