Does the answer of this sum come any where near our countries deficit?

Do you have a big enough calculator, one with 18 to 20 digits in a row?

You will be amazed at the configuration of the answer when you bring up all eighteen digits in one row.

111,111,111    X      111,111,111 =            

 Finally- something intresting to do with my calculator, instead of all those boring AS physics equations on charge carrier density and resistiviy and electronic models :) thanks Fretaw :)

Adam,

  The answer is eighteen digits long, no idea if it has a decimal point some where but you would need to stand two calculators side by side to get all the figures in. On the other hand you could do it "long hand" with a pencil and a few pieces of paper.

Answers please

adam19493:

 Finally- something intresting to do with my calculator, instead of all those boring AS physics equations on charge carrier density and resistiviy and electronic models :) thanks Fretaw :)

Hi Adam

Don't knock the odd charge carrying density, the off farm income might come in handy in the future, it certainly did for me. But stick with the Digital its easier.

I beleive that the answer would be 12 345 678 987 654 321 with a decimal point in the correct place depending on if / where there is one in the question (from a back of the envelope calculation)

Fred, Calculators are the same as powered wood-splitters, just for the younger folk not for the likes of you and me and that have had the broth and porridge. A very interesting answer - a blunt pencil and the back of an envelope as usual. I think you should give these youngsters the answer though.

12345678987654300.0 when calculated using Excel.

old mcdonald:

Calculators are the same as powered wood-splitters, just for the younger folk not for the likes of you and me

Me too, it came ready worked out for me.

How shall we tell Foxey/Foxer, that it won't all fit into my big shed, or shall we just let him find out himself.
                                       (That's just me single farm payment, I wish) 

Yes its          £12,345,678,987,654,321

 

kipling:

12345678987654300.0 when calculated using Excel.

That's near enough for me,

But now write it down for me and Old Mac so we can speak the sum over the phone (so to speak)In trillions or millions, some bright young spark may know, or even an old spark if you count J---s

 

As HM govt has a tax deadline like we do:

2008/9 government deficit was £101.3bn (7.1% GDP)

2008/9 government debt was £796.3bn (55% GDP)

(EU limits are 3% and 60%)

Worth remembering that the big government devaluation of the late 1967 was triggered by a deficit of c£11bn. And that todays £ is worth roughly 13 times a £ back then. So interesting times. That resulted in a 14% devaluation - as our currency floats today, and as we keenly watch the Euro, worth noting that the £ was effectivly devalued by 24% in 2008 (ie why our SFP was so big). So plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.

Our 2009/10 deficit has been forecast aroun £170bn, so a forecast of deficit being 10% of GDP, and debt well over 60% of GDP and rising, and things look unplesant. Infact, it puts us in a worse position than Portugal. Oh dear. Greek debt however is expected to exceed 120% of national GDP this year. Greek deficit is 12% of GDP. If we were to adopt a similar austerity budget, it would mean roughly £100bn reduction in spending by HM govt this year. For comparison, thats basicly the cost of the whole NHS. Bad luck.

Might be a lot of numbers but dont forget that it has only been the weakness of sterling that has enabled wheat prices, even at £90/t, to not plummet, and SFP payments too.

i worked out the answer when putting my first post earlier, my scientific calculator gave me 1.234567899 x 10 to the power 16

It's all very well writing it down like that, but what us olduns want to know is how to speak it--

 Like 12 Squillions, 345Trillions, 678 -----   978Millions, 654thousands 321 

12,345,678,987,654,321 

Think the Million is right, but where does the Trillion cut in, don't know if there is such a thing a Squillions, expect our "meatless monday" man could tell us that.

 

I believe that it would be something like 12 thousand 3 hundred and 45 trillion 6 hundred and 78 thousand 9 hundred and 74 million 6 hundred and 54 thousand 3 hundred and 21 but then again according to "wikipedia" (yes i know not to be trusted) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_and_short_scales) Value Value Expanded Short Scale Short Scale Logic Long Scale Long Scale Logic 10 0 = 1 one 1,000 1 - 1 one 1,000,000 0.0 10 3 = 1,000 thousand 1,000 1 + 0 thousand 1,000,000 0.5 10 6 = 1,000,000 million 1,000 1 + 1 million 1,000,000 1.0 10 9 = 1,000,000,000 billion 1,000 1 + 2 thousand million (sometimes milliard) 1,000,000 1.5 1012 = 1,000,000,000,000 trillion 1,000 1 + 3 billion 1,000,000 2.0 1015 = 1,000,000,000,000,000 quadrillion 1,000 1 + 4 thousand billion (sometimes billiard) 1,000,000 2.5 1018 = 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 quintillion 1,000 1 + 5 trillion 1,000,000 3.0 1021 = 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 sextillion 1,000 1 + 6 thousand trillion (sometimes trilliard) 1,000,000 3.5 Therefore by the "short scale" it would be 12 quadrillion 345 trillion 678 billion 978 million 654 thousand 321 Or by the "long scale" 12 thousand billion 345 billion 678 thousand million 978 million 654 thousand 321 Getting a bit confusing for me all those "-illions"

 

I believe that it would be something like 12 thousand 3 hundred and 45 trillion 6 hundred and 78 thousand 9 hundred and 74 million 6 hundred and 54 thousand 3 hundred and 21

 

but then again according to "wikipedia" (yes i know not to be trusted) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_and_short_scales)

 

 

 Therefore by the "short scale" it would be

12 quadrillion 345 trillion 678 billion 978 million 654 thousand 321

 

Or by the "long scale"

12 thousand billion 345 billion 678 thousand million 978 million 654 thousand 321

 

Getting a bit confusing for me all those "-illions"

 

(sorry I seem to be having problems with my normal browser switched to a different one and see if it works, could someone delete the above reply i cant seem to edit it or delete it)

madfish:

I believe that it would be something like 12 thousand 3 hundred and 45 trillion 6 hundred and 78 thousand 9 hundred and 74 million 6 hundred and 54 thousand 3 hundred and 21 but then again according to "wikipedia" (yes i know not to be trusted) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_and_short_scales) Value Value Expanded Short Scale Short Scale Logic Long Scale Long Scale Logic 10 0 = 1 one 1,000 1 - 1 one 1,000,000 0.0 10 3 = 1,000 thousand 1,000 1 + 0 thousand 1,000,000 0.5 10 6 = 1,000,000 million 1,000 1 + 1 million 1,000,000 1.0 10 9 = 1,000,000,000 billion 1,000 1 + 2 thousand million (sometimes milliard) 1,000,000 1.5 1012 = 1,000,000,000,000 trillion 1,000 1 + 3 billion 1,000,000 2.0 1015 = 1,000,000,000,000,000 quadrillion 1,000 1 + 4 thousand billion (sometimes billiard) 1,000,000 2.5 1018 = 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 quintillion 1,000 1 + 5 trillion 1,000,000 3.0 1021 = 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 sextillion 1,000 1 + 6 thousand trillion (sometimes trilliard) 1,000,000 3.5 Therefore by the "short scale" it would be 12 quadrillion 345 trillion 678 billion 978 million 654 thousand 321 Or by the "long scale" 12 thousand billion 345 billion 678 thousand million 978 million 654 thousand 321 Getting a bit confusing for me all those "-illions"

Thanks for bringing us up to date, I know we used to chant our time tables at school years ago up to 12x12 , but to learn all this in a chant is a bit too much.

Had a good look and can't see squillions any where, is that a further step up from sextillion

I agree with madfish at 23.02 on 7 Feb. The one using quadrillion is the modern way (following the good ol' US of A) but when Fred and I went to school a billion in Britain was a million million not a thousand million. Wait until we agree with their "A pint is a pound the world around". To save any one the trouble of checking, a pint of pure water still weighs a pound and a quarter in Britain. 

Interesting to see that the two who used calculators did not get the answer right. Does anybody have a calculator that does give the right answer?

 whats wrong with standard exponential form? its a completely correct way of writing numbers?

this reminds me of a certain book, recently made into a film, where the "ultimate answer to life the universe and everything" was found, but no one really knew what the question meant.

except maybe this is the other way round.......

hmmmm......

 Are you sure that you don't mean Standard INDEX form rather then exponential form. At least this is what I seem to remember from what I've been told that I have learnt so far in my further maths A2 level course

 maybe i did mean standard index i was in two minds, and couldn't remeber whether it was index or exponential. i'm only AS maths at the moment, so that makes it ok.......i think......

And how should these massive numbers be described ? Gargantuan ?

I go with the million million being a billion too.

Being taught my maths before the dawn of calculators (chalk and slate in primary school, and I'm still in my 30s!) long multiplication still comes naturally, and this is a very simple if big example.

Take the 111,111,111 and multiply by 100,000,000. Just add enough noughts!!)

Underneath write 111,111,111 times 10,000,000.

Then write 111,111,111 times 1,000,000.

Keep going until the final line 111,111,111 times 1, (Which is of course 111,111,111)

It should look like:

11,111,111,100,000,000

  1,111,111,110,000,000

     111,111,111,000,000

       11,111,111,100,000

         1,111,111,110,000

            111,111,111,000

              11,111,111,100

                1,111,111,110

                   111,111,111

With me so far? now just add the columns up, there's nothing to carry over because the middle column is the biggest with nine ones. It should look like:

12,345,678,987,654,321

QED!

(I'll be sick as a parrot if this doesn't look right when it comes out on the forum!!)

 

That's brilliant; emailing usually has its own way of presenting words and numbers.

Its also how we were learnt to multiply, but never tackled one as big as this.

How did you keep everything exactly in line?

 Although I am still in school, albeit the last year that they'll still have me, I have been taught to be able to use the long multiplication method (although it is reversed, bottom to top, to your's bovril). With this particular sum i gave up writing all the 1's after the first 2/3 lines and only wrote the 0's for the rest.

 

I believe that this method (long multiplication)  should carry on being taught for the foreseeable future, due to the possibilities of sums to large for many calculators (for example the current on we are talking about) and also if a calculator is not close to hand

I'm afraid I'm a bit of a 'Rainman' when it comes to maths like this, I'm almost embarrassed to say I could visualise this one before I wrote it out!!

To keep it all in line I typed it straight into the 'reply' box in the thread, and used the space bar copiously! Two taps for a number, one for a comma.

I always did long maths backwards. At primary school I was told I must be cheating because doing subtraction from the left was impossible, but I couldn't get the hang of it conventionally!