Talk:Base36

message: Re: -Any one with a Dell Express Service Code can enter the digits here and the result will tally with the Service Tag. Proving thats the system Dell uses.--Trounce 15:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your intentions are good, but Wikipedia article pages are not allowed to cite Wikipedia talk pages as references... AnonMoos 01:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Uses in practice:Dell Express Service Code from the Service Tag <nowiki>{{Fact}}</nowiki>

message: Both the C# and the Python code have bugs - they are missing the case where the value == 0. Both loops should be converted to do-whiles to fix said boundary condition.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.56.115 (talk) 01:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch.  I've fixed the C# example.  I'm not sufficiently familiar with python syntax to feel comfortable messing with the python example.  203.171.85.67 (talk) 02:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the python example already explicitly checks for value==0.  Guess someone's already fixed it.  203.171.85.67 (talk) 02:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Bugs in sample code

message: who invented it?
name names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.58.93.63 (talk • contribs) 
:There were a lot of restricted character sets in telegraphy and the early days of computing: Baudot code, Fieldata, DEC Radix-50, etc...  Using alphanumerics only is a natural idea when you don't want to bother with non-alphanumerics. AnonMoos (talk) 13:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  who? 

message: Most of the code samples given are not case insensitive. I'm even guilty of this having modified the C# example to match the case-sensitivity of the C example. The question is, is string representation supposed to be upper or lower case? Or is it supposed to be immune to upper and lower case. If the latter is true, then many of the examples are broken. War (talk) 15:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on the particular application... AnonMoos (talk) 13:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: case insensitive 

message: It must be noted that in practice lower case characters are easier to recognize from some number. Typical case are confusion between the number zero '0' and upper letter 'O', between number '1' and letter 'I', between number '8' and letter 'B', and between number '5' and letter 'S'.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.221.150.139 (talk) 18:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It occurs to me that perhaps the idea of compression would work better if the compressed digits looked more like the senary double-digit counterparts. So "5" would be instead written something like "0͜5", "8" would be "1͜2", and "X" would be "5͜3" at first occurrence. (The ties are being used as a quick solution.) Then we would introduce the idea of alphanumerics, once the idea of compression has been fully understood by the reader. Double sharp (talk) 14:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lower case in practice 

message: The C sample is optimized for Base36 and only Base36. The C# is made to work with any base. Subsequently the C version is considerably faster than the C# version. I worry that people will assume this is a language limitation when in fact this article is implementing two entirely different algorithms in the two languages. I'd liked to see this article use the same goal in all samples. By goal I mean, "fastest" or "most general purpose" or "easiest to read" and apply this standard to all the language examples.War (talk) 13:55, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that one psuedocode example of an imperative, table-based algorithm would be sufficient. A functional example would also make sense. This article should not be a repository of base36 implementations. Leave that to each programming language to solve itself. —C45207 | Talk 23:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would agree broadly with that, but would avoid pseudocode. We should use one clear example (it's not a rocket surgery algorithm), but keep it to a language that is compilable and testable, not pseudocode. The clearest here at present seems to be the Python example. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:50, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unify Sample Algorithms 

message: From the python example, type "convert AQF8AA0006EH base 36 to decimal" in the entry box  (wolframalpha.com, essentially Mathematica)  to return 1412823931503067241.--Billymac00 (talk) 03:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wolfram Alpha]] 

message: The digits can be written as:
Base 10	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40	41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48    	49	50    	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60	61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80	81	82	83	84	85	86	87    	88    	89    	90	91	92    	93    	94    	95
Base 96	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	ᘔ 	Ɛ 	A 	B 	C 	D 	E 	F 	G 	H 	I 	J 	K 	L 	M 	N 	O 	P 	Q 	R 	S 	T 	U 	V 	W 	X 	Y 	Z 	! 	" 	# 	$ 	% 	& 	' 	( 	) 	* 	+	, 	-	. 	/ 	: 	; 	< 	= 	> 	? 	@ 	` 	a 	b 	c 	d 	e 	f 	g 	h 	i 	j 	k 	l 	m 	n 	o 	p 	q 	r 	s 	t 	u 	v 	w 	x 	y 	z 	[	\	]	^ 	_ 	{	|	}	~
;Base 96
:1/1=1
:1/2=0.+
:1/3=0.U
:1/4=0.M
:1/5=0.HHHHHH......
:1/6=0.E
:1/7=0.Bh;vP$Bh;vP$Bh;vP$......
:1/8=0.A
:...... -- 08:27, 10 April 2014‎ 140.113.136.218
----
140.113.136.218 -- There are 94 visible characters in ASCII (characters 33-126, not including 127) and 95 "printing" characters (32-126).  This was the basis of the "Rot47" scheme mentioned on the "Rot13" article, and (with the precautionary omission of some characters) of the Ascii85 encoding scheme.  Not sure that it's ever been used as a numeric base, or why people would want to... AnonMoos (talk) 09:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't characters like "+" and "=" make this very confusing? Double sharp (talk) 14:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why not to use Base 96? 

message: In the "conversion table" there should be a value for representing zeroes. So that it would range 0..35--213.121.207.158 (talk) 10:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zero is missing 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Base36. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081202234630/http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/FileStore to http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/FileStore
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:06, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Currently the article says "Signed 32- and 64-bit integers will only hold at most 6 or 13 base-36 digits, respectively",
which seems to me to be contradict the fact that many 13-digit base-36 integers -- such as "3Y2P0IJ32E8E8" and "ZZZYYYXXXWWWV" -- cannot be held in a 64-bit integer (whether signed or unsigned); although some 13-digit base-36 integers -- such as "1Y2P0IJ32E8E7" -- will fit in a mere 63 bits.
In the conversion routines, it's important to know what's the maximum number of base-36 digits that will be produced from some input, but I don't know if it's more relevant to have signed 64-bit integers, unsigned 64-bit integers, or etc.
How can we clarify this?
--DavidCary (talk) 00:00, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  conversion