# Google Calculator fun...

• Someone showed me this today:

((pi * (e * pi * e) * (pi * e * pi) * (e * pi * e) * (((((twenty three (stone knots)) plus (two billion (smoot grains))) plus (three thousand eight hundred and seventy nine (slug feet))) * pi) per (carat yards))) per c) * (cubits per week) = 1.00000092

Uh... WTF? How does that work out?

• what do you think it should be?

• @Daniel15 said:

Someone showed me this today:

((pi * (e * pi * e) * (pi * e * pi) * (e * pi * e) * (((((twenty three (stone knots)) plus (two billion (smoot grains))) plus (three thousand eight hundred and seventy nine (slug feet))) * pi) per (carat yards))) per c) * (cubits per week) = 1.00000092

Uh... WTF? How does that work out?

Well for a start it's needlessly complicated, it can be simplified to:Â

pi^6 * e^5 / c * (23 stone knots + 2e9 smoot grains + 3879 slug feet) cubits per (carat yard week)

But I'm having trouble figuring out what the WTF is - where's the link to the mug...

• Found this blog entry from 2003:

After verifying that 2+2=4, I tried to figure out the largest difference between the smallest and largest units of measurement on a given scale, finally ending up with ~3.08 x 10^26 angstroms in a parsec (26 orders of magnitude difference).

If you delve into the world of obscure metric prefixes, you can get up to 64 orders of magnitude difference....there are ~3.08 x 10^64 yoctometers in a yottaparsec.

If you want to get really ridiculous, you can find out there are ~3.08 x 10^103 yoctometers in one vigintillion parsecs.

That got me thinking...what's the limit of the Google Calculator's computational ability? 170! (170! = 1234 ... 168169*170) is equal to ~7.26 x 10^306, but 171! doesn't work.

2^1023 = ~8.99 x 10^307, but 2^1024 doesn't work.Â  After some trial and error, the upper limit of the calculator is ~1.797 Ã— 10^308...or basically anything less than 2^1024.Â  My binary math is a little rusty, but that limit seems to correspond to 32-bit double precision real arithmetic.Â  Which makes sense, but it would have been more fun if the limit would have been a googol. (neither googolplex nor infinity return calculator results.)

Â

• @tster said:

what do you think it should be?

Other than it being mildly surprising that it parses written-out numbers (and I did not know that the word "plus" worked), one might not know what a smoot is.

@El_Heffe said:

32-bit double precision real arithmetic.

32-bit what now? I think you mean 64 (53-bit mantissa, 11-bit exponent)

• @Daniel15 said:

Someone showed me this today:

((pi * (e * pi * e) * (pi * e * pi) * (e * pi * e) * (((((twenty three (stone knots)) plus (two billion (smoot grains))) plus (three thousand eight hundred and seventy nine (slug feet))) * pi) per (carat yards))) per c) * (cubits per week) = 1.00000092

Uh... WTF? How does that work out?

I'll start by some helpful indenting, and what matters is the units

(

Â Â Â  (pi *

Â Â Â  Â Â Â  (e * pi * e) *

Â Â Â  Â Â Â  (pi * e * pi) *

Â Â Â  Â Â Â  (e * pi * e) *

Â Â Â  Â Â Â  (

Â Â Â  Â Â Â  Â Â Â  (

Â Â Â  Â Â Â  Â Â Â  Â Â Â  (

Â Â Â  Â Â Â  Â Â Â  Â Â Â  Â Â Â  (

Â Â Â  Â Â Â  Â Â Â  Â Â Â  Â Â Â  Â Â Â  (twenty three

Â Â Â  Â Â Â  Â Â Â  Â Â Â  Â Â Â  Â Â Â  Â Â Â  (stone knots) // mass times speed? - but google also knows the knot as a unit of LENGTH

Â Â Â  Â Â Â  Â Â Â  Â Â Â  Â Â Â  Â Â Â  )

Â Â Â  Â Â Â  Â Â Â  Â Â Â  Â Â Â  plus

Â Â Â  Â Â Â  Â Â Â  Â Â Â  Â Â Â  Â Â Â  (two billion

Â Â Â  Â Â Â  Â Â Â  Â Â Â  Â Â Â  Â Â Â  Â Â Â  (smoot grains) // mass times length

Â Â Â  Â Â Â  Â Â Â  Â Â Â  Â Â Â  Â Â Â  )

Â Â Â  Â Â Â  Â Â Â  Â Â Â  Â Â Â  )

Â Â Â  Â Â Â  Â Â Â  Â Â Â  plus

Â Â Â  Â Â Â  Â Â Â  Â Â Â  Â Â Â  (three thousand eight hundred and seventy nine

Â Â Â  Â Â Â  Â Â Â  Â Â Â  Â Â Â  Â Â Â  (slug feet) // mass times length again

Â Â Â  Â Â Â  Â Â Â  Â Â Â  Â Â Â  )

Â Â Â  Â Â Â  Â Â Â  Â Â Â  )

Â Â Â  Â Â Â  Â Â Â  * pi

Â Â Â  Â Â Â  Â Â Â  )

Â Â Â  Â Â Â  per

Â Â Â  Â Â Â  Â Â Â  (carat yards) //mass time length

Â Â Â  Â Â Â  )

Â Â Â  )

per c // inverse speed

) *

(cubits per week) speed

= 1.00000092

Â

We add three quantities of mass times length, divide them by another of mass times length, producing a pure number.

Then we divide that by a speed, then multiply it by a speed, again getting a pure number as a result.

So it all works out.Â

• @Daniel15 said:

Someone showed me this today:

((pi * (e * pi * e) * (pi * e * pi) * (e * pi * e) * (((((twenty three (stone knots)) plus (two billion (smoot grains))) plus (three thousand eight hundred and seventy nine (slug feet))) * pi) per (carat yards))) per c) * (cubits per week) = 1.00000092

Uh... WTF? How does that work out?

Clearly a WTF. I calculated the answer in my head and got 1.00000093

Â

I still like the "answer to life the universe and everything" thing that the calculator does though.
Â

• Moving towards the goal at 1 attoparsec per microfortnight.

• @phelyan said:

Moving towards the goal at 1 attoparsec per microfortnight.

A hasty conversion in which much can go wrong clocks you at about 8.9 centimeters per hour.

• @dhromed said:

@phelyan said:

Moving towards the goal at 1 attoparsec per microfortnight.

A hasty conversion in which much can go wrong clocks you at about 8.9 centimeters per hour.

You're off by a factor of just over 1030. It's 91.8 meters per hour.Â SeeÂ http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/A/attoparsec.htmlÂ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unusual_units_of_measurement#Attoparsec

• Ah, I mistook the microFT for milliFT.

We can clip the 1030 to 1000, then, as the hasty conversion included some unscrupulous rounding.

• Speaking of micro, does anyone else (hand)write things like Î¼scope, Î¼phone, etc? Or is it a WTF that I do that?

• @m0ffx said:

Speaking of micro, does anyone else (hand)write things like Î¼scope, Î¼phone, etc? Or is it a WTF that I do that?

A straw poll of me, my imaginary friend, and the 17 voices in my head revealed that you're alone on this one. Â Â

On the other hand, I'd really like to begin using Î¼fortnight in my vocabulary, but it's so short that I'll probably have to settle for Î¼years (~3.5sec) and Î¼decades (~5.25min).Â  I bet I could convince at least one other person to do the same.

• @purge said:

@m0ffx said:

Speaking of micro, does anyone else (hand)write things like Î¼scope, Î¼phone, etc? Or is it a WTF that I do that?

A straw poll of me, my imaginary friend, and the 17 voices in my head revealed that you're alone on this one. Â Â

On the other hand, I'd really like to begin using Î¼fortnight in my vocabulary, but it's so short that I'll probably have to settle for Î¼years (~3.5sec) and Î¼decades (~5.25min).Â  I bet I could convince at least one other person to do the same.

You had me at "Î¼fortnight."

Did anyone else notice that the seconds in a Î¼year and minutes in a Î¼decade come out to be the number of inches wide that floppy disks are?Â  Methinks that purge is onto something.Â  Maybe (the company that made these devices --- I believe CH was one of them) knew all along.Â  I know that it took about a Î¼decade to get any kind of information off of a 5.25" disk.

• @m0ffx said:

Speaking of micro, does anyone else (hand)write things like Î¼scope, Î¼phone, etc? Or is it a WTF that I do that?

I've only ever seen and used ÂµC. Sorry.

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.