## The Excel 65,535=100,000 Bug

I've been getting a lot of requests from people to talk about the recent Excel bug. For those of
a number very, very close to either 65,535 or 65,536 are displaying their result as 100,000.
It's only in the display though - the underlying number is actually represented correctly, so if you subtract 2 from 65,536, you'll get the correct answer of 65,534 - not 99,998.

I can't give you the specifics - because without seeing the Excel code, I can't tell exactly what they got wrong. But I've got some pretty good suspicions, so I'll do my best to explain the background that leads to the problem, and what I think is probably going on. (Another excellent explanation if this
is in the Wolfram blog post that I mentioned in my fast arithmetic fractals post this weekend.)

## Granville Sewell: Genius or Liar?

As of 2/24/2008, Sewell has just responded to this, pretending that he just noticed it. To make discussions easier to follow, I have responded with a new post here, and I would appreciate it if comments could be posted there, to keep it all in one place.

My SciBling Mark Hofnagle over at the Denialist blog wanted me to take a look at the pseudo-mathematical ramblings of Granville Sewell. It actually connects with some of the comments in the thread about the paper by Dembski and Marks - Sewell uses part of the article to make the same kind of quantum nonsense claims that showed up here.

Sewell claims to have written a simulator which simulates the Universe, and is complaining that his supposed simulation didn't produce things like computers or aircraft carriers. I say claims because I'm pretty convinced that he did no such thing. Actually programming a simulator like the simplest of the several he claims to have done, which produces the results that he claims it produced, would be an absolutely astonishing feat of programming, involving a quantity of data that's more on the scale of Google than on the scale of Granville Sewell's laptop.