zlacker

[return to "The largest number representable in 64 bits"]
1. doogli+ks[view] [source] 2026-02-02 20:40:31
>>tromp+(OP)
I'm going to agree with the downvoted people and say that this sort of approach is largely meaningless if you allow arbitrary mappings. IMO the most reasonable mathematical formulation given the structure of the integers (in the sense of e.g. Peano) is that to truly represent an integer you have to represent zero and each other representable number has a representable predecessor, i.e. to say you can represent 5 you need 0,1,2,3,4, and 5 to be representable. By a straightforward counting argument, 2^64-1 is then the largest representable number, in other words the obvious thing is right.
◧◩
2. gowld+w21[view] [source] 2026-02-02 23:04:15
>>doogli+ks
Your idea can't even represent 1/2. What good is that?

You're imposing an abitrary set of preferred numbers, which is boring and useless for measuring large things.

[go to top]