Andreas Klein's posting of November 7 regarding the two entries that
don't match equation (0).

dik@cwi.nl writes in article <CytpMv.6D2@cwi.nl>:

> 1000111111111111111000110101111000010101000100 = 9895574626641
> 1010011111111111111101101101011000010010100000 = 1443107810341
> 1011111111111111111110111000001000110111101101 = 52776539295213
>
> Except for the first two there is a common definite pattern:
> a leading 10, followed by a bunch of 1's, followed by 0111000001.
> If the random numbers are random enough this seems to be
> significant.  I would like to see verification of the first
> two numbers listed (perhaps a transcription error or some-such?).

No error of mine, but the results of these two numbers have a
significantly longer correct mantissa as the results of all others:

       9895574626641
9.895574626641000e+12 = 402A8FFFE35E15100000
1.000000000000000e+00 = 3FFF8000000000000000
1.010552734661427e-13 = 3FD3E38E6622AB7F2614
9.999999999998295e-01 = 3FFEFFFFFFFFFFD00000
       1443107810341
1.443107810341000e+12 = 4027A7FFF6D612800000
1.000000000000000e+00 = 3FFF8000000000000000
6.929489209567026e-13 = 3FD6C30C3B66AAA79320
9.999999999999858e-01 = 3FFEFFFFFFFFFFFC0000

