I had time to spent, and after a lot of time, i found that the limit to !roll is !roll 2147483647
forum
!roll limit
posted
Total Posts
9
E m i
Even if you roll trillions and trillions of time, and the maximum value you ever get is 2147483647, you can only ASSUME there is a high probability for it to be the actual maximum.JagaimoSenpai wrote:
I had time to spent, and after a lot of time, i found that the limit to !roll is !roll 2147483647
That's basic common sense.
While technically true. There is a programming explanation that supports this resultmeteor22 wrote:
Even if you roll trillions and trillions of time, and the maximum value you ever get is 2147483647, you can only ASSUME there is a high probability for it to be the actual maximum.JagaimoSenpai wrote:
I had time to spent, and after a lot of time, i found that the limit to !roll is !roll 2147483647
That's basic common sense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/32-bit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integer_(computer_science)
Peppy obviously saw no need to make it an unsigned integer range.
and thx but am pretty sure i know more about programming than you.Green Platinum wrote:
While technically true. There is a programming explanation that supports this result
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/32-bit
Then you should have made the connection
I know all powers of 2 up to 2^32 from memory. Now let me explain what you just said is stupid for two reasons :
1)In order to find empiracally the maximum value, the OP would have had to roll litteraly billions of times, which he couldn't even do in a lifetime. So, because I can use a brain, I assumed he actually knew about the boundary of 2^31-1 that 4 octet signed integers have.
When he said it took him a "lot of time" to find the value, he was of course only joking. So I pointed out how his reasoning was flawed, as even if he really tried billions of times, it couldn't be used a proof.
2)You can often have integers that occupy 2 octets or even 8 octets, their limits would be respectively 2^15-1 and 2^63-1 so there is absolutely no reason why 2147483647(=2^31-1) should be the limit, from a programming point of view. Knowing about the boundarys of integers can only help to guess, and unless we actually take a look a the source code of !roll, we will never be 100% sure what the limit is.
1)In order to find empiracally the maximum value, the OP would have had to roll litteraly billions of times, which he couldn't even do in a lifetime. So, because I can use a brain, I assumed he actually knew about the boundary of 2^31-1 that 4 octet signed integers have.
When he said it took him a "lot of time" to find the value, he was of course only joking. So I pointed out how his reasoning was flawed, as even if he really tried billions of times, it couldn't be used a proof.
2)You can often have integers that occupy 2 octets or even 8 octets, their limits would be respectively 2^15-1 and 2^63-1 so there is absolutely no reason why 2147483647(=2^31-1) should be the limit, from a programming point of view. Knowing about the boundarys of integers can only help to guess, and unless we actually take a look a the source code of !roll, we will never be 100% sure what the limit is.