JT
Posts:
1,299
Registered:
4/7/12


Re: show the cannonical baseone digital representation not Godam hashmarks thank you don't do it again <endquote>
Posted:
Apr 10, 2013 6:35 PM


On 10 Apr, 21:07, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com> wrote: > see Stevin's _The Decimals_ for the ambguous case in odometermath, > cannonically: ...0001.0000... defined isomorphic to ...0000.9999...
Why don't you like the hashmarks it is afterall what your dreamed up numberline is made of, and YOU have to partition it to make any sense. Since the reals is not baseless, but fractions are.
If you wanted to represent a binary 5 as 101 ={{{1111}}1} that just will grove weirder with the number of zeros because there is no decomposition into the base, just a freaking huge collection that may or may not be a square.
Counting base 1 5={1,1,1,1,1} Binary 5={{1,1}{1,1}1} Ternary 5={{1,1,1}1,1} Quaternary 5={{1,1,1,1}1} Senary 5={1,1,1,1,1} Septenary 5={1,1,1,1,1} Octal 5={1,1,1,1,1} Nonary 5={1,1,1,1,1} Decimal 5={1,1,1,1,1}
I have not thought about representing base1(unary?) fractionals becase fractionals is superior to partitioning into base, but possible .{1} for 1/3 and 3/9 .{{1,1,1} 9/27 .{{{1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1} what do you think. This is the true nature of numbers collections and cuts, the number line is just dreamed up. Numbers are baseless we partition and create the semantics the collections is interpretated in, not the other way around. And i show you the simples semantics for numbers. Collections and cuts.
I have not thru about howto represent base1(unary?) fractionals becase fractionals is superior to partitioning into base, but possible .{1} for 1/3 and 3/9 .{{1,1,1} 9/27 .{{{1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1} what do you think.
Do you have any problem interpretate this numbersystem, in reality though there are better representations more compact. But they are all without zeros and bijective.

