[QUOTE=Kendra;39495738]278.7 m^2 to people that don't use moron units. :([/QUOTE]
everyone knows Planck units are the best
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;39495971]everyone knows Planck units are the best[/QUOTE]
1, 1, 1, 1 and 1.
[QUOTE=Moupi;39495687]how exactly is this useful
i mean it's not even like a huge step in science it's just like "i HAVE found the NUMBER between 0 and INFINITY and it shares an attribute with numbers such as 7 or 13!!!!"[/QUOTE]
Who cares?
Why does every breakthrough have to have some sort of obvious and immediate use?
[QUOTE=Moupi;39495687]how exactly is this useful
i mean it's not even like a huge step in science it's just like "i HAVE found the NUMBER between 0 and INFINITY and it shares an attribute with numbers such as 7 or 13!!!!"[/QUOTE]
If you read back through the thread, I already commented on this.
Huge prime numbers like these are used in encryption algorithms. You know those bank details that you'd prefer were not stolen when you make a purchase online? All protected by prime numbers.
[QUOTE=Baboo00;39487344]Not an expert, but I believe this 57,885,161 bits, so 14,471,291 bytes or 13.8 mb.[/QUOTE]
the word file is 16.6 mb and holy fuck is it big
oh god, that number was so big it created waves in wordpad.... WAVES
The internet is drowning D:
Prime numbers are largery used in security algorithms for encryption. If the key for encryption is prime number, it is very hard to find that with any algorithm other than brute force.
In terms of storing the number in a file, you could just store it in scientific notation (using 2 in place of 10) and it'd take like 8 bytes at most.
(That being the benefit of Mersenne primes)
[QUOTE=HeatPipe;39496779]Prime numbers are largery used in security algorithms for encryption. If the key for encryption is prime number, it is very hard to find that with any algorithm other than brute force.[/QUOTE]
is the prime number used for the key? i thought the key involved using prime factors of an incredibly large number(finding prime factors is a lot more cpu intensive than finding prime numbers).
I wonder how big the file would be (and how many pages it would add) if you included the commas.
[QUOTE=Chaotic Lord;39497281]I wonder how big the file would be (and how many pages it would add) if you included the commas.[/QUOTE]
Assuming you add a comma every three digits it would just be 33% bigger / 5 million
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;39496307]Who cares?
Why does every breakthrough have to have some sort of obvious and immediate use?[/QUOTE]
I was just joking bro JUST JOKING
[QUOTE=Shadaez;39497445]Assuming you add a comma every three digits it would just be 33% bigger / 5 million[/QUOTE]
Okay, I did some math.
it would add 5,808,390 commas.
If my calculations are correct (which they're probably not), if commas were included the document would be about 6,600 pages long
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;39487729]I output a few hundred thousand digits with mathematica
I wonder how long it will take to do the whole thing
[editline]5th February 2013[/editline]
Great Odin's ravens. That is a number.
[editline]5th February 2013[/editline]
thanks mathematica that is handy:
[IMG]http://i46.tinypic.com/fm3lgo.png[/IMG][/QUOTE]
We've already established that it can be more easily represented as Overflow
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;39497505]I was just joking bro JUST JOKING[/QUOTE]
I was quoting him though
[editline]6th February 2013[/editline]
Whether or not you were joking there are plenty of people who actually believe that
[editline]6th February 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zeke129;39498453]We've already established that it can be more easily represented as Overflow[/QUOTE]
Or even more easily represented by NaN
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;39500001]
Or even more easily represented by NaN[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s139/angus725/matlab_zpsbecd16f8.png[/IMG]
Matlab tells me it's ∞
therefore matlab is inferior
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;39487729]I output a few hundred thousand digits with mathematica
I wonder how long it will take to do the whole thing
[editline]5th February 2013[/editline]
Great Odin's ravens. That is a number.
[editline]5th February 2013[/editline]
thanks mathematica that is handy:
[IMG]http://i46.tinypic.com/fm3lgo.png[/IMG][/QUOTE]
I did the same here, but my Wolfram Mathematica somehow crashed when I clicked "Show Full Output".
[IMG]http://filesmelt.com/dl/words1.png[/IMG]
lol
I think I'm going to assemble a super computer to produce the largest number. A SSD, a word document, press 9 once, put a brick on numpad 0.
[QUOTE=Stopper;39508919]I think I'm going to assemble a super computer to produce the largest number. A SSD, a word document, press 9 once, put a brick on numpad 0.[/QUOTE]
You won't even get close to numbers that have already been used in proofs e.g. Graham's number, and especially not TREE(3).
I went up to 20% cpu usage on my 6 core just viewing that rtf
[QUOTE=Yahnich;39509202]i hope you realize that graham's number is so mindboggling big that if you had all that information in your brain your brain would be so massive it'd collapse into itself as a black hole
just so you know a computer can't even come close[/QUOTE]
So browsing math threads disables your sense of humor, eh?
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;39508961]You won't even get close to numbers that have already been used in proofs e.g. Graham's number, and especially not TREE(3).[/QUOTE]
Isn't graham's number so big that even if you used all of the matter in the universe to write it out it wouldn't be enough?
[QUOTE=Hellduck;39509566]Isn't graham's number so big that even if you used all of the matter in the universe to write it out it wouldn't be enough?[/QUOTE]
Yes.
And TREE(3) is so much bigger than it it's not even worth comparing.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;39509654]Yes.
And TREE(3) is so much bigger than it it's not even worth comparing.[/QUOTE]
What's the purpose of these numbers?
[QUOTE=Hellduck;39509679]What's the purpose of these numbers?[/QUOTE]
TREE(n) shows up in Kruskal's tree theorem, and Graham's number is an upper bound for the solution of a problem in Ramsey theory.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;39487729]I output a few hundred thousand digits with mathematica
I wonder how long it will take to do the whole thing
[editline]5th February 2013[/editline]
Great Odin's ravens. That is a number.
[editline]5th February 2013[/editline]
thanks mathematica that is handy:
[IMG]http://i46.tinypic.com/fm3lgo.png[/IMG][/QUOTE]
Lol, I just did the same when I saw the threat. While my PC was calculating I scrolled down and saw your post.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;39508961]You won't even get close to numbers that have already been used in proofs e.g. Graham's number, and especially not TREE(3).[/QUOTE]
What is TREE(4)???
Or even TREE(TREE(TREE...(There are TREE(3) trees in this sequence)...TREE(TREE(TREE(3))))...)))
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;39509822]TREE(n) shows up in Kruskal's tree theorem, and Graham's number is an upper bound for the solution of a problem in Ramsey theory.[/QUOTE]
Why are we talking about botany, crackers, and british chefs now
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
