Printable View
Thanks much, that makes perfect sense. I was wondering if it were some sort of rollover issue, but was confused because I thought all numbers defaulted to Long. Now I remember that debug window numbers default to Integer:Quote:
Originally Posted by Logophobic
?5646 + 30000
<Overflow>
Also, thanks for the quick primer on hex numbers; that explains it perfectly.
Unsurprisingly:
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Logophobic again.
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to zeezee again.
Can you help me in another thing .Quote:
Originally Posted by zeezee
I found your program is much more faster ,would you tell me if I want to see that long number the real one instead of the short one with e+..... what should I do ?
Use the HexToDec function I posted. It will return a string containing all digits, as opposed to only the most significant digits.
Hexidecimal: (83 digits)
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
Decimal equivalent: (100 digits)
8749002899132047697490008908470485461412677723572849745703082425639811996797503692894052708092215295
Scientific notation: (The value that can be stored in Double)
8.74900289913205E+99
What's the use of having a number you can't do any arithmetic on?
Thanks for your help Man.Quote:
Originally Posted by Logophobic
Unfortunatly if you test yours it's just accept 255 digits,but it's pretty fast.
If I can fix that please let me know
What do u mean you can't do any arithmetic on?Quote:
Originally Posted by leinad31
somethimes if you want to find a distances in the universe you need such a this calculations.
But I couldn't understand your point ,if you tell me more specific I will answer you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dbboy
Sorry I was away. I ll try to find a solution.
For your question, that is how it is represented by double. I m not sure if i d be able to change that with double of course.
But If we could change it to string then there will be problem.
Are you using this to show some value or calculation?
:)
No, not really. I tried to explain this earlier. A googol -- 1 followed by 100 zeros -- is so large as to be effectively worthless as a number.Quote:
Originally Posted by dbboy
A googol is large enough to count every subatomic particle in a line that stretched from one "edge" of the universe to another, if that concept even made sense. Nobody would measure a large distance with the smallest possible unit. It would be like measuring the circumference of the earth in inches.
Large distances are measured in light years. A rough layman's approximation would conclude that at roughly 13 billion years old, the universe has a diameter of 26 billion light years:
26,000,000,000
The numbers you're talking about look like this:
26,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0 00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0 00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0 00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0 00
In other words, you're talking about patently ridiculous numbers that have no relationship to reality in any possible context.
well, iI gues our litlle victory is over.
That conversion tool is right. My one will conver the number to decimal, but it wont keep that number taht way. I tried various things , but the double cannot be converted to string.
On the otherhand, the conversion tool is slower than mine , beacuse its handling String calculations. Its more superior to mine.
:(
and Ellis Dee is right, this number has no meaning, the double value I say.
(I m not good in math but his point is right i guess :D)
only thing I can do is to improve that conversion tool. so it would be faster
Sorry dbboy
:wave:
well , see this
Conversion of
Conversion tools returnsQuote:
"FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF"
my prog returnsQuote:
8825043620963179677965965131889462072972980974536179764635631033945918219878745312205856003110093740 5340558296821374893066353027058699717113329784015217065825962377858834878767894752265396985241367417 483713579073929215
I think you want that above number.Quote:
8.82504362096318E+217
which has 217 -15 = 212 zeros.
8.8250436209631800000000000000000000000 ..... 0000.00000000000000
I dont know whether it is the right number, but its better than my one.
:(
There's the concept called significant digits... emphasis on the word significant. For such values, scientific representation is used (as evidenced by singles, doubles and floating point co-processors) because the other digits are insignificant. Only application where most if not all digits are significant is monetary related (accounting, finance, banking, etc)... but will you reach that many digits for those industries?Quote:
Originally Posted by dbboy
Thank you very much Ellis Dee for your helpful and meaningful hints,But I will tell you something ,no matter how the people think or what they are doing ,if you no more and in your point of view their jobs is useless ,Do not try to tell them something which they don't want to hear and Do not try to stop them for the facts you already know ,because your facts was the previouse hypothesis and no body knew they will become a fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Dee
For sure I am not that kind of person and I will just use your really helpful information to be more successful on what I want to do .
I really apreciate your help ,and I hope to hear from you in the future because my math and physic is not as good as you are.
Thaaaaaaaaaaaaaat'ssssssssssss cooooooooolllllllllllllllllllll Dude.Quote:
Originally Posted by zeezee
You did your best and I really apreciate your goodwill to help me .
You did more than enough for me.
Thanks dbboy!
To your information, I did some performance checking like thing.
I changed my program to get string representation by using that conversion tool's methods. guess what , it was 4 seconds faster than using the conversion tools directly. If you are reaally performance hungry, then you can use that method.
And again, for one of you previous questions, the conversion tool treats "A" and "a" differently. Its designed to handle upto base 64 numbers. so it treats these two diffrently. To correct this, either you have to change that BigNumber constant or pass only uppercase strings in hex. (like in my prog)
This tool is the real thing for you I guess. I hope your problem will be solved.
I must thank Logophobic ,Ellis Dee and leinad31 for sharing their valuable knowledge.
Thanks everyone again.
:wave:
The InputBox function I used in the simple test is limited, the HexToDec function itself is not.Quote:
Originally Posted by dbboy
I'm sure you can find a way to create larger strings of hexidecimal digits to feed to my function. ;)
Its not just because were being party poopers and we want to tell people they cant do this or that... tasks simply need to be placed in the proper context to maximize resources (time, cost, etc). Why the need for hex in string? Why not just numbers (0-9) in string since that's the form you will need for the calculations anyway.
http://www.vbforums.com/showthread.p...ghlight=matrix
well leinad31,I ve been thinking for a solution for dbBoy's problem.
Actually I didnt worry much about his need for this number, but I was thinking for a solution for his problem. He may be having huuuuge math calculator or developing a code breaking system for DOD. :D
but to tell you, Only thing I could understand is with numeric storage data types, like long,double or decimal, there will be always a limit. All data types will have limits of course. I m talking about the most meaningful number in any data type.
But as long as we have huge number in string, and a way to do math on that string Number, and way to get the results in string, we will have far more chances than these other numeric data types.
Its like writing the numbers on a peice of paper and adding or multiplying them manully. I think thats what's been dicussed in that thread you have given (if not please forgive me). With strings ,you 'll go further than decimal or double, becuase those types store big numbers in Sceintific notation.
I dont know why he needs this number anyway, but I think we can do fairly good with that conversion tool, sisnce its deelaing with numbers as strings. Just like we do it manullay.
:wave:
Math with strings?! Yikes! If you want to do math with large integers, create your own data type using byte arrays. You would use the same concept as with strings, except you would be working in base-256 rather than base-10.
For example, a 256-bit (32-byte) integer:
You could create functions for use with BigInt:Code:Public Type BigInt
bt(31) As Byte
End Type
You could convert the BigInts to strings in hexidecimal or decimal format to display the results. You could also convert to Double, but that would defeat the purpose.Code:Dim BigIntA As BigInt
Dim BigIntB As BigInt
Dim BigIntC As BigInt
' Store random 128-bit integers in BigIntA and BigIntB
BigIntA = RandomBigInt(128)
BigIntB = RandomBigInt(128)
' Multiply BigIntA by BigIntB
' store the resulting 256-bit integer in BigIntC
BigIntC = BigIntMult(BigIntA, BigIntB)
Code:Hexidecimal:
254BD2A074EEAB2FD92292A54EA44451
* BFD6F27B89E42137E31AEB6A32BDE174
= 1BF2E2DB760082F3F982BF0CA260585E7E01153ADD07E9FD71E9862E444725B4
Decimal:
49575130127143562394319773528326685777
* 254998616853508696097314713625515909492
= 12641589612754317117534194246397911274044589889798907861880669679694255695284
Double:
4.95751301271436E+37
* 2.54998616853509E+38
= 1.26415896127543E+76
ok you got a point there.
but whats wrong with string if we have a proper methods to do math with that? Are you talking about the size or the largest meaningfull nember? Or the performance?
String is a Char array after all or isnt it?
:)
Performance. String manipulation is slow, and using only 10 of a possible 256 character codes wastes a lot of space. VB strings are unicode, so each decimal digit actually takes up 2 bytes. The BigInt in my example can represent any 77-digit decimal number in only 32 bytes.
Ok , I get it. Thanks.
So what do you suggest to DbBoy? Stick with Strings or use Byte Array? :)
After all, where is he ?
:D
Seems the space savings should be substantially more than that, since a byte array holding 77 characters only takes 77 bytes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Logophobic
(EDIT: I originally wrote that a BSTR holding 77 characters takes 81 bytes, forgetting about unicode.)
ok, what you are saying is , since vb doesnt treat string as char array, we should use a byte array?
If VB had a char array, then we can use strings?
And , with this byte aray, we can use the mehods (Algorithm) for string manipulation easily?
I didn't test it yet,but by your definition the conversion speed should be faster in this way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Logophobic
I will try it ,and please informe us when you test it guys.
One-dimensional arrays have 24 bytes overhead. Strings have 10 bytes overhead and store data in unicode. The 256-bit integer, being an array of 32 bytes, requires 56 bytes of memory. A 77-digit decimal number stored in a byte array, one byte per digit, requires 101 bytes. The same as a string requires 166 bytes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Dee
@dbboy:
What do you need to do with these numbers? The thread title and your question in post #1 was to convert a huge hexidecimal number (i.e. a long string of hexidecimal digits) into decimal (i.e. an even longer string of decimal digits). The HexToDec function I posted does that quite readily. This discussion of how to store and manipulate theses numbers is not relevant to the conversion from hex to decimal.
you are doing it wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Dee
you have to force the data type.
? &Haaaa&
Dear LogophobicQuote:
Originally Posted by Logophobic
Yes the program you mentioned was perfect and I can't complan about that.
This disscussion is about speed,as you can see one of the guys came with this idea about he strings and ofcourse speeds is aan important issues all the time .
I am working on it and I got some result .
Ofcourse I need the programs work fast but as I told you before I really apreciate your help and your program was really useful to me and I did all I wanted to do .
Logophobic pointed that out in post #34.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Orwell
missed that one.
From a 3rd person point of view...I'd say the proggy could be used for EMM decryption [ D = E^-1 mod (P - 1)(Q- 1) (where E=3 for d*sh) ] or signing EMM's ... but what do I know...I'll tell ya what I know!
you coders are Freakin' amazing! If I could find guys and gals like you to work in my line of work and put half the effort you do into it, we would all be very happy.
I play with VB 4.0 as a hobby and have learned a lot from this thread.
I really appreciate the vigour in which ZeeZee and Logophobic attacked the problem, also Ellis Dee...the knowledge you seem to possess in the cosmic field interests me.
I wish I had points to donate to you guys...but if you take the "o" out...I'd donate a few dozen to each at the closest establishment
well, there are 5,880,000,000,000 miles in 1 light year. * the diameter of the universe = 152,880,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles. 63,400 inches per mile...Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Dee
= 9,692,592,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 inches across the known universe!
In hex thats 2BB84E0E2E000000, ( 8 bytes,2 words) I can't imagine a number with 150 bytes!
Ellis Dee, what is the diameter of the line across the universe in your subatomic particle equation ;)
How about a number with 4 or 5 megabytes?Quote:
Originally Posted by Drift-r
The largest known prime is 232,582,657 - 1, a 9,808,358 digit number in decimal format. This number obviously requires 32,582,657 bits (4,072,833 bytes, or about 3.9 MB) of memory.
GIMPS is currently running primality tests on similar numbers of the form 2p-1 that are around 5 MB.
8.02*10^60Quote:
Originally Posted by Drift-r
Other numbers you may find of interest:
3.149544...*10^79
This is the Eddington number. According to Arthur Eddington in his book Mathematical Theory of Relativity (1923, London, Cambridge University press), it is the number of particles in the universe. It is notable for being the largest specific integer ever thought to have a unique and tangible relationship to the physical world.
8.45*10^184
The current volume of the universe in Planck units.
1.69*10^245
The four-dimensional volume (in space + time) of the known universe using the formula for the volume of a hypercone (with spherical cross-section) and the universe's age, expressed in Planck units.
the universe' D = 246136800000000000000000000 metres
Quote...
average density of universe
= 3 hydroden atoms per cubic meter
(from models that give the minimum mass of a "closed" universe)
1 hydrogen atom = 4 particles (proton + electron, a proton is 3 quarks)
end Quote...
so, 246136800000000000000000000 * 12 particles per metre =
2,953,641,600,000,000,000,000,000,000 "quarks" in a 1 metre diameter line stretching from one end of the universe to the other ... but wait, if 1 cubic metre has 12 particles and the line is cylindrical, then 1 cubic metre has
0.78539816339744830961566084581988 of 12 particles which is...
9.424777960769379715387930149828 particles per cubic metre
which means : 2,319,784,687,974,300,661,130,495,885.7022 (2.3*10^26)"quarks" give or take a few.
I should buy visual studio2007 to create a calculator to verify this though!