1waffle1
|
  |
| Joined: 16 Oct 2007 |
| Total Posts: 16381 |
|
|
| 25 Dec 2012 12:20 AM |
| Is there any kind of number data type with no restrictions? You can hold up to 2^64 as a long unsigned double, but aside from creating your own math system through strings, is there a limitless type? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
|
| 25 Dec 2012 12:25 AM |
Just asked my dad.
Nothing is limitless. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
1waffle1
|
  |
| Joined: 16 Oct 2007 |
| Total Posts: 16381 |
|
|
| 25 Dec 2012 12:27 AM |
| Maybe not limitless, but, say, something that can store positive integers (not floats or doubles) up to 10^10^10? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 25 Dec 2012 12:28 AM |
| He said not even google's servers could manage that much. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
1waffle1
|
  |
| Joined: 16 Oct 2007 |
| Total Posts: 16381 |
|
|
| 25 Dec 2012 12:32 AM |
| 10^10^10 is simply 10^10 billion, which can be written as a ten gigabyte string if stored as such. I'm sure google's servers have 10 GB to spare. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Lombardo3
|
  |
| Joined: 15 Dec 2012 |
| Total Posts: 271 |
|
|
| 25 Dec 2012 12:36 AM |
| To store that (10,000,000,001) you will need 34 bits, so you could use ulong. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Lombardo3
|
  |
| Joined: 15 Dec 2012 |
| Total Posts: 271 |
|
|
| 25 Dec 2012 12:37 AM |
| Wait, brainfart 10^10^10 is much bigger than 10,000,000,001 |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 25 Dec 2012 12:37 AM |
10^10^10 is actaully 10^10 TRILLION.
I'm pretty sure that's not 10 GB. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 25 Dec 2012 12:39 AM |
| 10^10 trillion would need 10 TB of RAM to save. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
1waffle1
|
  |
| Joined: 16 Oct 2007 |
| Total Posts: 16381 |
|
|
| 25 Dec 2012 12:43 AM |
| No. 10 billion. Not 10 trillion. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 25 Dec 2012 12:44 AM |
Oh, and 10^10^10 is 1E+100
1E+100 = 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
1waffle1
|
  |
| Joined: 16 Oct 2007 |
| Total Posts: 16381 |
|
|
| 25 Dec 2012 12:45 AM |
No. It's not.
10^10^10 is not 10^100. 10^10^10 is 10^(10^10), not (10^10)^10. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Lombardo3
|
  |
| Joined: 15 Dec 2012 |
| Total Posts: 271 |
|
|
| 25 Dec 2012 12:48 AM |
| It is 10 GB if stored as a string, a character is represented with 8 bits, a byte, so we will need 10,000,000,001 bytes to store that as a string, which is 10,000 MB or 10 GB |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 25 Dec 2012 12:48 AM |
My bad.
10^10 is 10 billion.
And then 10^10 billion is 1E+90
And 1E+90 is the same as 1 with 90 0's. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
1waffle1
|
  |
| Joined: 16 Oct 2007 |
| Total Posts: 16381 |
|
|
| 25 Dec 2012 12:50 AM |
So I suppose that's my only option now.
If only I were allowed to utilize strings in Objective C without being forced only to use them as pointers. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
1waffle1
|
  |
| Joined: 16 Oct 2007 |
| Total Posts: 16381 |
|
|
| 25 Dec 2012 12:51 AM |
| IAm, Stop being a moron. 10^10 billion is 1E10 billion. Get out. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 25 Dec 2012 12:52 AM |
| What does your 10 billion look like? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
1waffle1
|
  |
| Joined: 16 Oct 2007 |
| Total Posts: 16381 |
|
|
| 25 Dec 2012 12:54 AM |
It looks like TEN BILLION. Not NINETY. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Lombardo3
|
  |
| Joined: 15 Dec 2012 |
| Total Posts: 271 |
|
|
| 25 Dec 2012 12:54 AM |
| 10 GB is still a enormous amount of memory, you should split it in smaller sections, if you try to load that string at once you'll probably get an overflow. And why the need to store such number? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Riderj
|
  |
| Joined: 15 Aug 2011 |
| Total Posts: 1534 |
|
|
| 25 Dec 2012 12:56 AM |
| My computer has 64 GB of memory :O |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
1waffle1
|
  |
| Joined: 16 Oct 2007 |
| Total Posts: 16381 |
|
|
| 25 Dec 2012 12:57 AM |
@Rider storage != memory @lomb Just an example. I'll probably be under 10^1000. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 25 Dec 2012 01:04 AM |
Exactly 10 000 000 001 digits; a max value of 10 ^ 10 ^ 10.
The number of bits it takes (assuming it is unsigned): log(2,10^10^10)
Therefore, the number of gibibytes it would take to store is log(2,10^10^10)/(8*2^30)
According to WolframAlpha, that's equal to about 2.68056 GiB.
Therefore, I conclude that a number that must go to up to 10^10^10 and that is unsigned would take around 2.68056 GiB of space. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
1waffle1
|
  |
| Joined: 16 Oct 2007 |
| Total Posts: 16381 |
|
|
| 25 Dec 2012 01:06 AM |
| which is why I would prever that over a string |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Lombardo3
|
  |
| Joined: 15 Dec 2012 |
| Total Posts: 271 |
|
|
| 25 Dec 2012 01:06 AM |
| So, storing it as a number is actually cheaper than storing it as a string? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|