[seqfan] Re: A026081 Integers in reverse alphabetical order in U.S. English.

[Maximilian Hasler]

The following has been sent to the OEIS:

%C A026081
This sequence is ill defined from the 2nd term on.
Proof: Assume that x is the term following the initial 0. Then the
number x*10^(6n), for n sufficiently large, is spelled out: name(x)
name(10^(6n)). This comes after name(x) in lexicographical order, and
thus before x in this sequence.
[From M. F. Hasler (MHasler(AT)univ-ag.fr), Nov 20 2009]


On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Michael Porter wrote:
>
> Wouldn't the name for 10^963, "vigintitrecentillion", come after "vigintillion" in alphabetical order?  And the word for 10^3003 is "milliatillion", so I think there's a "vigintitremilliatillion", 10^9063.  I'm unclear on the order of the prefixes - would it be "tremilliavigintillion" instead?
>
> After millia-, I think we stop making new prefixes and just repeat the millia- prefix, so 10^3000003 is a milliamilliatillion.  So since milliatillion is alphabetically after milliamillia-anything, the second term (after zero) is well-defined (I think).
>
> Are we allowed to have a sequence that starts with a >9000-digit number?
>
> - Michael