tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post3134174018193117753..comments2022-09-22T01:46:17.706-04:00Comments on Recursivity: Gee, It's Warmer in Buffalo Than I ThoughtUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-53621589611182195362011-01-03T20:21:33.667-05:002011-01-03T20:21:33.667-05:00Ah! The big-endian single-precision floating point...Ah! The big-endian single-precision floating point representation of 222222157650853888 consists of printable characters: \E_x<br /><br />It's probably just a coincidence that the number is so close to (20/9)*10^17.<br /><br />(And it doesn't seem to be a big-endian vs. little-endian problem, because you get an even larger number if you reverse the bytes.)IvanMnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-81992599137334968502011-01-03T12:35:48.627-05:002011-01-03T12:35:48.627-05:00Well, likely it is because the applet is written i...Well, likely it is because the applet is written in<br />Java, which speaks only IEEE big endian,<br />and it got its number from a IEEE little endian<br />source.John Stockwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03496308585336775569noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-83370009288328341702011-01-02T20:28:22.919-05:002011-01-02T20:28:22.919-05:00I like the 'feels like' row: is '-'...I like the 'feels like' row: is '-' the sound you make at that temperature?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-90752343799925600482010-12-27T15:13:25.524-05:002010-12-27T15:13:25.524-05:00The zeroes at the end of the number seem to indica...The zeroes at the end of the number seem to indicate that it's the result of converting a 32-bit float to an integer.<br /><br />And indeed, the following C program produces the number:<br /><br />#include <stdio.h><br />main() {<br />float a = 3.999999e17;<br />a = a*5/9;<br />printf("%.0f\n", a);<br />}<br /><br />The constant really is 3.999999e17, since 3.9999987e17 and 3.9999991e17 produce the wrong result (and I omitted the subtraction of 32 because it has no effect on a large 32-bit float).IvanMnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-75077774457823230892010-12-26T22:11:01.745-05:002010-12-26T22:11:01.745-05:00222222157650853888 decimal
... in binary
0000 001...222222157650853888 decimal<br /><br />... in binary<br />0000 0011<br />0001 0101<br />0111 1101<br />1110 0000<br />0000 0000<br />0000 0000<br />0000 0000<br />0000 0000<br /><br />... in hex<br />3157DE000000000<br /><br />... in Fahrenheit<br />399999883771537000<br /><br />... ... in binary<br />0000 0101 <br />1000 1101 <br />0001 0101 <br />1100 0110<br />0110 0110<br />0110 0110<br />0110 0110 <br />1000 0000<br /><br />... ... in hex<br />58D15C666666668<br /><br /><br />I thought about what might happen if a time stamp ended up in the wrong place in a database so I looked at the dates and times google cached results with this number but I found no correlations.<br /><br />222222157650853888 alone doesn't make sense as a unix time stamp (its like 7,000,000,000 + years) but... the first two bytes of the number (in hex reading from the left) 3157DE00 is <br />827,842,048 seconds<br /> or <br />03 / 26 / 96 @ 6:07:28am as unix time stamp <br />or <br />26.2332918 years<br /><br />Obviously no fruitful results. I only post so others don't bother with these particular trains of thought or others may see something I missed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-88483269522682654802010-12-26T21:30:30.157-05:002010-12-26T21:30:30.157-05:00Prime factors: 2^37 x 11 x 146989
I'll keep t...Prime factors: 2^37 x 11 x 146989<br /><br />I'll keep thinking about it.codyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11407919985914326282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-55602182605606071822010-12-26T11:46:14.183-05:002010-12-26T11:46:14.183-05:00Googling for that monstrous number shows lots and ...Googling for that monstrous number shows lots and lots of places affected. But what on earth is it?<br /><br />It's 0x03157de000000000, with lots of zeros at the end. But so far as I can tell, 0x03157de0 isn't anything very interesting.<br /><br />There's no obvious IEEE floating-point screwup that would look like this. (For instance, interpreting a NaN as an ordinary floating-point value doesn't produce anything in that range.)<br /><br />It's close to being what you'd get from converting 4 x 10^17 from Fahrenheit into Celsius, but only to about 6 figures.<br /><br />Anyone got more patience and/or ingenuity than me?Gareth McCaughanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05377158305586280009noreply@blogger.com