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:
: : :
: : : :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
f universal law?
:

If you have a better way, you should patent it now.

I don't, but that's beside the point. Unless you can show that computers
can only be made out of semiconductors (highly unlikely), you cannot use
semiconductors in an argument about the general applicability of binary
to computers.

:
:
: :
: :
: : 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?
:

Yes, really. Diesels have cheaper lifecycle costs.

It depends very much how they're used. Diesel engines have a higher
capital cost. They're only have lower total costs if they're used a lot.
Otherwise the cost of capital is more than the lower cost of the fuel.

Sylvia.