On 3/14/2013 6:18 AM, JT wrote: > On 13 mar, 19:47, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: >> On 3/13/2013 8:42 AM, JT wrote: >> >>> 0.3 in ternary >> >> quaternary? >> >> binary -> 01 >> >> ternary ->012 >> >> decimal ->0123456789 > > No your bases are malformed > > binary ->12 > ternary ->123 > decimal ->123456789A or X if you so want there is really no set > standard outside computational theory i think. >
You are correct. Something or another is malformed.
It may have been the '0' to the left of the "ternary point" that confused me.