The variable bit cpu

[Ken Smith]

In article <pan.2005.08.13.01.51.48.515063@att.bizzzz>,
keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
[...]

Why not? X86 imbeds instruction "markers" in the input stream. It can't
be any harder to decode data.

Hummmm .... good point.

BTW: At about the same time as segmentation was invented, Intel was also
looking at making the program counter decrement. This would help with top
down software design.

Remember we want a general purpose machine that can handle signed values
and be variable length.

Sure. But why waste bandwidth with a word marker per bit? (a question for
the OP, BTW)

Why indeed?

There are packages out there that allow numbers to be large numbers of
bits long. There are also some that keep track of the number's value
symbolically so 3*pi is remembered as 3*pi not 9.something.

This should be enough for all practical purposes.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <pan.2005.08.13.01.53.39.648091@att.bizzzz>,
keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
[...]

I've always kind of liked base 4 for the exponents in floating point
numbers. It can save you a whole box full of NAND gates.

IBM likes base-16 for FP. Go figure.

They saved a lot of hardware in the denormalize logic at the cost of
making the numbers less accurate. I think they also gained a bit of speed
on the floating point add and subtract at the cost of making the sqrt()
function take a little longer to do.

The denormalize could be made as just 1/16 muxes. When you want the
initial guess for the sqrt() the wider range for the mantissa made your
guesser more complex or less accurate.



--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Skybuck Flying]

"keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
newsan.2005.08.12.19.45.50.678755@att.bizzzz...

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 13:42:05 +0200, Skybuck Flying wrote:


"Ken Smith" <kensmith@green.rahul.net> wrote in message
news:ddbg1s$g1l$2@blue.rahul.net...
In article <ddaakd$iki$1@news3.zwoll1.ov.home.nl>,
Skybuck Flying <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote:

"Ken Smith" <kensmith@green.rahul.net> wrote in message
news:dd8vqf$ru3$1@blue.rahul.net...
In article <4-mdnZUku-xaAWrfRVn-tQ@scnresearch.com>,
Don Taylor <dont@agora.rdrop.com> wrote:
[...]
What I'm trying to get at is whether he has anything more than just
an idea about how to have a stream of bits tell you when you have
reached the end or not.

I think we can save our brains on that one and just assume that the
only
idea he has is the end marker idea. He hasn't even realized what
base
numbering he should use. (hint: base 2 is not the right one)

Boring, it's base 2.

Guess again; the correct answer is obvious and it is not 2.

Base 4 ? get real.

What's wrong with base 4? In grade school we were taught to do arithmetic
in all bases up to 32 (symbols got the be hard to remember . Are you a
crappy coder; a binary bigot?

Why switch from binary to base 4.

It doesn't matter. The data bits and data marker bits can be detected in
binary just fine

Bye,
Skybuck.

 

[Skybuck Flying]

"Ken Smith" <kensmith@green.rahul.net> wrote in message
news:ddjk7a$89s$3@blue.rahul.net...

In article <ddi1q1$g5v$1@news2.zwoll1.ov.home.nl>,
Skybuck Flying <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote:
[....]
idea he has is the end marker idea. He hasn't even realized what
base
numbering he should use. (hint: base 2 is not the right one)

Boring, it's base 2.

Guess again; the correct answer is obvious and it is not 2.

Base 4 ? get real.

No. Four is the wrong answer. The right answer is obvious.

Not to me, I give up, what's the right answer according to you, which is
ofcourse wrong anyway since binary is perfectly suited to detect the data
bits and marker bits

Bye,
Skybuck.

 

[keith]

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 22:38:46 +0200, Skybuck Flying wrote:

"keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
newsan.2005.08.12.19.45.50.678755@att.bizzzz...
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 13:42:05 +0200, Skybuck Flying wrote:


"Ken Smith" <kensmith@green.rahul.net> wrote in message
news:ddbg1s$g1l$2@blue.rahul.net...
In article <ddaakd$iki$1@news3.zwoll1.ov.home.nl>,
Skybuck Flying <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote:

"Ken Smith" <kensmith@green.rahul.net> wrote in message
news:dd8vqf$ru3$1@blue.rahul.net...
In article <4-mdnZUku-xaAWrfRVn-tQ@scnresearch.com>,
Don Taylor <dont@agora.rdrop.com> wrote:
[...]
What I'm trying to get at is whether he has anything more than just
an idea about how to have a stream of bits tell you when you have
reached the end or not.

I think we can save our brains on that one and just assume that the
only
idea he has is the end marker idea. He hasn't even realized what
base
numbering he should use. (hint: base 2 is not the right one)

Boring, it's base 2.

Guess again; the correct answer is obvious and it is not 2.

Base 4 ? get real.

What's wrong with base 4? In grade school we were taught to do arithmetic
in all bases up to 32 (symbols got the be hard to remember . Are you a
crappy coder; a binary bigot?

Why switch from binary to base 4.

Why not, if there is an advantage? OTOH, why encode in base four and
throw away half of your information?

It doesn't matter. The data bits and data marker bits can be detected in
binary just fine

You *still* haven't a clue.

--
Keith

 

[keith]

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 22:39:26 +0200, Skybuck Flying wrote:

"Ken Smith" <kensmith@green.rahul.net> wrote in message
news:ddjk7a$89s$3@blue.rahul.net...
In article <ddi1q1$g5v$1@news2.zwoll1.ov.home.nl>,
Skybuck Flying <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote:
[....]
idea he has is the end marker idea. He hasn't even realized what
base
numbering he should use. (hint: base 2 is not the right one)

Boring, it's base 2.

Guess again; the correct answer is obvious and it is not 2.

Base 4 ? get real.

No. Four is the wrong answer. The right answer is obvious.

Not to me, I give up, what's the right answer according to you, which is
ofcourse wrong anyway since binary is perfectly suited to detect the data
bits and marker bits

Binary works. Why are you wasting half of your information and bandwith?

--
Keith

 

[Skybuck Flying]

"keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
newsan.2005.08.14.01.14.18.776751@att.bizzzz...

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 22:39:26 +0200, Skybuck Flying wrote:


"Ken Smith" <kensmith@green.rahul.net> wrote in message
news:ddjk7a$89s$3@blue.rahul.net...
In article <ddi1q1$g5v$1@news2.zwoll1.ov.home.nl>,
Skybuck Flying <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote:
[....]
idea he has is the end marker idea. He hasn't even realized what
base
numbering he should use. (hint: base 2 is not the right one)

Boring, it's base 2.

Guess again; the correct answer is obvious and it is not 2.

Base 4 ? get real.

No. Four is the wrong answer. The right answer is obvious.

Not to me, I give up, what's the right answer according to you, which is
ofcourse wrong anyway since binary is perfectly suited to detect the
data
bits and marker bits

Binary works. Why are you wasting half of your information and bandwith?

For flexibilitttttyyyyyyyyyyyy ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

--
Keith

 

[Skybuck Flying]

"keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
newsan.2005.08.14.01.13.11.47362@att.bizzzz...

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 22:38:46 +0200, Skybuck Flying wrote:


"keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
newsan.2005.08.12.19.45.50.678755@att.bizzzz...
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 13:42:05 +0200, Skybuck Flying wrote:


"Ken Smith" <kensmith@green.rahul.net> wrote in message
news:ddbg1s$g1l$2@blue.rahul.net...
In article <ddaakd$iki$1@news3.zwoll1.ov.home.nl>,
Skybuck Flying <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote:

"Ken Smith" <kensmith@green.rahul.net> wrote in message
news:dd8vqf$ru3$1@blue.rahul.net...
In article <4-mdnZUku-xaAWrfRVn-tQ@scnresearch.com>,
Don Taylor <dont@agora.rdrop.com> wrote:
[...]
What I'm trying to get at is whether he has anything more than
just
an idea about how to have a stream of bits tell you when you
have
reached the end or not.

I think we can save our brains on that one and just assume that
the
only
idea he has is the end marker idea. He hasn't even realized what
base
numbering he should use. (hint: base 2 is not the right one)

Boring, it's base 2.

Guess again; the correct answer is obvious and it is not 2.

Base 4 ? get real.

What's wrong with base 4? In grade school we were taught to do
arithmetic
in all bases up to 32 (symbols got the be hard to remember . Are you
a
crappy coder; a binary bigot?

Why switch from binary to base 4.

Why not, if there is an advantage? OTOH, why encode in base four and
throw away half of your information?

It doesn't matter. The data bits and data marker bits can be detected in
binary just fine

You *still* haven't a clue.

Are you going to say what base you think is suited lol ? or are you just
going to continue playing mister bad troll lol

--
Keith

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <de0s6n$9p$1@news3.zwoll1.ov.home.nl>,
Skybuck Flying <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]

Binary works. Why are you wasting half of your information and bandwith?

For flexibilitttttyyyyyyyyyyyy ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

They now have plastic semiconductors.


--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[keith]

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 04:39:27 +0200, Skybuck Flying wrote:

"keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
newsan.2005.08.14.01.13.11.47362@att.bizzzz...
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 22:38:46 +0200, Skybuck Flying wrote:


"keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
newsan.2005.08.12.19.45.50.678755@att.bizzzz...
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 13:42:05 +0200, Skybuck Flying wrote:


"Ken Smith" <kensmith@green.rahul.net> wrote in message
news:ddbg1s$g1l$2@blue.rahul.net...
In article <ddaakd$iki$1@news3.zwoll1.ov.home.nl>,
Skybuck Flying <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote:

"Ken Smith" <kensmith@green.rahul.net> wrote in message
news:dd8vqf$ru3$1@blue.rahul.net...
In article <4-mdnZUku-xaAWrfRVn-tQ@scnresearch.com>,
Don Taylor <dont@agora.rdrop.com> wrote:
[...]
What I'm trying to get at is whether he has anything more than
just
an idea about how to have a stream of bits tell you when you
have
reached the end or not.

I think we can save our brains on that one and just assume that
the
only
idea he has is the end marker idea. He hasn't even realized what
base
numbering he should use. (hint: base 2 is not the right one)

Boring, it's base 2.

Guess again; the correct answer is obvious and it is not 2.

Base 4 ? get real.

What's wrong with base 4? In grade school we were taught to do
arithmetic
in all bases up to 32 (symbols got the be hard to remember . Are you
a
crappy coder; a binary bigot?

Why switch from binary to base 4.

Why not, if there is an advantage? OTOH, why encode in base four and
throw away half of your information?

It doesn't matter. The data bits and data marker bits can be detected in
binary just fine

You *still* haven't a clue.

Are you going to say what base you think is suited lol ?

No, I'm saying that you haven't a clue. Hint: You're wasting half your
information in flags. Some information is necessarily lost in such
schemes, but it need not be half. You have two bits for every bit of
data. That's rather poor. An idiot could improve that by 50%.

or are you just going to continue playing mister bad troll lol

Troll? Me? No, that's your job here.

--
Keith

P.S. A decent newsreader is in order. Even trolls can afford them.

 

[keith]

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 04:38:46 +0200, Skybuck Flying wrote:

"keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
newsan.2005.08.14.01.14.18.776751@att.bizzzz...
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 22:39:26 +0200, Skybuck Flying wrote:


"Ken Smith" <kensmith@green.rahul.net> wrote in message
news:ddjk7a$89s$3@blue.rahul.net...
In article <ddi1q1$g5v$1@news2.zwoll1.ov.home.nl>,
Skybuck Flying <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote:
[....]
idea he has is the end marker idea. He hasn't even realized what
base
numbering he should use. (hint: base 2 is not the right one)

Boring, it's base 2.

Guess again; the correct answer is obvious and it is not 2.

Base 4 ? get real.

No. Four is the wrong answer. The right answer is obvious.

Not to me, I give up, what's the right answer according to you, which is
ofcourse wrong anyway since binary is perfectly suited to detect the
data
bits and marker bits

Binary works. Why are you wasting half of your information and bandwith?

For flexibilitttttyyyyyyyyyyyy ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

See your doctor. Viagra might help.

--
Keith

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <pan.2005.08.19.04.38.48.738372@att.bizzzz>,
keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
[...]

No, I'm saying that you haven't a clue. Hint: You're wasting half your
information in flags. Some information is necessarily lost in such
schemes, but it need not be half. You have two bits for every bit of
data. That's rather poor. An idiot could improve that by 50%.

Actually, he is throwing away more than 1/2 the band width. He wastes an
extra 2 bits on every positive number. This is a bummer because the way
most software gets written most of the numbers are positive.

The real trouble will happen when he attempts to code the floating point
operations. I'm sure he hasn't seen how sticking with this silly base 2
system gets him into trouble on that.


--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Skybuck Flying]

"keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
newsan.2005.08.19.04.38.48.738372@att.bizzzz...

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 04:39:27 +0200, Skybuck Flying wrote:


"keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
newsan.2005.08.14.01.13.11.47362@att.bizzzz...
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 22:38:46 +0200, Skybuck Flying wrote:


"keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
newsan.2005.08.12.19.45.50.678755@att.bizzzz...
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 13:42:05 +0200, Skybuck Flying wrote:


"Ken Smith" <kensmith@green.rahul.net> wrote in message
news:ddbg1s$g1l$2@blue.rahul.net...
In article <ddaakd$iki$1@news3.zwoll1.ov.home.nl>,
Skybuck Flying <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote:

"Ken Smith" <kensmith@green.rahul.net> wrote in message
news:dd8vqf$ru3$1@blue.rahul.net...
In article <4-mdnZUku-xaAWrfRVn-tQ@scnresearch.com>,
Don Taylor <dont@agora.rdrop.com> wrote:
[...]
What I'm trying to get at is whether he has anything more
than
just
an idea about how to have a stream of bits tell you when you
have
reached the end or not.

I think we can save our brains on that one and just assume
that
the
only
idea he has is the end marker idea. He hasn't even realized
what
base
numbering he should use. (hint: base 2 is not the right one)

Boring, it's base 2.

Guess again; the correct answer is obvious and it is not 2.

Base 4 ? get real.

What's wrong with base 4? In grade school we were taught to do
arithmetic
in all bases up to 32 (symbols got the be hard to remember . Are
you
a
crappy coder; a binary bigot?

Why switch from binary to base 4.

Why not, if there is an advantage? OTOH, why encode in base four and
throw away half of your information?

It doesn't matter. The data bits and data marker bits can be detected
in
binary just fine

You *still* haven't a clue.

Are you going to say what base you think is suited lol ?

No, I'm saying that you haven't a clue. Hint: You're wasting half your
information in flags. Some information is necessarily lost in such
schemes, but it need not be half. You have two bits for every bit of
data. That's rather poor. An idiot could improve that by 50%.

Dude what does base have to do anything with it.

To calculate the ammount of storage needed one can simply use base 2.

( Log10( value ) / Log10( base ) ) * 2 = digits needed

Though squared root 2 could be used as a base as well.

Log10( value ) / Log10( squared root(2) ) = digits needed

However I think all arithmetic will still take place in base 2.

So I do not see the relevance of base squared root 2.

Care to explain ?

Bye,
Skybuck.

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Skybuck Flying
<nospam@hotmail.com> wrote (in <de6usa$fvs$1@news1.zwoll1.ov.home.nl&gt
about 'The variable bit cpu', on Sat, 20 Aug 2005:

To calculate the ammount of storage needed one can simply use base 2.

( Log10( value ) / Log10( base ) ) * 2 = digits needed

Indeed, but why introduce 10? The equation is true for any base of logs,
and using base 2 logs tends to simplify it.

Though squared root 2 could be used as a base as well.

Log10( value ) / Log10( squared root(2) ) = digits needed

However I think all arithmetic will still take place in base 2.

So I do not see the relevance of base squared root 2.

What is the subtle difference between 2 and (root 2) squared?

The optimum base for computing can be shown to be 'e' (2.718..) but
no-one knows how to do that. But 3 is theoretically better than 2, and
can be implemented in ICs as -1, 0, +1. Intelligent beings elsewhere may
use this system.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
If everything has been designed, a god designed evolution by natural selection.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[Skybuck Flying]

"Ken Smith" <kensmith@green.rahul.net> wrote in message
news:de4pps$e6r$3@blue.rahul.net...

In article <pan.2005.08.19.04.38.48.738372@att.bizzzz>,
keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
[...]
No, I'm saying that you haven't a clue. Hint: You're wasting half your
information in flags. Some information is necessarily lost in such
schemes, but it need not be half. You have two bits for every bit of
data. That's rather poor. An idiot could improve that by 50%.

Actually, he is throwing away more than 1/2 the band width. He wastes an
extra 2 bits on every positive number.

My code is not about compression. If you want to compress stuff there are
other much more efficient codes for positive integers only

Besides from that the sign bit if that's what you mean is a question of
interpretation. Since I don't like complex two's complement ideas and
arithmetic my cpu would have datatypes indicating if it's an integer or
not... in case I worry about wasting a single bit for a fricking sign bit
lol I could add another datatype which would be unsigned but adding another
data type would require even more bits lol. So I am glad you made me think
about this... this is a non issue no mixed integer types for me... just a
single integer type with a sign bit... unless I need some form of
compatibility with other systems woeh.

This is a bummer because the way
most software gets written most of the numbers are positive.

The real trouble will happen when he attempts to code the floating point
operations. I'm sure he hasn't seen how sticking with this silly base 2
system gets him into trouble on that.

No inaccurate floating bullshit for me... just rational numbers baby

Bye,
Skybuck =D And now I go play dungeon siege 2222222222 yeah.

 

[Skybuck Flying]

"John Woodgate" <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote in message
news:8hUFf$O3rwBDFwbm@jmwa.demon.co.uk...

I read in sci.electronics.design that Skybuck Flying
nospam@hotmail.com> wrote (in <de6usa$fvs$1@news1.zwoll1.ov.home.nl&gt
about 'The variable bit cpu', on Sat, 20 Aug 2005:

To calculate the ammount of storage needed one can simply use base 2.

( Log10( value ) / Log10( base ) ) * 2 = digits needed

Indeed, but why introduce 10? The equation is true for any base of logs,
and using base 2 logs tends to simplify it.

Windows xp has a calculator with a button called "log"

This is actually a Log10 button.

So I use log10 to avoid any confusion.

However you might be right that the implementation of Log2 is much simpler
than Log10. Log2 might be closer to it's root so to speak . I don't
understand logarithm that well... it could have something to do with the
number 2 lol and root stuff etc wieeee.

Though squared root 2 could be used as a base as well.

Log10( value ) / Log10( squared root(2) ) = digits needed

However I think all arithmetic will still take place in base 2.

So I do not see the relevance of base squared root 2.

What is the subtle difference between 2 and (root 2) squared?

No it's "squared root" at least so says my delphi manual.

So "squared root" 2 is 1.414

The optimum base for computing can be shown to be 'e' (2.718..) but
no-one knows how to do that. But 3 is theoretically better than 2, and
can be implemented in ICs as -1, 0, +1. Intelligent beings elsewhere may
use this system.

Hmmm how is that proven ?

--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
If everything has been designed, a god designed evolution by natural
selection.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Skybuck Flying
<nospam@hotmail.com> wrote (in <de745h$baq$1@news3.zwoll1.ov.home.nl&gt
about 'The variable bit cpu', on Sat, 20 Aug 2005:

No it's "squared root" at least so says my delphi manual.

The correct words are 'the square root of 2'. Not 'squared'. Especially
because the phrase 'root 2' is interpreted as 'square root of 2', which
is why I understood your 'squared root of 2' to mean 1.414...^2 = 2.

So "squared root" 2 is 1.414


The optimum base for computing can be shown to be 'e' (2.718..) but
no-one knows how to do that. But 3 is theoretically better than 2, and
can be implemented in ICs as -1, 0, +1. Intelligent beings elsewhere may
use this system.

Hmmm how is that proven ?

It involves some math far too advanced for me. But I am assured that it
is so.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
If everything has been designed, a god designed evolution by natural selection.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <de73jk$uqn$1@news5.zwoll1.ov.home.nl>,
Skybuck Flying <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote:

"Ken Smith" <kensmith@green.rahul.net> wrote in message
news:de4pps$e6r$3@blue.rahul.net...
In article <pan.2005.08.19.04.38.48.738372@att.bizzzz>,
keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
[...]
No, I'm saying that you haven't a clue. Hint: You're wasting half your
information in flags. Some information is necessarily lost in such
schemes, but it need not be half. You have two bits for every bit of
data. That's rather poor. An idiot could improve that by 50%.

Actually, he is throwing away more than 1/2 the band width. He wastes an
extra 2 bits on every positive number.

My code is not about compression. If you want to compress stuff there are
other much more efficient codes for positive integers only

You certainly are right it isn't about compression. Its about fluffing
things up with a lot of needless bits.

Besides from that the sign bit if that's what you mean is a question of
interpretation. Since I don't like complex two's complement ideas and
arithmetic

I was suggesing that you make it handle signed values not complex numbers.
Doing signed values does not add any hardware to the ALU. The only place
it usually adds a bit is to the status (condition code) register.

my cpu would have datatypes indicating if it's an integer or
not... in case I worry about wasting a single bit for a fricking sign bit
lol I could add another datatype which would be unsigned but adding another
data type would require even more bits lol.

I suggest you think about multiply and divide for a bit.

[...]

No inaccurate floating bullshit for me... just rational numbers baby

That will be even harder.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Skybuck Flying]

"keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
newsan.2005.08.19.04.38.48.738372@att.bizzzz...

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 04:39:27 +0200, Skybuck Flying wrote:


"keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
newsan.2005.08.14.01.13.11.47362@att.bizzzz...
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 22:38:46 +0200, Skybuck Flying wrote:


"keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
newsan.2005.08.12.19.45.50.678755@att.bizzzz...
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 13:42:05 +0200, Skybuck Flying wrote:


"Ken Smith" <kensmith@green.rahul.net> wrote in message
news:ddbg1s$g1l$2@blue.rahul.net...
In article <ddaakd$iki$1@news3.zwoll1.ov.home.nl>,
Skybuck Flying <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote:

"Ken Smith" <kensmith@green.rahul.net> wrote in message
news:dd8vqf$ru3$1@blue.rahul.net...
In article <4-mdnZUku-xaAWrfRVn-tQ@scnresearch.com>,
Don Taylor <dont@agora.rdrop.com> wrote:
[...]
What I'm trying to get at is whether he has anything more
than
just
an idea about how to have a stream of bits tell you when you
have
reached the end or not.

I think we can save our brains on that one and just assume
that
the
only
idea he has is the end marker idea. He hasn't even realized
what
base
numbering he should use. (hint: base 2 is not the right one)

Boring, it's base 2.

Guess again; the correct answer is obvious and it is not 2.

Base 4 ? get real.

What's wrong with base 4? In grade school we were taught to do
arithmetic
in all bases up to 32 (symbols got the be hard to remember . Are
you
a
crappy coder; a binary bigot?

Why switch from binary to base 4.

Why not, if there is an advantage? OTOH, why encode in base four and
throw away half of your information?

It doesn't matter. The data bits and data marker bits can be detected
in
binary just fine

You *still* haven't a clue.

Are you going to say what base you think is suited lol ?

No, I'm saying that you haven't a clue. Hint: You're wasting half your
information in flags. Some information is necessarily lost in such
schemes, but it need not be half. You have two bits for every bit of
data. That's rather poor. An idiot could improve that by 50%.

You're such a fucking idiot. This isn't about compression. Go see a doctor
yourself.

Dipshit.

You claim so much yet you provide noooo answers how convenient.

I claim I can get 60% savings... I'll leave the rest up to you to figure out
you fucking troll hahahahahaha

 

[Skybuck Flying]

"keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
newsan.2005.08.19.04.39.58.930368@att.bizzzz...

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 04:38:46 +0200, Skybuck Flying wrote:


"keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
newsan.2005.08.14.01.14.18.776751@att.bizzzz...
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 22:39:26 +0200, Skybuck Flying wrote:


"Ken Smith" <kensmith@green.rahul.net> wrote in message
news:ddjk7a$89s$3@blue.rahul.net...
In article <ddi1q1$g5v$1@news2.zwoll1.ov.home.nl>,
Skybuck Flying <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote:
[....]
idea he has is the end marker idea. He hasn't even realized
what
base
numbering he should use. (hint: base 2 is not the right one)

Boring, it's base 2.

Guess again; the correct answer is obvious and it is not 2.

Base 4 ? get real.

No. Four is the wrong answer. The right answer is obvious.

Not to me, I give up, what's the right answer according to you, which
is
ofcourse wrong anyway since binary is perfectly suited to detect the
data
bits and marker bits

Binary works. Why are you wasting half of your information and
bandwith?

For flexibilitttttyyyyyyyyyyyy ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

See your doctor. Viagra might help.

Wax your dick, so it fits better into your donkey's ass lol. hahahaha

Bye,
Skybuck.