T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
---|
3304.1 | | KLAP::porter | beware of geeks bearing GIFs | Thu Aug 04 1994 09:58 | 5 |
| Ha! Clever!
[This note is just a public announcement that I'm cool
enough to figure it out :-) I haven't posted the "answer"
here because it would spoil the fun.]
|
3304.2 | | COMICS::WEGG | Some hard boiled eggs and some nuts. | Thu Aug 04 1994 10:09 | 3 |
| What -.1 said (and .0 too for that matter).
I.
|
3304.4 | | VMSVTP::S_WATTUM | OSI Applications Engineering, West | Thu Aug 04 1994 10:12 | 1 |
| you know you're in trouble when..... You like it. (oops, wrong note).
|
3304.5 | | ELWOOD::LANE | soon: [email protected] | Thu Aug 04 1994 10:16 | 3 |
|
-2989
|
3304.6 | 2766! | BRUMMY::MARTIN::BELL | Martin Bell, Central PSC, Birmingham UK | Thu Aug 04 1994 10:27 | 0 |
3304.7 | | TAMRC::LAURENT | Hal Laurent @ COP | Thu Aug 04 1994 10:31 | 10 |
| re: .0
Hint for those who haven't gotten it yet: It could be translated
as 5353246754.
re: -5
> -2989
Hey, you got the sign wrong!
|
3304.8 | exit | BABAGI::CRESSEY | | Thu Aug 04 1994 10:52 | 7 |
| Re: all replies... Good going, noters!
I suppose a lot of people would rather hear:
732777227
Dave
|
3304.9 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Aug 04 1994 11:03 | 1 |
| .5 should be !2989.
|
3304.10 | Cute | NEWVAX::MURRAY | so many notes, so little time | Thu Aug 04 1994 11:08 | 2 |
|
Think you've all gone 56063!
|
3304.11 | | AXEL::FOLEY | Rebel without a Clue | Thu Aug 04 1994 11:27 | 7 |
| RE: .0
hahahahahahahahah!!
Oh God, I am a geek. Where's my Way Cool Frog?
mike
|
3304.12 | :') | GRANMA::MWANNEMACHER | daddyneverwasthecadillackind | Thu Aug 04 1994 11:39 | 6 |
|
You all belong to both the pocket protector and protractor of the month
clubs?
Mike
|
3304.13 | !4011 | MUGGER::NORTH | | Thu Aug 04 1994 12:34 | 2 |
|
|
3304.14 | Hm... | TLE::PERIQUET | Dennis Periquet | Thu Aug 04 1994 12:36 | 2 |
|
Ok. I'm confused but somewhat intrigued. +Dennis
|
3304.15 | HELP with numbers... | GRANMA::JWOOD | | Thu Aug 04 1994 12:44 | 1 |
| clueless, I remain
|
3304.16 | 69 | ICS::BEAN | Attila the Hun was a LIBERAL! | Thu Aug 04 1994 12:49 | 1 |
|
|
3304.17 | 77 | OLD1S::SYSTEM | So many lures , so little time | Thu Aug 04 1994 13:03 | 0 |
3304.18 | | 2HOT::SHANAHAN | I survived 20 yrs at DIGITAL | Thu Aug 04 1994 13:06 | 7 |
|
i think you're right....
and i think i've been playing with these computers far too long..
i got it much to quickly.....
denny
|
3304.19 | Clueless!!! | LEDS::HINE | | Thu Aug 04 1994 13:39 | 6 |
| Please, I'm a poor marketing slob
Enlighten Me!!!!!
Jeff
|
3304.20 | | QUARK::LIONEL | Free advice is worth every cent | Thu Aug 04 1994 13:45 | 7 |
| From a VMS DCL prompt, try this:
$ X = 732777964
$ SHOW SYMBOL X
Steve
|
3304.21 | To geek or not to geek? | DV780::BROOKS | | Thu Aug 04 1994 13:45 | 4 |
| I agree with .0 and must say that this is 2862380.
(My 8 year old calls me a "geek",...it must be true!)
|
3304.22 | 180019117 | CSOA1::LENNIG | Dave (N8JCX), MIG, @CYO | Thu Aug 04 1994 13:50 | 1 |
|
|
3304.23 | Na -> -557793553 | STAR::PARKE | True Engineers Combat Obfuscation | Thu Aug 04 1994 14:01 | 1 |
|
|
3304.24 | The only one I got was .16 | WLDBIL::KILGORE | DCU 3Gs -- fired but not forgotten | Thu Aug 04 1994 14:06 | 1 |
|
|
3304.25 | | ELWOOD::DCARR | | Thu Aug 04 1994 14:08 | 1 |
| Just as long as the bad news doesn't finally become -559084052
|
3304.26 | Where's my tables book? | POBOX::CORSON | Higher, and a bit more to the right | Thu Aug 04 1994 14:12 | 5 |
|
Personally I think you are all delightfully hexed. My kids are
going to love this!!!
the Greyhawk
|
3304.27 | | YIELD::HARRIS | | Thu Aug 04 1994 14:31 | 3 |
| > Just as long as the bad news doesn't finally become -559084052
or -557064531
|
3304.28 | HELP, I NEED A CLUE | USAT05::GOULDD | | Thu Aug 04 1994 14:36 | 8 |
| please tell me.... what are you all saying? I'm EXREMELY confused.
If you can't "write" out what is being said, please give a better clue
than the one that was provided.
Thanks!
|
3304.29 | | HYDRA::wolf.ljo.dec.com::BECK | Paul Beck, TSEG (HYDRA::BECK) | Thu Aug 04 1994 14:39 | 1 |
| The key is in .26.
|
3304.31 | | TAMRC::LAURENT | Hal Laurent @ COP | Thu Aug 04 1994 14:47 | 9 |
| re: .29
> The key is in .26.
Actually, the key is in .20 if you have access to a VMS machine. If you
don't, see if you can find a calculator that converts from decimal to
hexadecimal (unless you're *really* a propellor-head and can do it mentally).
-Hal
|
3304.32 | English is Geek to me | BABAGI::CRESSEY | | Thu Aug 04 1994 15:00 | 6 |
| Re: .10
Shouldn't 56063 have been 897009?
Or is this coming from the East side of the pond?
Dave
|
3304.33 | | DV780::BROOKS | | Thu Aug 04 1994 15:26 | 1 |
| How about 233627309 51979 ? :-)
|
3304.34 | Cute, but nothin' new! | SWAM2::GOLDMAN_MA | Blondes have more Brains! | Thu Aug 04 1994 15:35 | 5 |
| Gee, if y'all are going to make comments in code, shouldn't they be
something we don't already know? -:)!
m.
|
3304.35 | | WEORG::SCHUTZMAN | Bonnie Randall Schutzman | Thu Aug 04 1994 15:40 | 3 |
| and of course if -557064531 (in .26) then -1329865043 too...
--bonnie
|
3304.36 | | HELIX::SONTAKKE | | Thu Aug 04 1994 15:40 | 4 |
| T> cnv 732777964
MATH$TEMP = 732777964 Hex = 2BAD4DEC Octal = 05353246754
Xlated Msg :- %NONAME-F-NOMSG, Message number 2BAD4DEC
|
3304.37 | What's that smell??? | NPSS::BRANAM | Steve, Network Product Support | Thu Aug 04 1994 16:37 | 5 |
| Oh, all you high-level language guys got it too easy. Remember the good old days
when you had to toggle-switch the IPL instructions in from the front panel? Who
the heck uses decimal anyway?
1011 1110 1101 1110 1100 1101 1110 1010 1101 1011 1110 1110 1111 ?
|
3304.38 | | LEEL::LINDQUIST | Pit heat is dry heat. | Thu Aug 04 1994 17:57 | 4 |
|
I'm suprised no one has described digital's marketing:
-559038737
|
3304.39 | When EDP tried this stuff, he got slapped down fast | DECCXX::AMARTIN | Alan H. Martin | Thu Aug 04 1994 18:42 | 4 |
| Re .0:
You had me wondering what was so interesting about 22-Mar-93.
/AHM
|
3304.40 | the good old days ... | BSS::C_BOUTCHER | | Thu Aug 04 1994 21:02 | 4 |
| Ahhhh ... but can you remember the good old days with 233616545!
VAXMail rules!
Chuck
|
3304.41 | Is this the live sex line? | GUCCI::HERB | [email protected] | Thu Aug 04 1994 22:18 | 2 |
| Ok, I dialed the number and the recording said I must be 18 or older
and that it would cost me $2.90/min if I stayed on the line.
|
3304.42 | | LEEL::LINDQUIST | Pit heat is dry heat. | Fri Aug 05 1994 07:39 | 10 |
| �� <<< Note 3304.41 by GUCCI::HERB "[email protected]" >>>
�� -< Is this the live sex line? >-
�� Ok, I dialed the number and the recording said I must be 18 or older
�� and that it would cost me $2.90/min if I stayed on the line.
That gives me a great idea -- too bad DeltaIdeas is gone --
1-900-PayeeeeeeeeeePhone
If you wish to resign, press '1' now.
|
3304.43 | base 16? how about base 36? | OINOH::KOSTAS | He is great who confers the most benefits. | Fri Aug 05 1994 09:51 | 9 |
| re: Cryptic Comment
unfortunately with base 16 (i.e. HEX) you can only use the letters
ABCDE and F to construct words. This is not fair to DEC becase D C and
E are allowed but not I and M for IBM, or H and P, or ...
How about more cryptic messages at base 36?
/k
|
3304.44 | | QUARK::LIONEL | Free advice is worth every cent | Fri Aug 05 1994 10:28 | 3 |
| Let's not and say we did...
Steve
|
3304.45 | hm! only 1/2 | OINOH::KOSTAS | He is great who confers the most benefits. | Fri Aug 05 1994 10:37 | 7 |
| re. .-1
Steve,
then it would not be cryptic.
/k
|
3304.46 | Do you speak Geek? | BABAGI::CRESSEY | | Fri Aug 05 1994 11:02 | 17 |
| Hmmm... I didn't realize, when I posted .0, how many
responders would begin "speaking in Geek". (I guess that's
as good a name for it as any...)
Re: using base 36. I normally use base 128. (No MCS chars).
It's called ASCII. The limitation to A..F is part of the fun.
If you really, really have to say "IBM" in this "code", try
435
It's a pain in the neck to read, but...
This has been fun. Next?
|
3304.47 | | TOKNOW::METCALFE | Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers | Fri Aug 05 1994 15:30 | 6 |
| DDRSNDIV
Has nothing to do with DEC; just a comment on a peaceful forest scene.
IMND4S2RU
|
3304.48 | 3552822 for the 8-bit byte crowd... | VMSSPT::LYCEUM::CURTIS | Dick "Aristotle" Curtis | Sun Aug 07 1994 15:50 | 3 |
| What, not 891702?
Dick
|
3304.49 | There's only one 36 base NUMBER... | HLDE01::VUURBOOM_R | Roelof Vuurboom @ APD, DTN 829 4066 | Sun Aug 07 1994 20:48 | 2 |
| Moving to a 36 base (or even 30 base) would be great if
it would let me end up getting a salary that was half way DECENT.
|
3304.50 | base 36... | OINOH::KOSTAS | He is great who confers the most benefits. | Mon Aug 08 1994 10:02 | 5 |
| here is an easy one (base 36):
17364 1517097 30701 713469.
/k
|
3304.51 | somewhat challenging ... | OINOH::KOSTAS | He is great who confers the most benefits. | Mon Aug 08 1994 10:56 | 6 |
| a little harder one:
998992 492 32211 532397 1068 19759660 29414313165 526628 1068
122102643738696450048 17556287.
/k
|
3304.52 | It's SQOZE right outta my memory | BABAGI::CRESSEY | | Tue Aug 09 1994 18:05 | 5 |
| Speaking of base 36,
how many people here remember SQOZE code?
Dave
|
3304.53 | | QUARK::LIONEL | Free advice is worth every cent | Tue Aug 09 1994 20:33 | 4 |
| I remember it. It's sort of like RADIX-50 from the PDP-11. I once
wrote a SNOBOL program to do SQOZE translations.
Steve
|
3304.54 | | KLAP::porter | beware of geeks bearing GIFs | Wed Aug 10 1994 09:49 | 15 |
| Of course, modern programmers don't understand why radix-50
is (was?) called radix-50.
It's because there were 50 characters in the character set
32 letters
12 digits
1 space
1 dot
1 dollar
1 underscore -or- question mark
--
50
|
3304.55 | Radical radix | BABAGI::CRESSEY | | Wed Aug 10 1994 10:00 | 4 |
| Re: .54
I love it!
|
3304.56 | Close, but ... | JAMMER::JACK | Marty Jack | Wed Aug 10 1994 10:45 | 21 |
| > <<< Note 3304.54 by KLAP::porter "beware of geeks bearing GIFs" >>>
>It's because there were 50 characters in the character set
> 32 letters
> 12 digits
> 1 space
> 1 dot
> 1 dollar
> 1 underscore -or- question mark
> --
> 50
Actually, it's:
26 letters
10 digits
1 space
1 dot
1 dollar
1 underscore or question mark
--
40(10) = 50(8)
|
3304.57 | DECimal is an obselete product | PASTIS::MONAHAN | humanity is a trojan horse | Wed Aug 10 1994 10:54 | 4 |
| Nobody but an idiot used anything but radix 8, so .54 is correct.
Some people could multiply and divide in hexadecimal, but nobody used
*DECimal*.
|
3304.58 | | JAMMER::JACK | Marty Jack | Wed Aug 10 1994 10:56 | 1 |
| Oh dear. My face is red.
|
3304.59 | Closer than you think | BABAGI::CRESSEY | | Wed Aug 10 1994 10:56 | 9 |
| Re: .56
I think you missed the whimsy in .54...
All of the numbers in .54 are octal.
Incidentally, which characters are legal in VMS symbols?
|
3304.60 | | PASTIS::MONAHAN | humanity is a trojan horse | Wed Aug 10 1994 11:11 | 4 |
| re: .56-.58 I hope I know you well enough to buy you a pint of beer on
that when we next meet :-)
Dave
|
3304.61 | Get your priorities straight | DECCXX::AMARTIN | Alan H. Martin | Wed Aug 10 1994 11:24 | 31 |
| Re .59:
> Incidentally, which characters are legal in VMS symbols?
That's of no consequence.
The most important criterion when devising a symbol on VMS is embedding as many
dollar signs in it as possible. Whoever codes the most dollar signs is the
winner. You can play this game in any namespace, but here are some logical
names as examples:
@SHOW LOGICAL SYS$LOGIN
"SYS$LOGIN" = "CXX$:[AMARTIN]" (LNM$JOB_86E8EA80)
^ ^ ^
@SHOW LOGICAL CXX$
"CXX$" = "DISK$CXX_PACK:" (LNM$SYSTEM_TABLE)
^ ^ $
1 "DISK$CXX_PACK" = "DECCXX$DKA400:" (LNM$SYSTEM_TABLE)
^ ^ ^
@SHOW LOGICAL/SYSTEM *$*$*$*
(LNM$SYSTEM_TABLE)
^
"RPC$$$SWLMBX" = "MBA26:"
^^^
"SLS$HIST_$ALL$" = "GENERIC"
^ ^ ^
@
Obviously the last two guys are tied for first place.
/AHM
|
3304.62 | | NOVA::FISHER | Tay-unned, rey-usted, rey-ady | Wed Aug 10 1994 11:32 | 3 |
| re: .60 I hope that pint has 20 ounces ...
ed
|
3304.63 | Squeeze 3 --> 2 | MARVA1::POWELL | Arranging bits for a living... | Wed Aug 10 1994 11:42 | 15 |
| Actually .56 is correct (using decimal).
The purpose of RADIX-50 was to compress 3 characters into 2 bytes.
40 * 40 * 40 = 64000
maximum 2 byte value = 65535
RSTS/E used RADIX-50 to store things like 6 character user name/uic's
into 4 bytes.
Gosh - we had to save every byte we could in those 16-bit address space days
You've done got me all sentimental now ... sniff ... ;-)
Rick
|
3304.64 | An explanation of "$" in symbols. | PASTIS::MONAHAN | humanity is a trojan horse | Wed Aug 10 1994 12:26 | 6 |
| re: .61
The first "$" means "I don't have to talk to customers since I have
registered my prefix". The second "$" means "I don't have to talk to
DEC people outside my project". The third "$" means "If I talk to
myself, nobody listens". The exact placing of the "$"s in the symbol
is unimportant.
|
3304.65 | Never in my wildest dreams | BABAGI::CRESSEY | | Wed Aug 10 1994 12:54 | 2 |
| So *that's* what they meant when they said we had to increase
$$/employee! ;-)
|
3304.66 | | HELIX::SKALTSIS | Deb | Wed Aug 10 1994 13:18 | 11 |
| RE: .57
> Nobody but an idiot used anything but radix 8, so .54 is correct.
>Some people could multiply and divide in hexadecimal, but nobody used
>*DECimal*.
too true! at one point I (accidently) started keeping my checkbook
register with octal arithmetic. Boy, did I get a surprize when the
bank statement came in and I tried to reconcile it!
Deb
|
3304.67 | | KLAP::porter | beware of geeks bearing GIFs | Wed Aug 10 1994 13:48 | 3 |
| If god wanted us to count in decimal, he would have
given us ten fingers.
|
3304.68 | Primordial Prime Ordinal | HLDE01::VUURBOOM_R | Roelof Vuurboom @ APD, DTN 829 4066 | Wed Aug 10 1994 13:53 | 2 |
| Keep this up and we'll be moving onto Godel's proof by
reply 85...
|
3304.69 | ten sign and parity | HERON::BLOMBERG | Trapped inside the universe | Thu Aug 11 1994 04:01 | 4 |
|
re .67:
we need is eight fingers to count in octal, plus two fingers
for sign and parity ...
|
3304.70 | | FORTY2::DALLAS | Paul Dallas, DEC/EDI @REO2-F/F2 | Thu Aug 11 1994 05:35 | 3 |
| Re: .68
What is Godel's proof by reply 85? :-)
|
3304.71 | | OLD1S::SYSTEM | Well it's 1 ,2,3 what we fightin for | Thu Aug 11 1994 11:19 | 9 |
|
re 69
I never needed more than three fingers to count in Octal.
|
3304.72 | That's binary, not octal! | HERON::BLOMBERG | Trapped inside the universe | Thu Aug 11 1994 12:09 | 1 |
|
|
3304.73 | octal contains three binary digits not 8. | OLD1S::SYSTEM | Well it's 1 ,2,3 what we fightin for | Thu Aug 11 1994 15:07 | 0 |
3304.74 | | QBUS::F_MUELLER | HOME but not forgotten! | Thu Aug 11 1994 15:43 | 4 |
| Binary is a 0 or a 1.
Octal is 0 thru 7.
f.m.
|
3304.75 | | OLD1S::SYSTEM | Well it's 1 ,2,3 what we fightin for | Thu Aug 11 1994 16:12 | 19 |
|
* Binary is a 0 or a 1.
* Octal is 0 thru 7.
* f.m.
And to get a Octal digit you must combine three binary digits weighted by
powers of two.
421
000 = 0
001 = 1
010 = 2
011 = 3
100 = 4
101 = 5
110 = 6
111 = 7
|
3304.76 | | OLD1S::SYSTEM | Well it's 1 ,2,3 what we fightin for | Thu Aug 11 1994 16:18 | 2 |
|
Do you take your shoes off to count in Hex?
|
3304.77 | I can have A toe, but not B toe. | QBUS::F_MUELLER | HOME but not forgotten! | Thu Aug 11 1994 19:52 | 7 |
| re .75
Exactly.
re .76
I tried that, but I kept getting lost after "A" ;-)
frank m.
|
3304.78 | WARNING PDP-11 Instruction follows... | DEMOAX::FAHEY | Are we having 'FUN' yet? | Fri Aug 12 1994 16:43 | 7 |
| 777
If you understand you'll be stuck here for awhile...
;-)
Jim
|
3304.79 | | OLD1S::SYSTEM | Well it's 1 ,2,3 what we fightin for | Fri Aug 12 1994 17:55 | 9 |
|
14747
14747
With this you'll back your self into nowhere
(;^)>
Keith
|
3304.80 | | KONING::koning | Paul Koning, B-16504 | Fri Aug 12 1994 18:34 | 3 |
| (Only in octal, and then only if ...)
paul
|
3304.81 | | BSS::C_BOUTCHER | | Fri Aug 12 1994 18:35 | 6 |
| I think this note is having a major "trap to vector 024". Maybe we
should RTI 000002?? Na' - this is too much fun.
OP Code 000000 HALT
|
3304.82 | Digits, Numbers and Squigly Curves | HLDE01::VUURBOOM_R | Roelof Vuurboom @ APD, DTN 829 4066 | Sun Aug 14 1994 05:00 | 7 |
| seems that somebody's confusing octal digit (0-7) with
octal number (an ordered sequence octal digits).
We can all flash each other 3 fingered salutes representing
octal digits but that doesn't diminish the fact that an
octal digit is one of the set of squigly curves,
and straight lines found in the numbers 0 through 7.
|
3304.83 | | KLAP::porter | beware of geeks bearing GIFs | Mon Aug 15 1994 09:38 | 13 |
| re .-1
So the octal digits are "I" and "V" ?
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
|
3304.84 | Denotation and Equivalence are not Equivalent | HLDE01::VUURBOOM_R | Roelof Vuurboom @ APD, DTN 829 4066 | Mon Aug 15 1994 11:06 | 10 |
| re .-1
(Sticking to his guns...)
no, I and V are Roman numerals.
It is true that octal the digit equivalent to I is 1
but I does not denote an octal digit it denotes a
Roman numeral.
|
3304.85 | It's only a symbol! | BABAGI::CRESSEY | | Mon Aug 15 1994 11:39 | 14 |
| Re: .84
I don't think you are going to prevail on this one, even though you
may be right.
The confusion between a symbol and the thing the symbol represents
has been with us since the first caveman made a painting on the
wall. Computers have only speeded the process up.
The misuse of symbols out of context is what, IMO, was the
punch line behind the original base note.
Dave
|
3304.86 | | KLAP::porter | beware of geeks bearing GIFs | Mon Aug 15 1994 13:08 | 19 |
| re .84
I stand corrected - I actually looked it up this time :-(
My argument was based on the erroneous assumption that I
could use any scratchy marks I chose to represent the concepts
"zero" through "seven", and those scratchy marks would
therefore be described as "digits".
(Notwithstanding .85, I think I *do* understand the difference
between a symbol and the referent of that symbol).
However, the OED says that the "digits" are the numerals
from 0 to 9, so my own scratchy marks can't be digits even
if they're conceptually equivalent to digits.
Hmm. Now we can argue that there's no such thing as
a hexadecimal digit greater than 9...
|
3304.87 | Is the OED culturally myopic? | R2ME2::GREENWOOD | Tim. I do Unicode. | Mon Aug 15 1994 15:16 | 22 |
| The OED really restricts the term digit to the Arabic symbols? I am surprised.
That invalidates the different symbols used for the concepts '0' to '9' used
in other writing systems.
Unicode codes digits from the following distinct scripts
DIGIT ONE
ARABIC-INDIC DIGIT ONE
DEVANAGARI DIGIT ONE
BENGALI DIGIT ONE
GURMUKHI DIGIT ONE
GUJARATI DIGIT ONE
ORIYA DIGIT ONE
TAMIL DIGIT ONE
TELUGU DIGIT ONE
KANNADA DIGIT ONE
MALAYALAM DIGIT ONE
THAI DIGIT ONE
LAO DIGIT ONE
Tim
|
3304.88 | | KLAP::porter | beware of geeks bearing GIFs | Mon Aug 15 1994 17:28 | 7 |
| Well, it is an *English* dictionary.
(Although the definitions for "letter" and "alphabetic" are
not culturally constrained. Probably because the oxonians
had heard of Greek.)
Btw, this is the Concise Oxford, not the real OED. Sorry.
|
3304.89 | | BSS::C_BOUTCHER | | Mon Aug 15 1994 17:35 | 3 |
| this is deep, REALLY DEEP.
Gotta love it ...
|
3304.90 | ... nil nisi bonum | BABAGI::CRESSEY | | Mon Aug 15 1994 18:25 | 19 |
| Re: .86
>>(Notwithstanding .85, I think I *do* understand the difference
>>between a symbol and the referent of that symbol).
Oops! I certainly didn't mean .85 to be taken as a negative comment
about anybody in particular. On rereading it, I think that maybe
it *might* be taken that way. Sorry if you were offended.
In "Cryptic Comment", I'm just having fun, but not if it's at
somebody else's expense!
P.S. I would hope to see a second entry in the OED under
"digit" that might relate directly to fingers and toes....
Is there one?
Dave
|
3304.91 | OED definition of digit | CCAD23::TAN | Wild hearts can't be broken | Mon Aug 15 1994 21:53 | 12 |
| re -1
digit
1.(zool., anat., or joc.) Finger or toe.
2. Each numeral below ten (orig. counted on fingers); each Arabic numeral
from zero to nine.
3. (astron) 12th part of a diameter of sun or moon (in expressing maginitude
of eclipse).
digital - adj. Using digits; ~ computer: see COMPUTER
|
3304.92 | | CSOA1::LENNIG | Dave (N8JCX), MIG, @CYO | Tue Aug 16 1994 03:42 | 5 |
| In this context, what does OED say about the "bit"?
ie the 'binary digit'
Dave
|
3304.93 | | FILTON::ROBINSON_M | It's only a flesh wound! | Tue Aug 16 1994 05:49 | 2 |
| digit (n): self-deprecatory term used by employees of Digital
See entry for DEC (obs.)
|
3304.94 | And Going Deeper... | HLDE01::VUURBOOM_R | Roelof Vuurboom @ APD, DTN 829 4066 | Tue Aug 16 1994 07:30 | 46 |
|
Re a few back.
In the strictest sense there probably are no hexadecimal
digits larger than 9. A-F would likely be classified as
hexadecimal numerals.
The 10 is naturally related to the original meaning of digit
which is of course finger.
Re another few back.
Yes, this discussion _is_ culturally myopic or to put more
in a positive context culturally efficient in the sense that
we are dropping obvious (cultural) context.
"0" denotes 0 by in Western society because we're all agreed
to use the Arabic symbol "0" for this. If I don't mention
the appropriate cultural context then we all automatically
assume it to be Western.
In order to override this then I would somehow need to explicitly
identify the culture. Then I can talk about the Thai 0 (which
is a concept that may or may not have strong resemblence to 0 -
or more precisely the Western 0).
The Thai "0" may or may not exist - I don't know - and if it
does it may or may not represent 0. And if it does represent 0
the (Thai version of) 0 may or may not be the same as our
(Western verion of) 0.
There now, everybody confused?
No? One last try...
Since zero and 0 are synonyms I can replace 0 with zero.
Since "zero" and "0" can also be considered to be the same
parts of speech (syntax) I can even replace "0" with "zero"
in linguistic text such as above.
This syntactical equivalence does not carry through to
arithmetic text however since 2009 and 2zerozero9 are not
the same.
Have a nice day :-)
re roelof
|
3304.95 | So Tukey is the man to blame... | BAHTAT::DODD | | Wed Aug 17 1994 04:42 | 19 |
| re .92
OED Second edition:-
BIT [Abrv of binary digit]
A unit of informationderived from a choice between two equally probable
alternatives or events; such a unit stored electronically in a
computer.
1948 CE Shannon in Bell Syst Tech Jrnl July 380
"The choice of a logarithmic base corresponds to the choice of a unit
for measuring information. If the base 2 is used the resulting units
may be called binary digits, or more briefly bits, a word suggested by
J W Tukey."
and
DIGIT 3a Arith. Each of the numerals below ten (originally counted on
the fingers), expressed in the Arabic notation by one figure; any of
the nine, or (including the cipher, 0) ten Arabic figures.
Andrew
|
3304.96 | Ambiguity resolution | MUNDIS::SSHERMAN | Steve Sherman @MFR | Mon Aug 22 1994 07:59 | 9 |
| re .93:
> digit (n): self-deprecatory term used by employees of Digital
> See entry for DEC (obs.)
===
Do you mean "obscene" or "obsolete"?
Steve
|
3304.97 | | CCAD23::TAN | Wild hearts can't be broken | Mon Aug 22 1994 22:44 | 5 |
| re -1
>Do you mean "obscene" or "obsolete"?
he meant obsequies :(
|