Active Users:1539 Time:01/05/2026 09:31:00 PM
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules
You'd get the same result on a calculator Floffe Send a noteboard - 16/10/2009 10:20:45 PM
According to Google....0.

You know, with one that accepts more than 9 digits. I'm not surprised it's not arbitrary precision, considering they can't spend too much processing time on it.
--- signature starts here ---

I am the Demon of Delightfulness and Sinister Smirkings!

e^(πi)+1=0
identity named after the Terry Pratchett of 18th century mathematics
Reply to message
So what's 399999999999999-399999999999998 Brian - 16/10/2009 10:02:01 PM 960 Views
Apparently the number where it starts going wrong... Legolas - 16/10/2009 10:13:27 PM 548 Views
God I would hope they wouldn't use google for the calculations. Brian - 17/10/2009 07:16:48 AM 565 Views
You'd get the same result on a calculator Floffe - 16/10/2009 10:20:45 PM 560 Views
I did it on a normal calculator Fantasy - 16/10/2009 11:04:55 PM 539 Views
The question is whether they cut off the input Floffe - 17/10/2009 08:22:50 AM 485 Views
I had no problem with it on my phone's calculator Brian - 17/10/2009 07:17:45 AM 486 Views
I want to know how someone figured that out *NM* Monkey - 17/10/2009 07:00:41 PM 198 Views
shoulda used wolfram alpha *NM* Mat Maniac - 18/10/2009 08:19:06 AM 252 Views
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules

Reply to Message

Block Quote Paragraph Quote
Formatting
Smiley Codes