+- HP Forums (https://www.hpmuseum.org/forum)
+-- Forum: Not HP Calculators (/forum-7.html)
+--- Forum: Not quite HP Calculators - but related (/forum-8.html)
+--- Thread: 89^8 , electronical computer defeated. (/thread-8759.html)
89^8 , electronical computer defeated. - pier4r - 08-01-2017 06:28 PM
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1842&dat=19540522&id=DyYsAAAAIBAJ&sjid=hp4FAAAAIBAJ&pg=976,5282043
Now I wonder, why?
Not enough ram? No proper large digits (for a 4bit ALU) routines to handle such large number?
Then 23 * 39 * 46 * 61 , 12 seconds? I mean I know that it was the 1954, but I would have expected less than 5 seconds.
Could someone explain / has more data?
RE: 89^8 , electronical computer defeated. - AlexFekken - 08-02-2017 10:10 AM
No I can't explain (though: a 48 bit-mantissa probably wasn't uncommon in those days and would explain it), but the final paragraph in the news article does show a signifcant level of, shall we say, mathematical ignorance on the part of the journalist. So perhaps we should not take the rest of the article too seriously either?
RE: 89^8 , electronical computer defeated. - Accutron - 08-02-2017 01:20 PM
Assuming that the 'electronic brain' was an IBM 650 (most likely possibility) it would not have been able to produce a 16-digit decimal result. Precision of a 650 was 10 digits with sign. Even after the introduction of floating point hardware in 1955, the 650 would not have been able to handle 89^8 at full precision.