JT
Posts:
436
Registered:
4/7/12
|
|
Re: Which naturals better?
Posted:
Feb 5, 2013 1:16 AM
|
|
On 4 Feb, 09:17, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> In article
> <086315b9-274b-4e88-a43a-c8bc9ab23...@n2g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> JT <jonas.thornv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Building new natural numbers without zero using NyaN, in any base,
> > this will have affects upon computational theory? The NyaN principle
> > is general work for all bases.
> > (Base 3)
> > (NyaN) base 3 Standard naturals base 3
> > 1 = 1 01
> > 2 = 2 02
> > 3 = 3 10
> > 4 = 11 =3+1 11
> > 5 = 12 =3+2 12
> > 6 = 13 =3+3 20
> > 7 = 21 =6+1 21
> > 8 = 22 =6+2 22
> > 9 = 23 =6+3 100
> > 10 = 31 =9+1 101
> > 11 = 32 =9+2 102
> > 12 = 33 =9+3 110
> > 13 = 111 =9+3+1 111
> > 14 = 112 =9+3+2 112
> > 15 = 113 =9+3+3 120
> > 16 = 121 =9+6+1 121
> > 17 = 122 =9+6+2 122
> > 18 = 123 =9+6+3 200
> > 19 = 131 =9+9+1 201
> > 20 = 132 =9+9+2 202
> > 21 =133 =9+9+3 210
>
> The problem being that in this NyaN system there is no way to represent
> zero as a numeral, and zero is more and more these days regarded as
> natural number, since it is certainly the cardinality of a finite set,
> as are all 'other' natural numbers.
> --
Well what i asked if anyone could help me reencode standard base to
NyaN base, most i would like a generic form working for all bases like
the one i posted for standard bases.
It may be that NyaN do not fit current paradigm, but they could be
useful for someone (me).
And i simply forgot howto do it, it was a few lines of codes probably
less code then for standard bases.
|
|
