Talk:Numeral system/Archive 1

message: I have added what I think to be 3 main points of numeration
*A useful set of numbers represented
*uniqueness of representation (nice, but not required, e.g. 1.00000000..=0.9999999999..)
*compatibility with arithmetic, so that the numerals can be used in algorithms.
I am considering a 4th:
*uniqueness of number represented
since one interpretation of a fixed or floating point representation is that one numeral can represent any value in a range of values.  For instance, a numeral such as 1.02 in the "currency" numeration system represents any value from 1.015 to 1.025.  The question is whether this is too abstract for wikipedia - there are plenty of places elsewhere in wikipedia where numeral is confused with number.  Comments?  --AndrewKepert 07:21, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Desirable properties of numeral systems

message: But fractions don't really count as a number system, as you say. --Zundark
Well, what are they then ?
Do we have a WikiPage that lists all the strange and wonderful ways of representing fractions ?
-- DavidCary 02:47, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  fractions 

message: Today I read:
"Electronic components (first vacuum tubes, then transistors) may have only 2 possible states: concat(1) and closed (0). ... Note however that a computer does not treat all of its data as integers. Thus, some of it may be treated as texts and program data. Real numbers (numbers that can be not whole) are usually written down in the floating point notation, that has different rules of arithmetic."
Huh ? What is "concat" ? I thought it was a Unix command-line utility.
The whole point of the Von Neumann revolution was realizing that programs, data, text, etc. can all be represented by the same numbers and stored in the same memory locations. The computer *does* store every bit of its data as, well, bits.
(And if you think of bits as the integers "0" and "1", then texts and program data *are* treated as integers.)
Nearly all bits are stored as one of the 2 possible ways to magnetize of a patch of magnetic media.
-- DavidCary 02:47, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  electronic components 

message: I deleted from the article the sentence
:(In that context, it is often referred to as "stone-age binary", on the justification that the absence of the chosen symbol functions like a different symbol (perhaps explicitly called "blank"), making the system in another sense a two-symbol one.)
Google tells me
* "stone-age binary": 2 hits (both on the same site)
* "unary": 218,000 hits.
2 times by the same writer doesn't count as "often".
--DavidCary 21:05, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "stone-age binary" 

message: D'ni numbers are fictional, designed in the 1990s solely for certain computer games.  Although a metaphysical argument can be made that all numeral systems are fictional, that is, created by humans, there is a reasonable basis for making the distinction between numeral systems that were actually used by real human cultures, and numeral systems created for artistic effect in individual works of literature.  If nobody objects, and if I have any energy left this weekend, I'll create a new page to put it in.  Cbdorsett 16:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  move fictional numbering system out 

message: "etymologically correct" does not have to mean "etymolgically pure" which is the sense used here. For example, wouldn't "hepticosamal" (instead of viginti-septimal) be a "correct" blend of latin and greek just as hexadecimal is?
ConstableBrew 02:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed that now. – Adhemar 10:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The etymologically correct base names