Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!gatech!akgua!lcuxlm!whuxl!houxm!hropus!jin
From: jin@hropus.UUCP (Jerry Natowitz)
Newsgroups: net.arch
Subject: Re: VERY LARGE main memories: crypt
Message-ID: <668@hropus.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 10-Sep-86 13:24:10 EDT
Article-I.D.: hropus.668
Posted: Wed Sep 10 13:24:10 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 11-Sep-86 07:29:41 EDT
References: <1178@bu-cs.bu-cs.BU.EDU> <1087@ihwpt.UUCP> <553@astroatc.UUCP> <2431@phri.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Labs, Holmdel, NJ
Lines: 25

> 	No, physicists don't usually think in binary, and no, I didn't mean
> 10^200th.  A physicist would say there are about 10^40 electrons and a
> computer scientist would call that about 2^200 because it's more useful
> that way.  And please, no nitpicking from people claiming these numbers are
> off by an order of magnitude or two.
> -- 
> Roy Smith, {allegra,philabs}!phri!roy
> System Administrator, Public Health Research Institute
> 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016

A mathematically trained ex-psychologist says that 10^40 is
2^132, more or less.  a^x = b^((x*log(a))/log(b)) - in this case
10^40 = 2^(40*1/.303) = 2^132 to three place precision.

I think correcting an error of over 20 orders of magnitude (200*.303 -40)
is not nitpicking, wouldn't you agree?
-- 
Jerry Natowitz (HASA - A division)
Bell Labs HR 2A-214
201-615-5178 (no CORNET)
ihnp4!houxm!hropus!jin
or ihnp4!opus!jin

Isn't it interesting how the beautiful little red flower in the forest
becomes so ugly when you discover it's a candy wrapper.