1. range of atoms
- Posted by jluethje at gmx.de
Jun 03, 2002
Hello all,
--------------------------------------------------------------------
refman2.htm, 2.1.1 Atoms and Sequences (Euphoria 2.3):
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Atoms can have any integer or double-precision floating point value.
They can range from approximately -1e300 (minus one times 10 to the
power 300) to +1e300 with 15 decimal digits of accuracy."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
On my system, atoms apparently can range from approximately -1.7e308
to +1.7e308. That isn't a small difference (factor 170,000,000):
---------------------->8--
atom x
x = -1.7e308
? x
x = +1.7e308
? x
---------------------->8--
Regards,
Juergen
2. Re: range of atoms
Juergen writes:
> On my system, atoms apparently can range from approximately -1.7e308
> to +1.7e308. That isn't a small difference (factor 170,000,000):
The limit will be the same on any system running Euphoria that
has IEEE floating-point hardware (all that I know of).
I was not being very precise when I said 1e300, but when you consider
that there are at most 1e81 atoms (no pun intended) in the universe,
it's hard to imagine what use someone could possibly have for
numbers like 1e300 or higher. 
Regards,
Rob Craig
Rapid Deployment Software
http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
3. Re: range of atoms
- Posted by jluethje at gmx.de
Jun 04, 2002
Hello Rob,
you wrote:
> Juergen writes:
>> On my system, atoms apparently can range from approximately -1.7e308
>> to +1.7e308. That isn't a small difference (factor 170,000,000):
> The limit will be the same on any system running Euphoria that
> has IEEE floating-point hardware (all that I know of).
> I was not being very precise when I said 1e300, but when you consider
> that there are at most 1e81 atoms (no pun intended) in the universe,
> it's hard to imagine what use someone could possibly have for
> numbers like 1e300 or higher.
An average chess game has about 40 moves (white moves 40 times, black
moves 40 times). How much different chess games of this length are
theoretically possible? (I hope, my English is understandable.)
The answer is: 1.5e128 [1]
Much more than the estimated number of atoms in the universe!
... but much less than 1e300, too.
> Regards,
> Rob Craig
> Rapid Deployment Software
> http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
Best regards,
Juergen
------------------------------------
[1] I took this info from the book
Steinwender, Friedel:
"Schach am PC"
Haar near Munich/Germany, 1995
page 52
4. Re: range of atoms
- Posted by a.tammer at hetnet.nl
Jun 04, 2002
Will you give the formula for that Rob?
I'm interested to see how you calculated it.
Did you read the full thread on bcd, that I
took part in, where Karl and I, I guess,
were discussing smallest size-standard?
Calculating by that satndard contents of
known universe sofar in cubic planck
Item was called planck back then.
antoine
5. Re: range of atoms
On 4 Jun 2002, at 10:49, jluethje at gmx.de wrote:
>
> Hello Rob,
>
> you wrote:
>
> > Juergen writes:
> >> On my system, atoms apparently can range from approximately -1.7e308
> >> to +1.7e308. That isn't a small difference (factor 170,000,000):
>
> > The limit will be the same on any system running Euphoria that
> > has IEEE floating-point hardware (all that I know of).
> > I was not being very precise when I said 1e300, but when you consider
> > that there are at most 1e81 atoms (no pun intended) in the universe,
> > it's hard to imagine what use someone could possibly have for
> > numbers like 1e300 or higher.
>
> An average chess game has about 40 moves (white moves 40 times, black
> moves 40 times). How much different chess games of this length are
> theoretically possible? (I hope, my English is understandable.)
> The answer is: 1.5e128 [1]
> Much more than the estimated number of atoms in the universe!
> ... but much less than 1e300, too.
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-932149.html
A report in this week's Nature magazine says Seth Lloyd estimated that
such a computer would have to contain 10 to the 90th bits of information and
perform 10 to the 120th operations on those bits to model the universe in all
its various incarnations since the big bang.
The second figure was drawn from Lloyd's idea that a fundamental particle's
move from one quantum state to another can be seen as a computation, and
that the universe itself can thus be viewed as a giant computer, the Nature
report stated.
Numbers of such size are nearly impossible to comprehend. But the total
information required to model the universe is 10 billion times greater than the
number of elementary particles--neutrons, protons, electrons and photons--in
the universe, the Nature report said. Lloyd could not be reached for
comment.
So in our everyday work modeling all the various parallel universes, we really
need bigger integers, Rob.
Kat
6. Re: range of atoms
- Posted by a.tammer at hetnet.nl
Jun 04, 2002
Use ICD Kat wraff
antoine
7. Re: range of atoms
Antoine Tammer writes:
> Will you give the formula for that Rob?
> I'm interested to see how you calculated it.
I saw it on some guy's Web site.
He seemed to know what he was talking about.
He multiplied number of atoms per star, times
number of stars per galaxy, times number of galaxies.
Anyway, it was on the Web, so it must be true.
Regards,
Rob Craig
Rapid Deployment Software
http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
8. Re: range of atoms
- Posted by a.tammer at hetnet.nl
Jun 05, 2002
Seems he forgot to count in interstellar gas,
Dark Matter Mass of black holes, etc.
Quite inaccurate in my opinion.
BTW last mail should be read RE:Ur etc.
Sorry for my inaccuracy in that aspect Rob
EUrs,
antoine tammer
9. Re: range of atoms
- Posted by rforno at tutopia.com
Jun 05, 2002
That's the difference between possibility and reality. ;)
----- Original Message -----
From: <jluethje at gmx.de>
To: "EUforum" <EUforum at topica.com>
Subject: Re: range of atoms
>
> Hello Rob,
>
> you wrote:
>
> > Juergen writes:
> >> On my system, atoms apparently can range from approximately -1.7e308
> >> to +1.7e308. That isn't a small difference (factor 170,000,000):
>
> > The limit will be the same on any system running Euphoria that
> > has IEEE floating-point hardware (all that I know of).
> > I was not being very precise when I said 1e300, but when you consider
> > that there are at most 1e81 atoms (no pun intended) in the universe,
> > it's hard to imagine what use someone could possibly have for
> > numbers like 1e300 or higher.
>
> An average chess game has about 40 moves (white moves 40 times, black
> moves 40 times). How much different chess games of this length are
> theoretically possible? (I hope, my English is understandable.)
> The answer is: 1.5e128 [1]
> Much more than the estimated number of atoms in the universe!
> ... but much less than 1e300, too.
>
> > Regards,
> > Rob Craig
> > Rapid Deployment Software
> > http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
>
> Best regards,
> Juergen
>
> ------------------------------------
> [1] I took this info from the book
> Steinwender, Friedel:
> "Schach am PC"
> Haar near Munich/Germany, 1995
> page 52
>
>
>
>
10. Re: range of atoms
- Posted by a.tammer at hetnet.nl
Jun 05, 2002
Does the chess-example include real-games or
all kinds of theoretically possible combinations,
in real chess allowed or not allowed, or sometimes
even constructed beyond in real games obtainable
positions of pieces? )
@
11. Re: range of atoms
- Posted by jluethje at gmx.de
Jun 06, 2002
Hi Ricardo,
you wrote:
> That's the difference between possibility and reality. ;)
I agree. I did not play 1.5e128 chess games so far.
In my previous mail I wrote about "theoretically possible" chess games.
Maybe that was wrong, and I should have written "really possible"?
An interesting philosophical question: What is the nature of a
possibility? Does a possibility really exist, or does it only have a
possible existence in reality?
Fact is, that there can be about 1.5e128 different chess games with
40 moves each. And for instance, someone who writes a chess program
should really take this fact into consideration.
Best regards,
Juergen
12. Re: range of atoms
- Posted by jluethje at gmx.de
Jun 06, 2002
> Does the chess-example include real-games or
> all kinds of theoretically possible combinations,
> in real chess allowed or not allowed, or sometimes
> even constructed beyond in real games obtainable
> positions of pieces? )
> @
My chess-example applied to nothing else than possible real chess games
according to the chess rules.
This is what I mean when I write "chess games".
Regards,
Juergen
13. Re: range of atoms
- Posted by rforno at tutopia.com
Jun 07, 2002
Did you know that the number 17859066743264321980765 does not exist?? ;)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthew Lewis" <matthewwalkerlewis at YAHOO.COM>
To: "EUforum" <EUforum at topica.com>
Subject: RE: range of atoms
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: a.tammer at hetnet.nl [mailto:a.tammer at hetnet.nl]
>
> > Does the chess-example include real-games or
> > all kinds of theoretically possible combinations,
> > in real chess allowed or not allowed, or sometimes
> > even constructed beyond in real games obtainable
> > positions of pieces? )
>
> Looking in the _Penguin Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Numbers_ by
> David Wells, the second to the last entry is Skewes number:
>
> 10^(10^(10^34)) = 10^3400
>
> You can estimate the number of primes less than n using the integral of
> n/log n from 0 to n. This starts out as an over estimate, but switches
> between that and under estimates an infinite number of times. It's been
> proved that the first switch occurs before n reaches Skewes number. The
> text states that, "At the time [1933] this was an extraordinarily large
> number." Later, Hardy figured that it was the largest number that served
> any real purpose, and that if you had a chess game where all the particles
> of the universe were pieces (~ 10^80 - 10^87), and a move were the
> interchange of any two particles, where the game terminated after the same
> positions recured three times, the number of possible games would be
Skewes
> number.
>
> The largest number listed in the dictionary, however, is Graham's number:
>
> ^^ ^^
> 3||...||3
>
> Those are really arrows pointing up. Its a special notation created by
> Donald Knuth. This number is in the Guinness book of records (and was
> featured in Scientific American), and is thought to be an upper bound for
a
> combinatorics problem in Ramsey theory (some experts in Ramsey theory
think
> the actual answer may be as low as 6).
>
> You just can't express this number in terms of normal powers (not enough
> ink/electrons/whatever):
> ^
> 3|3 = 3^3, but
> ^^
> 3||3 = 3^(3^3) = 3^27 - 7,625,597,484,987
>
> But wait:
>
> ^^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
> 3|||3 = 3||(3||3) = 3||(7,625,597,484,987)
>
> I think you can see where this goes. Consider the number
>
> ^^^ ^^^ ^^^^
> 3|||...|||3 in which there are 3||||3 arrows, and call this g1.
> Now contstruct g2 where there are g1 arrows, g3 which has as g2 arrows,
and
> so forth until you get to g63. This is Graham's number.
>
> Matt Lewis
>
>
>
>
14. Re: range of atoms
- Posted by rforno at tutopia.com
Jun 07, 2002
I, once upon a time, wrote a chess-playing program in Commodore 64 Pascal
and C 64 Assembly. Later, I translated it to Borland C and 8086 Assembly. I
still have it. It has some bugs and does not play a good game. Not strange,
this being one of my first and last attempts to program in Pascal, C, and
Assembly. But I never considered the number of possible games you mention,
and only set RAM and CPU time limits.
Best regards.
----- Original Message -----
From: <jluethje at gmx.de>
To: "EUforum" <EUforum at topica.com>
Subject: Re: range of atoms
>
> Hi Ricardo,
>
> you wrote:
>
> > That's the difference between possibility and reality. ;)
>
> I agree. I did not play 1.5e128 chess games so far.
>
> In my previous mail I wrote about "theoretically possible" chess games.
> Maybe that was wrong, and I should have written "really possible"?
>
> An interesting philosophical question: What is the nature of a
> possibility? Does a possibility really exist, or does it only have a
> possible existence in reality?
>
> Fact is, that there can be about 1.5e128 different chess games with
> 40 moves each. And for instance, someone who writes a chess program
> should really take this fact into consideration.
>
> Best regards,
> Juergen
>
>
>
>
15. Re: range of atoms
- Posted by a.tammer at hetnet.nl
Jun 08, 2002
Hi Ricardo,
Did you think it was the only one?
Would you like to see the list of
nonexisting numbers on my Hd?
In this forum I mean
Would block it for years. ))
a@t
16. Re: range of atoms
Hello Ricardo,
you wrote:
> I, once upon a time, wrote a chess-playing program in Commodore 64 Pascal
> and C 64 Assembly. Later, I translated it to Borland C and 8086 Assembly. I
> still have it.
By the way... Do we already have a chess-playing program, written in
Euphoria?
> It has some bugs and does not play a good game. Not strange,
> this being one of my first and last attempts to program in Pascal, C, and
> Assembly. But I never considered the number of possible games you mention,
> and only set RAM and CPU time limits.
> Best regards.
The number I mentioned was just an example to illustrate the huge number
of possibilities in chess.
Best regards,
Juergen
