Posts: 108
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2006
Quote: a standard computer can't hold a number as big as 1 googolplex. But our minds can,
No computer holds a number. A bit field is not a number. A computer proccesses the bit fields and give output that signifies a number (visually, sonicly, temporally). You could easily, with a standard computer, design a system that manipulates huge numbers and outputs them in some significant fashion. There are even systems available for working with transcendental numbers (various magnitudes of infinity).
Posts: 3,616
Threads: 287
Joined: Jan 2003
I'll rephrase:
Standard computers, using standard methods of data-representative storage, are unable to represent a number as large as 1 googolplex.
f only life let you press CTRL-Z.
--------------------------------------
Freebasic is like QB, except it doesn't suck.
Posts: 3,522
Threads: 189
Joined: Dec 2003
Quote:I'll rephrase:
Standard computers, using standard methods of data-representative storage, are unable to represent a number as large as 1 googolplex.
And so is your mind.
Posts: 193
Threads: 20
Joined: Jun 2005
8 little bytes can hold a number this big:
18 446 744 073 709 551 615
How many bytes of storage capacity is it in a 320gb HD?...umm...quite many.
Posts: 3,616
Threads: 287
Joined: Jan 2003
Quote:How many bytes of storage capacity is it in a 320gb HD?
About 320 billion.
f only life let you press CTRL-Z.
--------------------------------------
Freebasic is like QB, except it doesn't suck.
Posts: 3,522
Threads: 189
Joined: Dec 2003
Quote:8 little bytes can hold a number this big:
18 446 744 073 709 551 615
How many bytes of storage capacity is it in a 320gb HD?...umm...quite many.
Lets say you have a 320GB HD, and we for simplicity assume it can hold 320000000000 bytes, that'd be 2560000000000 bits
So, 2^2560000000000 would be the maximum number on a 320GB hd, it's a large number, but nowhere near 10^10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
Posts: 3,616
Threads: 287
Joined: Jan 2003
Not true. The most signifigant bit of those 320 billion will be that number, but what if all bits are set? Then you add whatever each bit represents.
Like, with one byte (8 bits), the most signifigant bit represents the number 128. But the maximum one byte can hold is 255.
f only life let you press CTRL-Z.
--------------------------------------
Freebasic is like QB, except it doesn't suck.
Posts: 193
Threads: 20
Joined: Jun 2005
No one can be told what the googolplex is...
Posts: 3,522
Threads: 189
Joined: Dec 2003
Quote:Not true. The most signifigant bit of those 320 billion will be that number, but what if all bits are set? Then you add whatever each bit represents.
Like, with one byte (8 bits), the most signifigant bit represents the number 128. But the maximum one byte can hold is 255.
True, the maximum number would then be (2^2560000000001)-1 or (2^2560000000000)-1 depending on how you do the math.. and what you prefer
Still, nowhere near 10^100[...]000
Posts: 3,616
Threads: 287
Joined: Jan 2003
No, you still don't get it.
The 320-billionth bit on the HD, when set, stands for a very large number. But what if the 399 999 999 999th bit is also set? Then you add what the 320-billionth bit represents to what the 399 999 999 999th bit represents, and you get a number larger (obviously). 2^2560000000000 is just what number the highest, or "most signifigant" bit stands for.
Take 8 bits again. The number 13 is represented by 0000 1101. The far-right bit stands for 1, the third-right stands for 4 and the fourth-right stands for 8. Add em' all up and you get thirteen. If we took the number 1000 0001, the farthest-left stands for 128 and the farthest right stands for 1. The number is therefore 129.
Similarily, take 320*8 billion bits and set the one farthest left to ON, and a bunch of others, too. You get a number bigger than just what the far-left bit represents.
f only life let you press CTRL-Z.
--------------------------------------
Freebasic is like QB, except it doesn't suck.
