4 ms·
If you read the article, it's actually: (2^77,232,917)-1
by Franciscouzo 9y ago
If you read the article, it's actually:
(2^77,232,917)-1
- TheRealPomax 9y agoNot sure if this was a serious comment, but if it was: due to operator precedence in mathematics, the expressions (2^77,232,917)-1, 2^(77,232,917)-1, and 2^77,232,917-1 are identically evaluated, with the parentheses only used to aid the human eye. This in contrast to 2^(77,232,917-1), which is 2^77,232,916 and is a very different number indeed.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- kodablah 9y agoThe parens are a red herring. GP is commenting on the previous poster using 277 instead of 77 (i.e. typo).
- chrismorgan 9y agoVery well then; let us rather write them with proper superscripts (and I’ll use THIN SPACE as a thousands and prettiness separator too because I can): 2 ⁷⁷ ²³² ⁹¹⁷ − 1 not 2 ⁷⁷ ²³² ⁹¹⁷ ⁻ ¹ There, no more ambiguity. (Now I’m waiting for someone to jump on me to correct anything subtle.) [Ah, I see, the parentheses were indeed a red herring. Ah well; let the superscripts remain.]