I see no reason for reason for someone who is trying to boast about an
apparent breakthrough of an "non-existant " ;/) agency not to remember the
alleged deed. :)
I don't remember the current record for GIMPS either so I would call it
"between 3.0 and 3.1 million rather than "around 3,000,000", but I
suppose under some circumstances "around 3 million would be correct to
express number over 3,199.999.
Note though that 3,000,000 has *1* significant figure as opposed to *2*
significant figures in 5,200,000.
On Fri, 16 Oct 1998, Jud McCranie wrote:
> At 07:26 AM 10/16/98 -0700, tyr31416 wrote:
>
> > I see no legitimate reason for a number like 5,299,999 to
> >be called "around 5,200,000" in any case it should be called around
> >5,300,000.
>
> The way we remember things, a person could just remember 5,2xx,xxx, and that
> could be called "around 5,200,000". For instance, I don't remember the
> current
> GIMPs record except that it is in the low 3 million range. 3.0, 3.1, 3.2
> million - something like that. So I would say "Around 3.1 million." So
> something like 5,279,211 would be considered around 5,200,000 even though
> it is
> closer to 5,300,000.
>
>
>
> +------------------------------------------+
> | Jud McCranie [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
> +------------------------------------------+
>
>
