Talk:9,223,372,036,854,775,807

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Numbers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Numbers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NumbersWikipedia:WikiProject NumbersTemplate:WikiProject NumbersNumbers articles

Mathematics

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles

Computer science

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Computer scienceTemplate:WikiProject Computer scienceComputer science articles

Things you can help WikiProject Computer science with:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests :
- Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Computer science, computing, and Internet
Cleanup :
- Computer science articles needing attention
- Computer science articles needing expert attention
Copyedit :
- Computing
Expand :
- Computer science
Infobox :
- Computer science articles without infoboxes
Maintain :
- Timeline of computing 2020–present
Photo :
- Find pictures for the biographies of computer scientists (see List of computer scientists)
- Computing articles needing images
Stubs :
- Computer science stubs
Unreferenced :
- WikiProject Computer science/Unreferenced BLPs
Project-related :
- Tag all relevant articles in Category:Computer science and sub-categories with {{WikiProject Computer science}}

Bejeweled Diamond Mine[edit]

I discovered that this number is the maximum score of Bejeweled Diamond Mine (available for iPhone). At this point there are apparently 66 players who have discovered how to reach this score. The next two runners up have scores of 6.666.666.666.666.666.666 and 99.999.999.999.999. It appears that somebody can choose their high score by some glitch. Noticing that this score can not be the result of normal game-play (for it would take too much time to reach this score), I was wondering how these players have succeeded in acquiring this high score. Anybody? Bcurfs (talk) 00:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube-Error[edit]

Not true. The news (https://plus.google.com/+youtube/posts/BUXfdWqu86Q) was a joke (http://www.cnet.com/news/gangnam-style-busts-youtubes-view-counter-not-so-fast/). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.3.50.254 (talk) 14:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 21 June 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: speedy move. Already closed two of these this week which passed the full process. (closed by non-admin page mover) —Guan aco 17:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

9223372036854775807 → 9,223,372,036,854,775,807 – Per MOS:DIGITS, for legibility and for consistency with 100,000, 1,000,000, etc. Certes (talk) 16:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom including their rationale here. Gap9551 (talk) 14:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Significance to the Year 2038 problem[edit]

This number seems significant to the year 2038 problem. Please confirm this by adding suitable citations. Thank you. NK (talk) 20:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not really. In 2038 we will pass 2,147,483,647 seconds since 1970, causing problems for some 32-bit systems. They'll need to deal with higher numbers and some suitable architectures can count to 9,223,372,036,854,775,807, but any limit of similar magnitude would suffice. Certes (talk) 20:54, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]