News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Galactic Algorithm by Retric on Saturday October 05, 2019 @05:46AM (#21164656)
It’s 2^1729 digits, (vastly) more digits than there are atoms in the universe.

The vastly bit is kind of an understatement.

Each stable isotope is indistinguishable from every other carbon isotope. So, you can probably encode a few bits per atom assuming you can somehow read this data. However they are talking vastly larger numbers of digits here. Where there are only ~10^80 digits worth of atoms in the visible universe, but hey bump that to 10^90 it does not help.

Sure you might encode 10^6 or hell I will give you 10^100 bits of data per atom or something but that’s not even close to helpful. It’s still on the order of K atoms in the universe and you want to encode 10^400+ * K bits of data. So each atom needs to encode 10^400+ bits and remember each stable isotope is indistinguishable from every other atom of that stable isotope.

Re:Galactic Algorithm by nine_k on Saturday October 05, 2019 @06:58PM (#21168538)
You forgot about ordering.

8 binary bits in order can encode 256 states, as if every bit was capable of encoding 32 states.

Re:Galactic Algorithm by Retric on Saturday October 05, 2019 @09:22PM (#21169188)
Yea, that specific number fits into 2 kilobytes of memory, but it’s so large it’s hard to compare it to anything.

Which is why I suggest comparing it to the number of bits required to encode the universe. If all you wanted was to store a single arbitrary number and could read write the universe you could do anything out to 2^(10^(80 * k)) where k is larger than 1 but I suspect below 100.