Re: atomic
From: paul c <toledobythesea_at_ooyah.ac>
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 17:14:55 GMT
Message-ID: <jQnWi.165208$Da.99022_at_pd7urf1no>
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 17:14:55 GMT
Message-ID: <jQnWi.165208$Da.99022_at_pd7urf1no>
Bob Badour wrote:
...
> Is that 10**64 as in "There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those
> who understand binary and those who don't." ?
>
> If so, shouldn't that be 10**1000000 ?
That's even better. As the guy in the Mott's Clamato commercial said, "You think big!".
Or base 1(followed by as many zeroes as possible) raised to base 1(followed by as many zeroes as possible), base 1(followed by as many zeroes as possible) times. That would take of it for me. But as Codd might have said, the extra operators add complexity without adding power, so I guess base1(followed by as many zeroes as possible) is a better abstraction. Received on Thu Nov 01 2007 - 18:14:55 CET