Fred J. McCall wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Sylvia Else wrote:
:
: :Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : Sylvia Else wrote:
: :
: : :Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : : Sylvia Else wrote:
: : :
: : : :Orval Fairbairn wrote:
: : : : In article
: : : : ,
: : : : Frogwatch wrote:
: : : :
: : : : Most of us use the base 10 number system although civilizations such
: : : : as the Romans used their number system. Many people think that base 2
: : : : is a universal number system but maybe it isnt. Perhaps a logical
: : : : system would be based on only representing prime numbers. Any other
: : : : numbers could be made up of symbols for primes indicating multiplying
: : : : them to get composite numbers.
: : : :
: : : : Binary, octal and hexadecimal are the basis of computers, whereas e is
: : : : the basis of natural logarithms; of course the number of fingers is yet
: : : : another.
: : : :
: : : :There isn't really anything about those number systems that makes them
: : : :intrinsically computer related. It's really more a matter of
: : : racticality - it's easier, so far, to build computers that way.
: : : :
: : : :You could build computers around a tristate logic, for example. But it's
: : : :more complicated, and these seems little point, particularly as it would
: : : :be invisible to users, and indeed programmers for the most part.
: : : :
: : :
: : : We could still build analog computers, too, but we don't. There's a
: : : reason for that.
: : :
: : : Binary is the basis of digital computers for a lot of very good
: : : reasons.
: : :
: : :Well they're all the same reason, really. The engineering is easier,
: : :which makes the computers cheaper.
: : :
: :
: : That's not it.
: :
: : :
: : :But that still doesn't make binary
: : :intrinsic to computers, any more than petrol is intrinsic to cars.
: : :
: :
: : Do I really need to repost what I wrote so you can read it again, or
: : will you go back and read it with brain engaged this time around?
: :
: :
: :Please don't post it again - it'll just have exactly the same meaning as
: :it did last time, which was not very much. You may know what you have in
: :mind, but what you wrote doesn't convey it.
: :
:
: Which indicates that you don't know enough about computer engineering
: to be in this discussion.
:
:No, it just means that I'm not fixated on the current ways of doing things.
:

You have your own private laws of physics, do you?

:
:
: Let me make it simple for you. It takes about twice as many circuit
: elements to implement a tri-state element as it does to implement a
: bi-state one. So, using the same amount of silicon I can either
: implement two bi-state elements (count from 0-3) or a single tri-state
: one (count from 0-2). Thus we see that trinary computers would have
: to be larger and consume more power for the same amount of
: computational ability when compared to binary computers.
:
: It's not that the engineering is easier for a binary computer than for
: a trinary one. It just doesn't make good sense from a size/power
: perspective.
:
:You're assuming a particular implementation. Who's to say how it would
an-out using a different technology? You can't use the particular
:implementation, which is based on binary, to justify a claim that binary
:is best for implementing computers. It's merely the best for the current
:technology - which means it's an engineering decision if ever there was one.
:

Semiconductor physics - learn something about them.

So, computers have to be made out of semiconductors? Is that some kind
of universal law?


:
:
: Is it starting to sink in now?
:
: Oh, by the way, your comparison to cars and petrol makes no sense
: whatsoever in this context.
:
:
:With the currently available technology, the total cost of ownership of
:a car is lowest when it runs on petrol.
:

Wrong.

Really? Then why do people have petrol driven cars?


:
:With the currently available
:technology, the total cost of ownership of a computer is lowest when
:it's based on binary arithmetic.
:
:Total cost of ownership relates to capital cost, operating cost, and
:reliability.
:
:Good engineering minimises total cost of ownership.
:

Again, learn something about semiconductor physics.