Welcome to p196.org!
NEWS ARCHIVE FROM 2001
12/12/01 Iteration 57,982,436 is the only one that produces a 24 million digit number. Also, I thought it might be interesting to keep track of total calculations, as Istvan had done below, so I started tracking that in my spreadsheet. For 24,000,000 the answer is 6.95789E+14 (almost 700 trillion)
12/06/01 I got a note in my mailbox today from John Walker. I thought he might be interested to know what the rest of us had done, since had stopped his search, so I sent him a note yesterday, pointing out that I was keeping his search alive, and that he might be interested in looking at these pages. He was, and says that he enjoyed reading the site. It's kind of strange thinking that the man who "started" all of this, was reading what I've written here. I mean everyone who has a site on the web about this, references John's pages. I was literally taught about palindromes, by reading his pages. Now, to think he was reading my pages! I feel flattered. His "note of approval" will probably inspire me to keep going far beyond even where I would have quit. (Where ever THAT might be in the future! Not soon I assure you!)
12/03/01 Still moving forward day after day. Maybe today is the day? Maybe...
I've been playing around with the data files, and looking at the numbers. The huge, mind numbingly large numbers. I still am fascinated at the numbers that are as large as the "results" that I have. As a result, I've been kind of "goofing off" with some of them. Maybe you want to look at the newest page to this site here.
11/26/01 23,000,000 digits, and still no palindrome in sight...
11/20/01 I'm still happy about yesterdays discovery!!!
I was goofing around with all of the files that I'm accumulating, and just so that everyone knows... 196, 1997 and 879 have not converged on the same number by the 9 million digit mark. They are all still independent numbers. I'm sure that no one has tested this theory yet, so I did. To be frank, I was kind of hoping that they would have converged somewhere along the way, but as of 9 million, they're still independent chains. I know that's what I expected, but I was still hoping. :-)
Also, here's a note I got from Istvan. (Istvan, I hope it's O.K., to copy this...) I just had to share it with anyone else reading these pages...
Just for fun I wanted to know, how many digits were processed. So starting from three (196) digits and reaching 22489774 digits is one of the legs of a right-angled triangle, the other is 54332039 unit long, the iterations.
Approximately this triangle's area gives the number of processed digits. It's about 611 trillion digits so far, 6*10^14... About five hundred times as much as the first milestone, the million digits.
What else is there to say about this...
11/19/01 THEY MATCH!!!!!!!!!! I just got to look at the numbers from my original data file from Jason's application, and from Istvan's new 14,000,008 digit number that had started at 0. :-) They are the same number!! There has never really been any doubt in my mind that they would be the same number, but now, I know. Now, it is confirmed. Now, I am almost beside myself with happiness!!!! We have not wasted all this time. Both applications came up with the same number on the same iteration count. What I did, was set the auto-save to stop at 13,999,975. That way, I could watch and see what happens. Then, while I watched, I started the program again, and let it tick away the last couple iterations. There is a 14,000,008 digit number at the 33,824,792 / ...793 and ...794th iteration. It is the second one that I wanted. Jason's program had spit out a data file with 33,824,793 iterations. I looked at this iteration, and all is well!!! WHAT A RELIEF!! I would have been VERY sorry, if there had been a problem... Now, I can dedicate that machine to running 1997 full time. Or someone could write a program for me to search for seed numbers... :-)
Thanks again to Jason for his original support and program, and thanks to Istvan, for allowing me to continue this search!! I hope you guys are as excited about this milestone, as I am!!
11/12/01 8:56AM - 22 Million digits takes 53,148,015 iterations!! Remember... You saw it here first. :-)
Along the same line, 1997 has passed 25 million iterations and 10 million digits. 879 is almost 20 million iterations and just over 8 million digits.
11/06/01 In another couple days, the second machine will have finished with 196 starting from 0 to 14,000,000. I'm VERY, VERY, VERY excited, to see that Istvan's app's number matches the one that I've got stored from Jason's. I'm sure that they will be the same, but it's the point of the fact, that I just want to SEE IT!!! (Actually, the number that I've got from Jason's application is 14,000,008 digits long. But with the newest number closing in on 21.6 million, who cares about that other 8 digits?!? :-) )
You'll see it here, as soon as I see it!!!
11/01/01 I was driving to work this morning, and started thinking about the size of the 196 number. It got me to wondering what the largest number that anyone has actually ever calculated is. I mean the largest number that I can think of off the top of my head is a googolplex. (10^10^100) but even though that's a big number, it's a "round" number that doesn't really MEAN anything. The 196 calculation is well over 21 million 0's. What would you even call a number that large?!? When I really stop and think about the size of this number, and the fact that it is growing larger and larger every second, I am stunned. I mean, we're talking about 7 million COMMAS, to separate the digits!!!! (I know the comma's are generally U.S. Istvan / Jason... Would you use dots?!?) I know science uses a lot of large numbers. For example, the distance between here and the farthest (or even nearest) stars, but as far as I know, those are estimates, not HARD CALCULATED numbers. I wonder what the largest number has been...
Maybe I need to get in touch with the Guiness Book of World Records, and ask them. :-)
10/29/01 9:46am 21 Million Digit milestone has been hit. It took an additional 13.4917 days to get there. Currently, the machine is averaging 2.1025 iterations and .8564 digits per second. Now, on to 22,000,000. Excel says it should be finished about 10pm, November 11th. We'll see...
10/25/01 8:29am 50 MILLION ITERATIONS!! WOW!!
10/23/01 There hasn't been any important news to speak of, so I haven't written. As you can see, the 196 search is about to cross 50 million iterations!! I've also been running 1997 on a second machine, off and on for quite a while. It's at 8,802,703 digits and 21,268,433 iterations. Updates are on the "Other Seed Numbers" page.
10/11/01 I had written Jason, to ask if he had his old data files, so we could find the date stamps on them, to update the MILESTONES page. Luck was with us, and he did. So now, I've got the most accurate completion dates on the records, that we could come up with!! No more guessing!! I'm quite pleased.
10/10/01 I've tried to incorporate most of the comments Jason made to me the other day. The reason I quit messing with web pages a couple years ago, is that I realized, how much work has to be done to one, to keep it current!! Now, I'm trying to find time, to keep this one relatively accurate. As things get explained to me, and I figure them out on my own, it's difficult to go back and rework the pages. That's why the format of the page is so simple. I don't want to make more work for myself than I have to. I write all of the pages is a text editor, writing the tags by hand. (That's why some of the links were broken. I wasn't careful enough!!) I don't know how to do really fancy stuff, and don't want to take the time to figure it out. So if you find something that isn't right, let me know, and I'll correct it case by case, as I can. Most of the pages, only needed minor changes. Some, I've deleted entire sections, because, after Jason explained some things to me, I really couldn't think of any better way to write it, so I deleted the "misinformation".
I am debating seriously about removing the software comparisons page altogether. I don't know if it's added value to the site or not. The last thing I want, is to give the impression that I have a favorite application by any author. My favorite is which ever app I'm running at the moment to continue. Originally, I put up the comparison page, so that if someone were trying to write a new program, or if Jason, Jack or Istvan were re-writing their apps, they could have some benchmarks to aim for, and maybe some feed back from someone who has tried more than one way to get to the same result. I don't know... Don't be too surprised to see the entire section missing some afternoon.
10/08/01 Well, the network connection of the computer was broken by some unknown party, early this morning, so I lost about 12 hours of processing on 196, as a result. :-( The application couldn't save to the networked drive, so it halted. Thank god for Autosave!! O well. Better to have lost 12 hours, than the last 4 days!
10/08/01 Got a long letter from Jason today. He had lots of comments, that I'll get into the pages as I can. Most of them were very good. Some of them were wonderful to my own understanding of these numbers.
10/01/01 19 Million digits has been reached!! It took 45,901,512 iterations. Now, on to 20 Million... Excel says it should be finished around the October 13th. (If the machine can stay dedicated to the task that is.)
10/01/01 Jack Ryan has sent me a new version of his app. And I'm sorry to say Jack, that you went backwards. The app ran longer than the other night, but you added less iterations. Hmmm... THAT's not going to work. :-(
09/30/01 Jason Doucette is alive and well!! I got a note from him this past weekend, and he had been trying to return my mail, but apparently, it was not getting through. I don't know why. I don't know what was happening, but it is good to know that all is O.K. with him!! He's busy at the moment, and not spending any time on the 196 search, but he thinks he knows a way to speed up the applications even more. I can't wait till he finds time to streamline the process, and speed things up!! (Assuming that he'll let me run the app!! :-) )
09/30/01 I have met another gentleman in the US, that is interested in palindromes. His name is Jack Ryan. He contacted me last week, after finding this site, and asked me to test his beta version for him. It was another Windows application, but I was forced to tell him, that his app was not up to speed yet. It lagged pretty far behind Jason or Istvan's programs. (Remember, that I can run different applications at the same time, on separate identical machines, to compare them.) But it was accurate at the couple iteration and digit settings that I compared it to. He took my testing notes and comments, and went back to the computer to try to speed things up. I hope he succeeds!!