• bstix@feddit.dk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    8 months ago

    It’s unlikely to have ever happened.

    2^42 is 25 times the total number of people ever born in all of history.

      • AeroLemming@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        8 months ago

        I got 38x with 117 billion total people. Not sure where OC got their number, but it’s kind of in the ballpark, so maybe it was just shitty mental math.

        • Match!!@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          getting correct within a factor of 2 after a 42-fold exponentiation would be amazingly good mental math

          • AeroLemming@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            8 months ago

            The easiest way would be to say 117 billion is ~2^37 because 2[1] are 128, 1024, and about a million (1024*1024), so multiplying those all together gives a little over 128 billion, which is pretty close to 117 billion. So, 242/237=2^5=32. Pretty close, all mental math. Granted, it does require you to either memorize or compute powers of 2 up to 10.


            1. 7, 10, 20 ↩︎

      • MadLegoChemist@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        I had to check the math and I was surprised that 2^42 is “only” 4.4 trillion. Thought it would be a lot greater like there are less atoms in the universe similar to the uniqueness of a shuffled deck of cards.

    • 30p87@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      8 months ago

      Also, twins aren’t identical copies either. Different fingerprint etc.

        • 30p87@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          I typically associate “clone” with “an exact copy”, with the same exact molecular layout and even thoughts. So a literal exact copy. Clones on a DNA basis, so something possible for years, would indeed be different in some details.

          • PM_ME_FAT_ENBIES@lib.lgbtOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            8 months ago

            The definition of “clone” you believe in is science fiction nonsense. Why believe in nonsense when the scientific definition of clone is different?