 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kevin Wampler wrote:
> Caveat: The above is pure conjecture.
Heh, all the best ones are. ;-)
I'm still trying to figure out whether there exists a geometric way to
construct logarithms...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I'm still trying to figure out whether there exists a geometric way to
> construct logarithms...
Move your pen along at a speed inversely proportional to the distance from
where you started for X seconds. Or something like that :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/10/2010 6:32 PM, andrel wrote:
> On 10-8-2010 17:31, Darren New wrote:
>> clipka wrote:
>>> Yeah, sure. I recite that daily from memory before I go to sleep...
>>
>> This would be a better use of your time:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feynman_point
>>
> Kate does 116 if I have counted correctly:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZSHr5E7fZY
How many digits of pi do you need before your calculation of the volume
of the universe is off by no more than the average volume of a water
molecule?
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 22-8-2010 20:38, John VanSickle wrote:
> On 8/10/2010 6:32 PM, andrel wrote:
>> On 10-8-2010 17:31, Darren New wrote:
>>> clipka wrote:
>>>> Yeah, sure. I recite that daily from memory before I go to sleep...
>>>
>>> This would be a better use of your time:
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feynman_point
>>>
>> Kate does 116 if I have counted correctly:
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZSHr5E7fZY
>
> How many digits of pi do you need before your calculation of the volume
> of the universe is off by no more than the average volume of a water
> molecule?
>
> Regards,
> John
one mol of water is 18 gram is 18 ml hence volume of one molecule of
water is (18×10^-3 /(6.02214179×10^23))=
universe 3×10^80
therefore ratio of these volumes:
3×10^80/(18×10^-3 /(6.02214179×10^23))= 10^106
:(
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Kate does 116 if I have counted correctly:
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZSHr5E7fZY
>
> How many digits of pi do you need before your calculation of the volume
> of the universe is off by no more than the average volume of a water
> molecule?
50 digits allows you to compute the radius of the observable universe to
within the diammeter of a hydrogen atom.
As for whole water molecules, and volumes rather than lengths, I can't
say off the top of my head.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 22/08/2010 22:01, andrel a écrit :
> On 22-8-2010 20:38, John VanSickle wrote:
>> How many digits of pi do you need before your calculation of the
>> volume of the universe is off by no more than the average volume of a
>> water molecule?
>>
>> Regards,
>> John
>
> one mol of water is 18 gram is 18 ml hence volume of one molecule of
> water is (18×10^-3 /(6.02214179×10^23))=
> universe 3×10^80
How did you measure that ?
What's the speed of the expansion everyone is claiming to happen ?
> therefore ratio of these volumes:
> 3×10^80/(18×10^-3 /(6.02214179×10^23))= 10^106
So, we would be fine with integer of 353 bits, at least for volume
expressed in water molecule... what about an hydrogen atom instead ?
Could computer technology get past the wall of 384 bits for integer one
day ? (and what would they compute ?)
--
Real software engineers work from 9 to 5, because that is<br/>
the way the job is described in the formal spec. Working<br/>
late would feel like using an undocumented external procedure.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 23.08.2010 09:18, schrieb Le_Forgeron:
> Could computer technology get past the wall of 384 bits for integer one
> day ?
Computer technology already does that. Typically not in hardware, but in
software it's state of the art.
> (and what would they compute ?)
Cryptographic stuff for instance. Current encryption and digital
signature technology typically require integer computations with 1024
bits or more.
It's not really difficult to implement, actually. All you need to do is
think of a processor's "native" integer types as digits. For instance,
on an 8-bit processor you'd perform your computations in base 256.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23-8-2010 9:49, clipka wrote:
> Am 23.08.2010 09:18, schrieb Le_Forgeron:
>
>> Could computer technology get past the wall of 384 bits for integer one
>> day ?
>
> Computer technology already does that. Typically not in hardware, but in
> software it's state of the art.
correction: it was state of the art 40 odd years ago.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23-8-2010 9:18, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> Le 22/08/2010 22:01, andrel a écrit :
>> On 22-8-2010 20:38, John VanSickle wrote:
>
>>> How many digits of pi do you need before your calculation of the
>>> volume of the universe is off by no more than the average volume of a
>>> water molecule?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> John
>> one mol of water is 18 gram is 18 ml hence volume of one molecule of
>> water is (18×10^-3 /(6.02214179×10^23))=
>> universe 3×10^80
>
> How did you measure that ?
I didn't, but it is the value both wolfram and wikipedia give. I assume
it is the best I can do for now.
> What's the speed of the expansion everyone is claiming to happen ?
>
>
>> therefore ratio of these volumes:
>> 3×10^80/(18×10^-3 /(6.02214179×10^23))= 10^106
>
> So, we would be fine with integer of 353 bits, at least for volume
> expressed in water molecule... what about an hydrogen atom instead ?
That wasn't the question ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> correction: it was state of the art 40 odd years ago.
"This machine is state of the art."
"But it doesn't work."
"Well, yes. That's the state of the art, I'm afraid."
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Quoth the raven:
Need S'Mores!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
