John Cuthber

That's the best description I have seen so far. It isn't, btw.

I wonder where that number came from- oh yes, I remember now. And your reply was Well, you were the one who dismissed 10^82 as irrelevant. Now you are insisting it's the important number. As for "It's not impossible in principle. It's just not practically manageable. In fact, any finite number can be counted to in principle." ​Well, actually it turns out that it is impossible. the universe isn't big enough. So, after you wrote of 10^82 as "irrelevant" you still thought that - in spite of the fact that the OP didn't ask about it- it was the one that mattered. But, since the it's never going to be practical for us to count to either of these big numbers, your pretence that it would is still laughable.

It has a much better chance than Sensei's idea that one can "analyze compounds of these metals, to find one which is soluble in some solvent, while the other one is barely soluble."

"I already admitted to making a mistake, what more do you want?" I'd like you to do it again. Because the number that the OP originally asked about was 2^1100 which is about 10^331 Perhaps you could stop pretending that you know what you are on about.

Delivered before breakfast tomorrow.

I could dig out a book I have called something like "coal tar and related industry" which includes a section on the purification of ammonium chloride by sublimation. The book is about a hundred years old.

You continue to pretend that your idea (that it was ever going to be possible) has any validity. If we "magically" turned every particle in the universe into a supercomputer and tied them together then it would still be too slow to count to 2^1100 in the lifetime of the universe. Not "slightly too slow", or a "bit slow, but we might get better computers". Counting to 10^331 at 100PHz takes 10^314 seconds Have every particle in the universe helping out and it's still 10^232 seconds Just to be utterly insane, turn every particle in the universe into another universe then turn each of the particles in each of the universes into a supercomputer and it still takes 10^150 seconds About 10^142 years about 10^128 times the age of the universe Are you beginning to get a grip on how big this number is, and how wrong you were?

" You can practically count to that with super computers." No you can't. The fastest computers run at about 100 petaflop- so then have a count rate of 100 PHz or so. they can count to about 10^ 17 in a second. So to count to 10^82 would take about 10^65 seconds That's about 10^57 years or about 10^47 times the age of the universe. It's still impossible if we give everyone on earth one of these computers- that only takes a factor of about 10^10 off how wrong you are. Now please stop pretending this is in any way helping the OP The task is actually impossible by counting, so they have to find a different way.

Pointing out that it is impossible (whether that's in principle or in practice) forces you to move on, and reconsider the problem. And that's why I asked "What question are you trying to answer?" Saying that it's possible- but not actually possible- achieves little or nothing. On the other hand saying that the number is bigger than the number of particles in the universe does explain why it's never going to happen. (Because it's a vastly more time consuming problem that counting all the particles in the universe) so it does show the problem with doing it.

The lie isn't just the sum of money. They can't give it to the NHS because they crashed the economy. But they never would have done- their politics were always to destroy the NHS. So, yes they exaggerated the sum we pay; but the real lie was saying we could fund the NHS with it instead if we left.

In principle, yes, but that doesn't help because, in practice, it's impossible- like I said. Just work out how long it would take to count to 10^331. that many seconds is more than 10^300 times the age of the universe. So, do you accept that saying "well it's possible in principle" is completely unhelpful here?

2^ 1100 is a lot more than there are particles in the known universe. Counting to it is impossible. What question are you trying to answer?

The direct cost so far- from the loss of value of our currency- is about 130 billion pounds. The "saving" is about a third of the £350 million pound a week figure because we get about 2/3 of it back directly. So the payback time for the costs (so far) would be about 22 years. That's neglecting interest of course, once you figure that in, we never get the money back. And then there's the much further cost due to reduced trade. And then there's the cost due to loss of the very favourable trade deal we had with the EU. This really was monumentally stupid.

Full employment- or at least reduced unemployment, should be a goal of government. And yet our current government has deliberately acted in ways that it knows will reduce the number of jobs. What we need is a less selfish government. Instead we chose the likes of Gove and Johnson.

What joke?

Feta cheese, a robust answer to the Elgin marbles question, nice beaches, Retsina... - take your pick. Any would be better than the current farce

And the evidence for this is... No, not really. If one side makes their case based on something they admit was a lie (within hours of the outcome being announced) then it's not true democracy it's fraud. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-result-nigel-farage-nhs-pledge-disowns-350-million-pounds-a7099906.html

Every previous instance of what was though to magic which as been investigated, turned out not to be magic. So the odds are excellent that this instance of "magic" won't be. So it's almost certain to be something else. And the only credible candidate is some sort of perception bias.

Great Britain has just been ended; and replaced by Little England.

Because a lot of people said that the EU was undemocratic, the UK will shortly have an unelected Prime Minister. The current one will, almost certainly, be moved to the House of Lords where he can continue to influence policy without needing to be accountable to the voters. Michel, I don't want anyone to take this the wrong way but, at least part of the reason for the process that led to the UK leaving was the instability of the Greek economy. (There are reasons for that we needn't worry about here). Here are some figures The current GDP of Greece is about 240 billion US dollars The UK's is about 2.7 trillion USD- a little more than 10 times as much. The drop in the value of the UK economy at about 10 o'clock this morning was about 11% of GDP. It would have been cheaper for Britain to buy the entire Greek economy, than to pay for the cost of the first 5 hours of the Brexit. I wish we had, at least we would have something to show for it.

If it was a protest vote then it was an astoundingly stupid one. Writing off a tenth of the GDP just to make a political point is insane. But it's worse than that- you know those regulations?- well, if you want to trade in the EU, you still need to follow them. So you haven't removed any red tape there. But what you have done is remove any influence we might have had on keeping it under control. How did anyone think that looked like a good idea?

"What if 3,000 years is precisely a moment in time. " then you are making stuff up. Do you realise that making stuff up is fine while in the playground at school, but not helpful on a science web site? This "The Scripture itself declares, "My words will never pass away." " is more or less begging the question. Please don't do it again.

Other biases are also available https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias

And that level of ignorance is, in a nutshell, the problem here.

Science will also guide our future thinking. That's because science will change, though religion won't. That's the origin of the conflict, and nobody had to "invent" it.