3 ms·
I found this line amusing: >This means it will not reach its stated efficiency until the numbers have at least 2^1729^12 bits (at least 10^10^38 digits), which
by adfsgkinio 6y ago
I found this line amusing:
>This means it will not reach its stated efficiency until the numbers have at least 2^1729^12 bits (at least 10^10^38 digits), which is vastly larger than the number of atoms in the known universe.
"Vastly larger" is one of the biggest understatements I've ever heard. It's roughly 10^10^38 times larger.
I can't think of a better way to write that line. I just found it funny.
- userbinator 6y agoThe 10^38 caught my attention - I wonder if there's any relationship to the range of IEEE single-precision floating-point?
- zamadatix 6y ago(1729^12)/(maxfloat) is roughly 2.0974 so probably just coincidence with one of many common large ranges vs a direct relation.
- wetmore 6y agoNeat seeing 1729 show up there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1729_(number) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1729_(number)
- perl4ever 6y agoWikipedia also says that 1729 was the year of the largest/brightest comet ever seen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_of_1729 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_of_1729
- eru 6y ago> This means it will not reach its stated efficiency until the numbers have at least 2^1729^12 bits (at least 10^10^38 digits), which is larger than the number of atoms in the known universe. This version might be better? If you like understatement, that is.