the need for 64 bits

[Mensanator]

On Dec 28, 4:44 pm, Steven D'Aprano <st... at REMOVE-THIS-
cybersource.com.au> wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 22:50:11 -0800, Mensanator wrote:
> > I routinely use large numbers in my Collatz Conjecture work.
>
> > Really large. As in a quarter million bits.
>
> That's not large.

Perhaps not in the absolute sense. But it's large compared to
32-bit or 64-bit integers. Probably most people's applications
don't come anywhere near the limit of what can be represented
in long integers. Numbers near such a limit are "large" for
practical purposes.

> *THIS* is a large number:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham's_number

Right. And if I were ice fishing on the retention pond near
my house and someone came up and said "You know, blue whales
can achieve a length of up to 108 ft.", he would leave in a
basket.

>
> Unless you need special notation merely to describe how to generate the
> number, it's not a large number.

I'm only interested in numbers I can represent in memory and
run through the Collatz process. Interesting as they are, these
truly "large" numbers are of no use to me.

>
> --
> Steven