|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Alien number systems
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
$ All sub-SYSTEMs have "surroundings", duh. Sub-SYSTEMs are "submerged" in SYSTEM "working fluid" AMBiENT. Sub-SYSTEMs ONLY EXCHANGE energy with "working fluid" AMBiENT. Go-go Google GROUP SEARCH: < | brian a m stuckless | Astronomy Misc | 0 | November 23rd 05 11:34 AM |
computing the number of alien planet lifeforms | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 7 | August 2nd 05 05:57 PM |
Help: Contact number for Astra Image software supplier - Phone Number(Homepage) Not current | Sun Yang | CCD Imaging | 2 | November 4th 04 01:11 AM |
Help: Contact number for Astra Image software supplier - Phone Number(Homepage) Not current | Sun Yang | CCD Imaging | 3 | November 3rd 04 10:28 PM |
Space Systems/Loral Awarded $103 Million Contract To Build Critical Power Systems For The International Spac Station | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 1 | July 8th 03 10:46 PM |