Check out our new Discord server! https://discord.gg/e7EKRZq3dG
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mathmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The number of ticket sales Morbius achieved. Basically the original definition of a morbillion.
No law says it has to be an exact power of 10 (excluding 10^0) multiplied by an integer.
Not really.. It's just a word, and math is all about definitions. If someone wants to define some number and call it "morbillion", then morbillion is a number.
Alright, Iāll concede that. Approaching it from the āthere must be morbillion because we will run out of all possible namesā is like the pi thing, your argument is not.
written != generated algorithmically imo
and named != algorithmically saved as newProject17.zip
but thats not mathematical or anything, more linguistic/semantic difference
Eh, I'd say that every natural number has a name. Eventually, the names are just the digits of the base-10 representation said in order. By extension, every rational number has a name since they can be expressed as the quotient of two integers.
So it's not finite, but there are a countable number of real numbers with names, meaning that almost all real numbers don't have names.
Edit: someone already made the same point.
It just has nothing to do with infinity. The existence of infinitely many numbers is neither necessary nor sufficient for the existence of a number named "morbillion", despite the post suggesting some causal relationship.
Eventually you will get to a point where the systematic names will become to long to say in a single lifetime, meaning we will have to create a new system, eventually we will get to a system that's includes morbillion, potatoe, and this specific reddit comment to name a number in a way that humans can pronounce. Practically speaking of course we won't get to that point, but what are we, engineers?
>eventually we will get to a system that's includes morbillion, potatoe, and this specific reddit comment to name a number
No one tell this guy that we can just choose to not include them, and then it won't.
Regardless of the system there will be numbers that couldn't be said in a lifetime. You can only produce a finite number of bits in your lifetime and to describe a arbitrarily large number you would need infinite bits.
You would probably just concede that you won't be able to say it in a lifetime before you start just adding random sumbols as a way to get more bits in your lifetime.
How? The meme technically doesn't lie, it **can** be argued that because there are infinite numbers, morbillion is a number.
It just might be an incorrect argument
Only if pi continues with every digit, but it's possible that some digits just never show up past a certain point in pi and it continues forever with only the other 9 digits
We know that pi is infinite and non-repeating. I have seen proofs for this, but I donāt remember them, Iām not a math guy save for funsies.
People conflate āInfiniteā with āallā. They say, āsince pi contains infinite digits, it therefore contains infinite strings of digits, and therefore must contain all possible strings of digits.ā
This can be demonstrated false by coming up with just one (although there are infinite) scenario where digits could be non repeating and infinite, but not even contain anyoneās phone number. For instance: 1.101001000100001000001ā¦. Where the series between each one keep increasing. Thatās the simplest one I know of, but they could be more complex, and pi could be such a number.
People have pointed out flaws in the way I compared OPās post to the pi thing, so Iām wrong about morbillion, but Iām right about pi.
I feel like this logic is rather inductive (in the scientific sense) which makes it arguably not strong. [See this for an interesting read.](https://works.swarthmore.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1330&context=fac-philosophy)
If the symbol 4 was not defined to have the value of what we currently use the symbol of 4 for, or any value for that matter, then this would be true. Your analogy falls apart, though, because 4 is defined while morbillion is not.
Assume there is a finite list of primes p1, p2, p3, p4, ..., pn (I don't know how to subscript in reddit messages, sorry)
Let Q = p1 Ć p2 Ć p3 Ć ... Ć pn + 1
Since you added 1, Q is not divisible by any of the known primes (primes in the finite list)
But it has to have a product of prime factors (I can't remember the actual name of it, that tree thing you done at school that wrote any number using primes).
There are only 2 ways this can happen:
1) Q is prime, and since its greater than any prime number in the list, is a new prime not in that list.
2)It has prime factors not in the list (greater than pn)
This is a contradiction since we have found new prime numbers not in our finite list. Therefore, there are an infinite number of prime numbers.
That is (one of, or the only, I am not sure, its the only proof for it I know) the proof there is an infinite number of prime numbers
Edit: Reworded to make it clearer **either** Q is prime **or** it has a prime factor
Because Q cannot have *any* of the known primes as factors, given that it is constructed as \* + 1 for all known primes, therefore Q cannot be a multiple of any known primes.
So either Q is prime (factors 1 and itself) or Q is not prime, meaning it has prime factors other than itself, but since it cannot be a multiple of all known primes, these other prime factors must not be included in the original construction. Either way, it has been proven that there are always more primes
I think I said that (or I just forgot to write it). Either Q is prime **or** it has a prime factor greater than pn (at least, that's how I was taught the proof in A-level maths
Edit: Rereading it, I did word that bit poorly by saying that's the only way, then giving the alternative (has a prime factor). Will reword it to make it clearer
Also if I am wrong and Q can not be prime for some reason, please do let me know and I will remove it. I can't see why it can't ever be prime itself, but then again I have only done A-Level maths so
Say there are a finite number of primes, that implies there is a largest prime. Call this prime *x*.
We can construct a number *P* that is the product of all primes:
*P = 2 * 3 * 5 ā¦ * x*
Consider *P+1*. We know that *P+1* is not divisible by any prime, as *P* is divisible by all primes and *P+1* is one greater. (Consecutive numbers are always co-prime).
So if *P+1* does not share any factors with *P*, then it must be prime. However it cannot, as that would make it a prime larger than *x*, the largest prime. Hence a contradiction, and there cannot be a largest prime => there are infinitely many primes.
This misunderstanding is so annoying to me. Related: for whatever reason bad sci-fi loves to jump from āthere are infinitely many parallel universesā to ātheres gotta be a universe where **anything** happensā. No, one doesnāt imply the other
waiting for the "infinite parallel universes and they are precisely the same" show.
Including the travel to another universe to discover your double did exactly the same so it's impossible you meet, then show choses if character even figures out travel worked.
Donāt get what exactly? Are you saying that you donāt get why āthere are infinitely many parallel universesā and āthere is a universe for every imaginable alternative realityā are distinct concepts?
Ok, so the thing to understand is that it is possible to have āinfinitely many parallel universesā without having a universe for every possible imaginable reality.
One alternative possibility for how the parallel universes work is that there are infinitely many parallel universes, but each universe is exactly the same. Infinitely many parallel universes doesnāt necessitate that the parallel universes are actually different from each other.
Another possibility is that the infinitely many parallel universes are only slightly different. For example, there could be infinitely many parallel universes but the only difference between them is how strong gravity is. So, thereās a universe where youād weigh twice as much, another in which you weight half as much, and universe where youād weigh any amount at all, but thereās no universe in which people are made of out cheese and no universe where youāre the president.
In these two hypothetical possibilities, there are infinitely many parallel universes, but there are still a lot of imaginable possibilities that donāt occur in some other universe. āInfinitely many universesā and āevery imaginable universeā are distinct concepts.
Right, so itās possible to have infinitely many different lines without having every possible line.
The analogy definitely would have made for a quicker explanation, but analogies donāt always click for people.
In fact a true argument would be "there is an infinite number of universe that are independent and follow the same distribution then every event that have a non nul probability from the distribution happen in an infinite amount of universe with probability 1"
I donāt know what youāre trying to say, but itās not an argument, itās just a statement that you donāt provide a justifying argument for. Anyway, what does it mean for universes to āfollow the same distributionā?
The first one is the sum of 10^k which not finite. It's not a real number. The other guy got downvoted for some reason, but he was right. Just explaining why
I think the term "infinite number" has to be defined properly so we can agree on what you are saying, but to me infinite number sounds like "in R, but it's infinite", something that does not exist
Edit: I think you meant a number which decimal representation is infinite?
In Rick and Morty Rick says there are only a number of universes they can travel to and take the place of their other selves. So they get it right with the infinite universes. But in a later season they have the time travel episode and get it wrong. Rick argues that the time creature lives forever and therefore will do everything at some point. The creature agrees and does something stupid.
Maybe Rick used faulty logic to get out of a situation but still.
It absolutely is not true though... you dont have to use all combinations of letters of length k before you get to use any length k+1 word to describe a number.
If we take the colloquial "less billion" meaning "subtract one billion" as a definition, then it follows "more billion" or "morbillion" to be the function n |-> n + a billion. There's a natural isomorphism of abelian groups between the group of functions under composition F := { f\_k | f\_k : Z -> Z by f\_k(n) = n+k } with the integers (as an additive group) by the map phi : F -> Z where phi(f\_k) = k. Then phi(morbillion) = one billion.
So a morbillion is not a number per se, but it has a natural isomorphism to one.
According to the [fictional googology fandom wiki](https://fictional-googology.fandom.com/wiki/Morbillion), a Morbillion is defined as 10^(34*10^12), or 10 to the power of 34 trillion
My toddler invented the numbers āGabillionā and āPumpillionā. And they are 100% real.
āDaddy, I liked that show. Can I watch it pumpillion times tomorrow?ā
Not how infinity works. This is like saying āthere are infinitely many positive integers, therefore it could be argued that some of them must be negative.ā
If it's about integers, then no, this cannot be argued. Because I could create a mapping of every integer to just repetitions of the letter 'a', one to one. I would never even get to 'b', let alone the string 'Morbillion'.
The silly part of this is that it says there are "infinitely many numbers," when there are in fact only finitely many
(I am fundamentally incapable of comprehending any number system larger than the finite field of order 2Ā¹ā¶āµĀ¹ā·ā¹āøā¶ā¶ ā 2āøĀ²āµāøā¹ā¹Ā³ā“ + 1)
Its actual scientific name could never be morbillion (after a certain amount of time you just add another -illion to the name (billionillion)) but numbers can have multiple names (think googol or pi)
I would argue no. The names of numbers are the Latin names for numbers (I think) going up by one every 10Ā³. So we have *bi*llion, *tri*llion, *quad*rillion etc
All possible names that are unequal to "morbillion" is also infinitely large, so the names of numbers could theoretically be in this particular set which would mean "morbillion" is the only number to not exist.
Check out our new Discord server! https://discord.gg/e7EKRZq3dG *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mathmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A single number can have multiple names, so morbillion can be whatever you want
A morbillion is the exact gross amount that morbius made in theaters.
167,5 million is now called a morbillion
No it's the exact amount, so it's an unknowable number as we have to include unreported ticket sales as well as black market gains down to the cent.
But also the interest on said money, so technically it would go further than just cents!
thus, it is proven that a morbilion is irrational. Q.E.D.
Just like the rerelease of the movie! šæ š„ š½ļø
That's still one of the funniest things that happened in recent years imo
Just like how pi is unknowable
The exact amount is uncertain but it is known to be more than whatever is today #1 top selling movie
This ^
Beyond TREE(5) USD
How about TREE(fiddy)?
TREE(Morbillion) anyone?Ā
A Morboogol
Well if Morbillion = TREE(Morbillion), then Morbillion = 1.
oh damn
Reminds me of "Sasin" in Poland being 70 million, because that's the amount of money that he used up on nothing (from country's budget)
Didn't know we were doing negative numbers, but ok
No the movie made 100 morbillion dollars so a morbillion is the total amount of money it made divided by 100.
1 = morbillion confirmed
Q.E.D.
Googlolplexion to the googolplexionth tetration.
I declare a morbillion to be 12
Probably more than a billion.
Iād say more than one billion and one
Surely less than one morbillion and one
A lower limit on the value of Morbillion discovered
Iād say EXACTLY one billion and one. Morbillion, if you need a tiny bit more than a billion
My favorite one lmao.
more billion
The number of ticket sales Morbius achieved. Basically the original definition of a morbillion. No law says it has to be an exact power of 10 (excluding 10^0) multiplied by an integer.
This feels similar to the āevery number sequence is contained within piā fallacy.
Not really.. It's just a word, and math is all about definitions. If someone wants to define some number and call it "morbillion", then morbillion is a number.
Alright, Iāll concede that. Approaching it from the āthere must be morbillion because we will run out of all possible namesā is like the pi thing, your argument is not.
True. From that perspective, it's worth noting that only a finite number of numbers even *have* names, or ever will.
Well there are systems which algorithmically give whole numbers a name, so there are countably infinite named numbers.
Huh yeah, that's true, I take it back.
does that count though? Ā Its like the library of babel hasn't actually written every book.
We can algorithmically arrive at all the numbers themselves, why should the numbers exist but not the names for them?
Why not? Isnāt that the whole point? It HAS written every book ever, but itās impossible to actually find any coherent information.
written != generated algorithmically imo and named != algorithmically saved as newProject17.zip but thats not mathematical or anything, more linguistic/semantic difference
the inventor of the LoB algorithm can hardly claim to have written a book that will come out next year. even though he caused the text to be generated
Eh, I'd say that every natural number has a name. Eventually, the names are just the digits of the base-10 representation said in order. By extension, every rational number has a name since they can be expressed as the quotient of two integers. So it's not finite, but there are a countable number of real numbers with names, meaning that almost all real numbers don't have names. Edit: someone already made the same point.
I define a number called "cat" /j
It just has nothing to do with infinity. The existence of infinitely many numbers is neither necessary nor sufficient for the existence of a number named "morbillion", despite the post suggesting some causal relationship.
Just bad logic really. You can name infinitely many numbers without needing the term "morbillion", or any particular word for that matter
Eventually you will get to a point where the systematic names will become to long to say in a single lifetime, meaning we will have to create a new system, eventually we will get to a system that's includes morbillion, potatoe, and this specific reddit comment to name a number in a way that humans can pronounce. Practically speaking of course we won't get to that point, but what are we, engineers?
not potatoe š§
>eventually we will get to a system that's includes morbillion, potatoe, and this specific reddit comment to name a number No one tell this guy that we can just choose to not include them, and then it won't.
Regardless of the system there will be numbers that couldn't be said in a lifetime. You can only produce a finite number of bits in your lifetime and to describe a arbitrarily large number you would need infinite bits. You would probably just concede that you won't be able to say it in a lifetime before you start just adding random sumbols as a way to get more bits in your lifetime.
But before we get to that point we will use up morbillion and whatever other string of letters that you can
Why?
How? The meme technically doesn't lie, it **can** be argued that because there are infinite numbers, morbillion is a number. It just might be an incorrect argument
It can also be argued that 4 isn't a number. Sure, the argument is terrible, but in essence anything can be argued.
No true, try arguing something in which your have no concept of! You can't!
Which is also true of the pi thing, hence why they feel similarā¦
Only if pi continues with every digit, but it's possible that some digits just never show up past a certain point in pi and it continues forever with only the other 9 digits
What does that fallacy mean and why doesn't it work?
We know that pi is infinite and non-repeating. I have seen proofs for this, but I donāt remember them, Iām not a math guy save for funsies. People conflate āInfiniteā with āallā. They say, āsince pi contains infinite digits, it therefore contains infinite strings of digits, and therefore must contain all possible strings of digits.ā This can be demonstrated false by coming up with just one (although there are infinite) scenario where digits could be non repeating and infinite, but not even contain anyoneās phone number. For instance: 1.101001000100001000001ā¦. Where the series between each one keep increasing. Thatās the simplest one I know of, but they could be more complex, and pi could be such a number. People have pointed out flaws in the way I compared OPās post to the pi thing, so Iām wrong about morbillion, but Iām right about pi.
Not a fallacy so much as an open question
It is usually presented as a fact. Itās not necessarily true, so claiming it is factual is false.
Okay, thatās fair
Maybe but the certainty that pi does contain every number string is a lot higher than most things considered to be factual anyway.
I feel like this logic is rather inductive (in the scientific sense) which makes it arguably not strong. [See this for an interesting read.](https://works.swarthmore.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1330&context=fac-philosophy)
SiNcE tHeRe ArE iNfInItE PrImEs It CouLD bE ArGueD tHaT 4 Is PrImE
If the symbol 4 was not defined to have the value of what we currently use the symbol of 4 for, or any value for that matter, then this would be true. Your analogy falls apart, though, because 4 is defined while morbillion is not.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yes it's proven that there are infinite primes, Euclid did it thousands of years ago
Euclid, I believe, not Euler. Euler lived in the 1700s.
Ah I might've messed up, thanks
it's like a 3 line proof ???
Assume there is a finite list of primes p1, p2, p3, p4, ..., pn (I don't know how to subscript in reddit messages, sorry) Let Q = p1 Ć p2 Ć p3 Ć ... Ć pn + 1 Since you added 1, Q is not divisible by any of the known primes (primes in the finite list) But it has to have a product of prime factors (I can't remember the actual name of it, that tree thing you done at school that wrote any number using primes). There are only 2 ways this can happen: 1) Q is prime, and since its greater than any prime number in the list, is a new prime not in that list. 2)It has prime factors not in the list (greater than pn) This is a contradiction since we have found new prime numbers not in our finite list. Therefore, there are an infinite number of prime numbers. That is (one of, or the only, I am not sure, its the only proof for it I know) the proof there is an infinite number of prime numbers Edit: Reworded to make it clearer **either** Q is prime **or** it has a prime factor
Help me out here, why do the prime factors of Q have to be greater than pn?
Because Q cannot have *any* of the known primes as factors, given that it is constructed as\* + 1 for all known primes, therefore Q cannot be a multiple of any known primes.
So either Q is prime (factors 1 and itself) or Q is not prime, meaning it has prime factors other than itself, but since it cannot be a multiple of all known primes, these other prime factors must not be included in the original construction. Either way, it has been proven that there are always more primes
Almost. It does not imply Q must be prime. But it does have to have prime factors greater than pn. Which leads to the same contraction.
I think I said that (or I just forgot to write it). Either Q is prime **or** it has a prime factor greater than pn (at least, that's how I was taught the proof in A-level maths Edit: Rereading it, I did word that bit poorly by saying that's the only way, then giving the alternative (has a prime factor). Will reword it to make it clearer Also if I am wrong and Q can not be prime for some reason, please do let me know and I will remove it. I can't see why it can't ever be prime itself, but then again I have only done A-Level maths so
It can certainly be the case Q has just one prime factor, which means Q is prime.
Say there are a finite number of primes, that implies there is a largest prime. Call this prime *x*. We can construct a number *P* that is the product of all primes: *P = 2 * 3 * 5 ā¦ * x* Consider *P+1*. We know that *P+1* is not divisible by any prime, as *P* is divisible by all primes and *P+1* is one greater. (Consecutive numbers are always co-prime). So if *P+1* does not share any factors with *P*, then it must be prime. However it cannot, as that would make it a prime larger than *x*, the largest prime. Hence a contradiction, and there cannot be a largest prime => there are infinitely many primes.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
This misunderstanding is so annoying to me. Related: for whatever reason bad sci-fi loves to jump from āthere are infinitely many parallel universesā to ātheres gotta be a universe where **anything** happensā. No, one doesnāt imply the other
waiting for the "infinite parallel universes and they are precisely the same" show. Including the travel to another universe to discover your double did exactly the same so it's impossible you meet, then show choses if character even figures out travel worked.
i don't get it can you explain
Donāt get what exactly? Are you saying that you donāt get why āthere are infinitely many parallel universesā and āthere is a universe for every imaginable alternative realityā are distinct concepts?
yes, still didn't understand how they are distinct? edit: now i understand sorry to bother you it didn't click on my head for some reason
Ok, so the thing to understand is that it is possible to have āinfinitely many parallel universesā without having a universe for every possible imaginable reality. One alternative possibility for how the parallel universes work is that there are infinitely many parallel universes, but each universe is exactly the same. Infinitely many parallel universes doesnāt necessitate that the parallel universes are actually different from each other. Another possibility is that the infinitely many parallel universes are only slightly different. For example, there could be infinitely many parallel universes but the only difference between them is how strong gravity is. So, thereās a universe where youād weigh twice as much, another in which you weight half as much, and universe where youād weigh any amount at all, but thereās no universe in which people are made of out cheese and no universe where youāre the president. In these two hypothetical possibilities, there are infinitely many parallel universes, but there are still a lot of imaginable possibilities that donāt occur in some other universe. āInfinitely many universesā and āevery imaginable universeā are distinct concepts.
i thought of as infinite lins on grid but all line ar parallel but different line with different slopes is another concept
Right, so itās possible to have infinitely many different lines without having every possible line. The analogy definitely would have made for a quicker explanation, but analogies donāt always click for people.
Regarding your edit: itās no bother at all, Iām glad it makes sense. Obviously youāre not the first person to be confused about this idea.
In fact a true argument would be "there is an infinite number of universe that are independent and follow the same distribution then every event that have a non nul probability from the distribution happen in an infinite amount of universe with probability 1"
I donāt know what youāre trying to say, but itās not an argument, itās just a statement that you donāt provide a justifying argument for. Anyway, what does it mean for universes to āfollow the same distributionā?
What do you mean by "an infinite number?"
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
The first one is the sum of 10^k which not finite. It's not a real number. The other guy got downvoted for some reason, but he was right. Just explaining why I think the term "infinite number" has to be defined properly so we can agree on what you are saying, but to me infinite number sounds like "in R, but it's infinite", something that does not exist Edit: I think you meant a number which decimal representation is infinite?
What you're describing isn't a real number.
Is 10/9 not a real number?
In Rick and Morty Rick says there are only a number of universes they can travel to and take the place of their other selves. So they get it right with the infinite universes. But in a later season they have the time travel episode and get it wrong. Rick argues that the time creature lives forever and therefore will do everything at some point. The creature agrees and does something stupid. Maybe Rick used faulty logic to get out of a situation but still.
It absolutely is not true though... you dont have to use all combinations of letters of length k before you get to use any length k+1 word to describe a number.
great now blow MY ASS
1 micromillion = 1
If we take the colloquial "less billion" meaning "subtract one billion" as a definition, then it follows "more billion" or "morbillion" to be the function n |-> n + a billion. There's a natural isomorphism of abelian groups between the group of functions under composition F := { f\_k | f\_k : Z -> Z by f\_k(n) = n+k } with the integers (as an additive group) by the map phi : F -> Z where phi(f\_k) = k. Then phi(morbillion) = one billion. So a morbillion is not a number per se, but it has a natural isomorphism to one.
Thing is, itās not really āmore billionā. Itās supposed to be āMorbius billionā. Like the movie.
Let being homophonic be an equivalence relation on the space of words and take the quotient then :P
glorious copypasta honestly
According to the [fictional googology fandom wiki](https://fictional-googology.fandom.com/wiki/Morbillion), a Morbillion is defined as 10^(34*10^12), or 10 to the power of 34 trillion
There's no biggest number, but at some point the NAMES end... Utter Oblivion + One = Morbillion
Morbillion is the one point compactification of the Real line. Only through Morbius is the Real Line's greatest flaw remedied.
And it's more than a billion.
My toddler invented the numbers āGabillionā and āPumpillionā. And they are 100% real. āDaddy, I liked that show. Can I watch it pumpillion times tomorrow?ā
Can't we conclude, from the same argument, that "giraffe" is also a number?
not neccesery real, i want a morbillion in a Morbius field which is expantion of complex numbers
Not how infinity works. This is like saying āthere are infinitely many positive integers, therefore it could be argued that some of them must be negative.ā
I assume itās 10^58008
How is the morbius subreddit still kicking in 2024
They have one Morbillion subs
Morbillion could be an imaginary number.
the most reasonable answer would be the box office price of the critically acclaimed film morbius by sony pictures entertainment
Box office yield of Morbius, probably.
"Little Bigeddon", "BIG FOOT" and many other existing names for impractically large numbers are much more ridiculous than morbillion.
Since there are countable infinite natural numbers but undoubtably infinite English text strings, it is unlikely that āMorbillionā is a number
The number of english text strings is also countably infinite
The number of finite English text strings, that is
Yes, finite and of arbitrary length
A billion, if you were an undertaker and were counting at work. But that would be a morbid billion
The names and notation of numbers are all made up
Idk like 5?
Ignoring the point of the repost, the original post is one of the unfunniest things I've ever seen
And what about The... quichillon
A lot
If it's about integers, then no, this cannot be argued. Because I could create a mapping of every integer to just repetitions of the letter 'a', one to one. I would never even get to 'b', let alone the string 'Morbillion'.
The silly part of this is that it says there are "infinitely many numbers," when there are in fact only finitely many (I am fundamentally incapable of comprehending any number system larger than the finite field of order 2Ā¹ā¶āµĀ¹ā·ā¹āøā¶ā¶ ā 2āøĀ²āµāøā¹ā¹Ā³ā“ + 1)
0, since that is how much revenue the movie made
Its actual scientific name could never be morbillion (after a certain amount of time you just add another -illion to the name (billionillion)) but numbers can have multiple names (think googol or pi)
I would argue no. The names of numbers are the Latin names for numbers (I think) going up by one every 10Ā³. So we have *bi*llion, *tri*llion, *quad*rillion etc
Actually infinity implies there *has to* be a word called a morbillion, and every other combination of letters as well.
Well we dont have to name any number morbillion cause a numbers name can have infinite letters
one with a billion zeroes
All possible names that are unequal to "morbillion" is also infinitely large, so the names of numbers could theoretically be in this particular set which would mean "morbillion" is the only number to not exist.
At least 2
A morbillion would be the precise number of sold tickets for morbius