[Maursault]

Are numbers not objects? Is scientific notation not a way of expressing numbers that are too large or too small to be conceived or expressed in decimal form? Does a large database keep every object and every bit of data stored in it in RAM? How is it possible a fractal can be rendered in parts of the whole? Even older computers ordinarily can operate on 2^140 objects.

      user@decadeoldcomputer:~$ echo 2^140 |bc
      1393796574908163946345982392040522594123776

Maybe try to ignore who is saying what, and focus only on what was said.

[adrianN]

No computer can operate on 2**140 objects in any meaningful way, because no computer can even remember whether it's already done with one of the objects or not. Your example operates on a single object, a number.

[Maursault]

Your response is a no true scotsman fallacy while also moving the goalposts, though what you've described is either a single-user single-task operating system, or you are conflating the limitations of current conventional single computer technology, which has already been solved with conventional clusters as well as quantum computing, and probably also with modern GPUs. Parallel computing has existed at least since the mid-1960s.

[adrianN]

You apparently didn't even skim the paper I linked.

[Maursault]

Your comment here and suggestion before, and that entire comment, is ad hominem: "ur dum! Go read a book! LOL! Stop disagreeing with me, I don't know logic!"

[adrianN]

Not everything that disagrees with you is ad hominem and not knowing something is not a shame. But it does not make for good discussion if you're not engaging with the arguments.

[Maursault]

Fallacy doesn't require response, yet I have entertained them as much as I have ignored them, such as this straw man. The other comments mentioned in my GP were ad hominem, though they didn't have to be phrased in a way that made them so, but instead asserted against my argument and cited rather than focusing on what I should do. One must speak to the argument, not to the man, "your facts are in error and your argument flawed because x, y, z," rather than "you are wrong and don't know what you're talking about, and I know this because I am an expert." Fallacy is not too difficult to avoid, but also easy enough to be trapped by,

[mturmon]

Uh, that’s 140 objects (the number of bits), not 2^140 objects. Rookie numbers.

[Maursault]

No, they are 1393796574908163946345982392040522594123776 numbers.

      1 is a number. 

      2 are two numbers (1 + 1). 

      3 are three numbers (1 + 1 + 1). 

      ------------------------------>

      ∴2^140 are 1393796574908163946345982392040522594123776 numbers.

quod erat demonstrandum

[mturmon]

Oops, you forgot to count 1.5

Relatedly, last night I tried to think about sqrt(2), but I couldn't get up that high! I got stuck trying to remember the 43'd irrational number after zero.

[Maursault]

It's an 8. Just remember 718-753-7694 is an actual Staten Island phone number.