# LabVIEW

cancel
Showing results for
Did you mean:

Solved!
Go to solution

## Re: More significant digits on large numbers

If you require more digits to perform your results, you can still do this the way we used to take two 8-bit registers and turn two consecutive locations into a 16-bit result.  The process is still the same.  It just requires a little more time rolling values around.

Help the Community (and future reviewers) by marking posts as follows:
If it helped - KUDOS
If it answers the issue - SOLUTION
Message 11 of 20
(1,099 Views)

## Re: More significant digits on large numbers

@Minions wrote:

If you require more digits to perform your results, you can still do this the way we used to take two 8-bit registers and turn two consecutive locations into a 16-bit result.  The process is still the same.  It just requires a little more time rolling values around.

We definitely need much more than 16 bits and multiplications involve a bit more than just "rolling around". 😄 Have a look at my code.

Message 12 of 20
(1,098 Views)

## Re: More significant digits on large numbers

@altenbach wrote:

We definitely need much more than 16 bits and multiplications involve a bit more than just "rolling around". 😄 Have a look at my code.

Agreed, today's expectations are that everything should be capable.  Rather than yesterday's ways of finding the means to make things happen given less.  Just remember those 8-bit TI and Motorola processors and coding them for these functions.  Checking for carry, then performing 4-bit blocks of math if it was set.

Help the Community (and future reviewers) by marking posts as follows:
If it helped - KUDOS
If it answers the issue - SOLUTION
Message 13 of 20
(1,095 Views)

## Re: More significant digits on large numbers

@altenbach wrote:

(The number of digits for 10000! is still listed incorrectly on the top google search result for "10000 factorial" 35659 digits (wrong!) instead of 35660 (correct!) digits.

So I wrote the page author (some math guy from the UK) an e-mail about the wrong listing, and now the number of digits for 10000! is listed as 35658, i.e. now off by two instead of the previous off by one. Sigh! Can't win! 😞

Probably has to do with the metric system 😄

Message 14 of 20
(1,061 Views)

## Re: More significant digits on large numbers

@altenbach wrote:

@altenbach wrote:

(The number of digits for 10000! is still listed incorrectly on the top google search result for "10000 factorial" 35659 digits (wrong!) instead of 35660 (correct!) digits.

So I wrote the page author (some math guy from the UK) an e-mail about the wrong listing, and now the number of digits for 10000! is listed as 35658, i.e. now off by two instead of the previous off by one. Sigh! Can't win! 😞

Probably has to do with the metric system 😄

Just tell him to back out your request twice...

Help the Community (and future reviewers) by marking posts as follows:
If it helped - KUDOS
If it answers the issue - SOLUTION
Message 15 of 20
(1,053 Views)

## Re: More significant digits on large numbers

@Minions wrote:

Just tell him to back out your request twice...

I think I leave it as is.  Suddenly he will give me public credit and acknowledgement for the even wronger number. 😮  (Stranger things have happened in the past...)

Message 16 of 20
(1,047 Views)

## Re: More significant digits on large numbers

Hello
Could you share them separately, I mean the addition and multiplication one, if not the how to be able to perform them.
Thanks.

Message 17 of 20
(592 Views)

## Re: More significant digits on large numbers

Hi, I wrote a simple program for multiple large number.

Message 18 of 20
(362 Views)

## Re: More significant digits on large numbers

@Amir_Latifi wrote:

Hi, I wrote a simple program for multiple large number.

Nice! I added a little loop to clear out the initial 0's, before converting back to string. I'm now using it to calculate 10000! 😄

G# - Award winning reference based OOP for LV, for free! - Qestit VIPM GitHub

Qestit Systems
Message 19 of 20
(343 Views)

## Re: More significant digits on large numbers

It ran out of memory, so i've tweaked it and managed to calculate 10000! 🙂

G# - Award winning reference based OOP for LV, for free! - Qestit VIPM GitHub

Qestit Systems
Message 20 of 20
(302 Views)