Introversion

xander wrote:

ChasM wrote:There's only three kinds of people in this world.
Those who know how to count, and those who don't.

You are incorrect, sir. There are 10 types of people in the world: those that understand binary, and those that don't.

xander

There are 2 types of people in the world:
Those who understand hexadecimal, and those that don't.



Booyakasha.

Don't you mean "There are 0x0002 types..." ?

It must be after midnight in the UK. . .

http://forums.introversion.co.uk/uplink ... um.php?f=2
http://forums.introversion.co.uk/uplink ... um.php?f=3
http://forums.introversion.co.uk/uplink ... m.php?f=12

gives me:
Unknown forum. -- You requested: uplink_introversion_darwinia

huh? But I was logged out at the time! Just what kinda pop-tarts/cookies are you feeding me?
I no longer see the Darwinia forums when logged in, which seems correct.
Are we on the slippery slope towards segregated products=segregated forums?
Still, I don't get it.
Aren't the Darwinia and Uplink forums BELOW the Intorversion forum in the product tree?
AND the whole Uplink forum tree has no link back to the intoversion.co.uk home.
Just what kinda HIVE KEYS have you guys been smoking?

OOoooh, now I get it.
The three offending links above are now history. Check out this!

http://forums.introversion.co.uk/uplink

http://forums.introversion.co.uk/darwinia

Check into the Darwinia forum, all your base is
stolen and irrelevant. I think it was base eleven.

Oops, the links are back, now the links show up when I'm logged in . . .
I'm so confused. Must be progress.

Stewsburntmonkey wrote:I don't know that I have ever seen a forum with such a filter.

*ahem*slashdot*ahem*

That is all.

Ok, there are now an infinitude of combinations (which actually simplifies configuration somewhat). Viewing
http://forums.introversion.co.uk/uplink/introversion was not really ever intended - we may simply do a redirect to the base introversion forums in the future.

I knew it was base eleven!

Has anyone ever seen a televised quiz contest hosted by former Intel CEO Andy Grove?

The highlight question, failed by Bill Gates and others, involved

base eleven math. Confusing, ambigous, but very logical.

Thanks again, John.

It wasn't base 11. The question was: what is 11 * 11 in base 89?

Wouldn't Base89(11) x Base89(11) be Base89(121)?

Deepsmeg wrote:Wouldn't Base89(11) x Base89(11) be Base89(121)?

Yes.

xander

11 * 11 in any base (other than base 2) is 121.

Stewsburntmonkey wrote:11 * 11 in any base (other than base 2) is 121.

I shouldn't be this pedanitc but I'll have to be

You need to specifiy that 11 * 11 in any integer base (sans 2) is 121, as 11 * 11 in Golden Mean Base, base e, etc won't be 121 (in short, any complex number bases).

An intresting fact still though, fun to pull on people and see their answers

NeoThermic

Of course non-integer base systems are hard to define given that you generally need a number of characters corresponding to the base to represent numbers in that base. For for base 10 we have characters '0'-'9', base 2 has '1' and '0'. For something like base 2.5 how do you have half a character?

The only interesting non-integer system I have seen is Donald Knuth's base 2i system which could represent any complex number with 4 characters and no sign. He was 17 when he presented it which is pretty weird.

My brain just 'sploded.

I can deal with base 10 or 2. Everything else hurts.

Stewsburntmonkey wrote: For something like base 2.5 how do you have half a character?

I gave though to that. Assuming that base 2.5 needs 0 and 1, 0.5 could be written /1, 1.5 thusly as 1/1, 2.5 as 10/1, etc. (Where / means half of the following character, not as a sign of operand)

"Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it."

NeoThermic