Hacker News
new
|
past
|
comments
|
ask
|
show
|
jobs
|
submit
login
waynecochran
on Sept 24, 2013
|
parent
|
context
|
favorite
| on:
7373170279850
What about 4,556,543,113,106,166,912,761,976,150?
throwaway_yy2Di
on Sept 24, 2013
|
next
[–]
http://xkcd.com/356/
liquidise
on Sept 24, 2013
|
prev
|
next
[–]
I for one applaud the Fermat-like comment and lack of additional information.
sengstrom
on Sept 24, 2013
|
prev
|
next
[–]
For one it is larger than 7373170279850.
kristopolous
on Sept 24, 2013
|
prev
|
next
[–]
in jest or in seriousness? if in seriousness, would you mind elaborating?
waynecochran
on Sept 24, 2013
|
parent
|
next
[–]
Jest. I couldn't resist.
spullara
on Sept 24, 2013
|
prev
|
next
[–]
Presumably testing this is hard? If so, I like it.
anonymous
on Sept 24, 2013
|
prev
|
next
[–]
It has just 5 different prime divisors. That's kind of cool for such a large number.
cperciva
on Sept 24, 2013
|
parent
|
next
[–]
Not at all -- a "typical" number N has ln(ln(N)) distinct prime factors, and ln(ln(4,556,543,113,106,166,912,761,976,150) is about 4.15. Having 5 prime divisors is perfectly normal for a number of this size.
FreeFull
on Sept 24, 2013
|
prev
[–]
Now I'm wondering if someone will provide a 4 cube division of this.
Guidelines
|
FAQ
|
Lists
|
API
|
Security
|
Legal
|
Apply to YC
|
Contact
Search: