mossoi

Understood, but in the question N is magnitudes greater than the example used.

There is one thing in common with everybody in this post. You're all young and in education. Your views on performing better at night may change when you start working regular hours and/or have a family of your own. Many teenagers and young adults prefer to stay up at night, maybe it's something to do with making the most of the privacy of being the only one awake. I myself was like that but once I was working I found that I was more than willing to join the daylight club.

I was trying to be more subtle than that Lance! : )

Me too. Until somebody can prove psychokinesis or telekinesis I will continue to dismiss it as rubbish.

My scientific explanation would be.....coincidence

Finding "C" by calculating the number was never going to happen, I was just thinking around the whole thing to get some idea of the values we are looking at. Sadly I don't understand the various proofs in this thread but I'm still not convinced how 2 <= C <= 9 when the number of digits in N is so great.

but to return a number between 2 and 9 there would have to be a LOT of 0's in the decimal notation of 8765^4321, A or B. Consider that 8765^78 = 3.42491497 × 10^307. That's a whole lot of digits if it's written out in decimal notation and without rounding and that's only a fraction of N.

LOL. Just plugged some numbers into a PHP page and it bails out after 8765^78.

That seems rather low considering the value of N or have I got the wrong end of the stick here? If we say N = 8765^2 what value for the sum of the digits of B do you get?

Me neither. I'm ok up to the second paragraph but after that...

I would be interested. As far as I can see, with my basic knowledge of maths, the solution will only be found by crunching huge numbers (possibly using a computer program). Unless there is a technique for this sort of thing which then takes the whole thing over my head.

Fair enough, my mistake - I approached this question as though it was demonstrating scientific notation to make a point to grade school students. If it's 8765^4321 then I haven't a clue on the methods to use. Out of interest where is this question from?

Do you mean let N = 8765 X 10^4321? 8765^4321 is ridiculously big and makes the question unworkable, whereas A and B are straightforward to work out if N = 8765 x 10^4321 and one understands scientific notation.

As an interesting aside. Supposedly the wire cage around the cork is always secured with six 180 degree twists (number of turns on the little loop that you have to undo). So far I've not encountered a bottle of champagne that has more or less than this number so the anecdote appears to hold true. I want to confirm or disprove this so may I propose an international experiment? Each time you open a bottle of champagne or sparkling wine count the number of times you need to twist the loop and report that number here along with the brand of drink. If you would like to help but don't want the hassle of opening and drinking a bottle then feel free to send me any spare champagne bottles you have and I'll do it for you!

It's called ZoomSmart and can be found in the printing preferences tab of the printers properties on many HP printers.

Virgin Galactic. Although why the news are suddenly reporting this as new is a bit odd. It was first announced back in 1999 - http://www.gsreport.com/articles/art000153.html

It certainly does but people are different and some don't want to accept the inevitability of death..

I don't think inserting a champagne cork requires that much more force than a normal cork despite its shape. It seems a lot of machines for inserting corks do it with sheer force (basically a lever that shoves the cork in the neck of the bottle) and do both normal and champagne corks. Here's asome info on a basic cork extractor/inserter, not sure if it was ever made or how old the design is though: http://www.patentbarreview.com/program/mechanic.html For those who don't know what a champagne cork looks like: http://bacchus.ne.jp/images/cork/champagne.jpg

Gene Roddenberry's ashes are in space. http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Space_burial

Radio Shack will stock it. There is still demand for PCI graphics cards as people want to run secondary graphics who don't have double headed cards so you should get more than what you pay for the DVI adaptor back if you bung it on Ebay. £3 is approx $5. It'll work better 'cos it's a better card designed to run two monitors. Twinview is a free app that should be on the driver disc for the card or can be downloaded from the manufacturers website. Performance may be affected but it's not gonna make it any worse than the current situation of not working at all!

Not a crap idea YT but it won't work. Each monitor is driven by one of the graphics cards. Although it looks seamless, like one big desktop, the window that is being dragged is handed over from one card to the other when it crosses the boundary between screens. The setup discussed above already has this stretched desktop setup but can't handle the type of application being run on two screen simultaneously.

A quick chat with a few colleagues has led to some interesting points being raised: The problem is almost certainly hardware (video card) based and most likely comes down to Hardware Overlay. Try Googling for hardware overlay for your specific card to see if there's anything of use - you may be able to switch to Software Overlay with a drop in quality.

The PCI card is sitting on a different BUS. This is going to cause problems with resource sharing in a situation like this. Reducing resolution and colour depth may work but you may find you have to drop down too far to make this very useable.

You could take screenshots and bung it all together in a graphics package. Not the most elegant method but it's cheap.