On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Ian Kelly <ian.g.ke...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 9:47 AM, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 1:44 AM, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> That gave me this result almost instantaneously: >>> >>> 4503599761588224 >>> >>> which has been rounded up instead of down. I don't know if that counts >>> as sufficiently wrong? >> >> Oh, and I forgot to say: I have no actual *proof* that this is the >> lowest number for which this will occur. It does not occur with >> 4503599761588223 (the next lower integer), but could happen with >> something between two squares, for all I know. However, I suspect that >> it wouldn't. > > Your example demonstrates that the "2**53 < M" assumption was wrong, > which is interesting. It may be worth checking values less than 2**26 > as well.
Less than (2**26)**2, I mean. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
