6 ms·
That looks correct to me, to the given number of significant figures. Did you expect to get all 301 digits? I don't think Google Search provides that kind of pr
by inportb 15y ago
That looks correct to me, to the given number of significant figures. Did you expect to get all 301 digits? I don't think Google Search provides that kind of precision ;p
However, you could easily compute this yourself...
>>> 2**1000
1071508607186267320948425049060001810561404811705533607443750
3883703510511249361224931983788156958581275946729175531468251
8714528569231404359845775746985748039345677748242309854210746
0506237114187795418215304647498358194126739876755916554394607
7062914571196477686542167660429831652624386837205668069376L
- ez77 15y agoThat is, >>> 2**1000
- inportb 15y agoThank you. I n00bfaced, heh.
- icebraining 15y agoWolframAlpha does print all the digits (which makes sense, since it's their core business): http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2^1000 http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2^1000
- WorldMover 15y agoI was wondering why does it show it at all, when it doesn't show 31000, or 41000 for example