 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
David Fontaine wrote in message <38C1F08E.706E209D@faricy.net>...
>What's this one?
42 in base 2*sqrt(-1)
Mark
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mark Wagner wrote:
>
> David Fontaine wrote in message <38C1F08E.706E209D@faricy.net>...
> >What's this one?
>
> 42 in base 2*sqrt(-1)
Huh? 42 is a real number, while i is an imaginary value. Both of which
are orthognal. You can't express a real number using an imaginary base.
>
> Mark
--
Francois Labreque | The surest sign of the existence of extra-
flabreq | terrestrial intelligence is that they never
@ | bothered to come down here and visit us!
attglobal.net - Calvin
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Francois Labreque <fla### [at] attglobal net> wrote in message
news:38C269FE.F40D9644@attglobal.net...
>
>
> Mark Wagner wrote:
> >
> > David Fontaine wrote in message <38C1F08E.706E209D@faricy.net>...
> > >What's this one?
> >
> > 42 in base 2*sqrt(-1)
>
> Huh? 42 is a real number, while i is an imaginary value. Both of which
> are orthognal. You can't express a real number using an imaginary base.
>
> >
> > Mark
wouldn't 100 in base 2*sqrt(-1) = -4 in base 10?
and 10000 in base 2*sqrt(-1) = 16 in base 10?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike White wrote:
>
> Francois Labreque <fla### [at] attglobalnet> wrote in message
> news:38C269FE.F40D9644@attglobal.net...
> >
> >
> > Mark Wagner wrote:
> > >
> > > David Fontaine wrote in message <38C1F08E.706E209D@faricy.net>...
> > > >What's this one?
> > >
> > > 42 in base 2*sqrt(-1)
> >
> > Huh? 42 is a real number, while i is an imaginary value. Both of which
> > are orthognal. You can't express a real number using an imaginary base.
> >
> > >
> > > Mark
>
> wouldn't 100 in base 2*sqrt(-1) = -4 in base 10?
No. I read 2*sqrt(-1) as "two times the square root of minus one",
which is equal to 2i.
You're thinking about [sqrt(-1)]^2, or "the square root of minus one,
squared".
--
Francois Labreque | The surest sign of the existence of extra-
flabreq | terrestrial intelligence is that they never
@ | bothered to come down here and visit us!
attglobal.net - Calvin
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Francois Labreque <fla### [at] attglobalnet> wrote in message
news:38C2CD79.2F90EB8A@attglobal.net...
>
>
> Mike White wrote:
> >
> > Francois Labreque <fla### [at] attglobalnet> wrote in message
> > news:38C269FE.F40D9644@attglobal.net...
> > >
> > >
> > > Mark Wagner wrote:
> > > >
> > > > David Fontaine wrote in message <38C1F08E.706E209D@faricy.net>...
> > > > >What's this one?
> > > >
> > > > 42 in base 2*sqrt(-1)
> > >
> > > Huh? 42 is a real number, while i is an imaginary value. Both of
which
> > > are orthognal. You can't express a real number using an imaginary
base.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Mark
> >
> > wouldn't 100 in base 2*sqrt(-1) = -4 in base 10?
>
> No. I read 2*sqrt(-1) as "two times the square root of minus one",
> which is equal to 2i.
> You're thinking about [sqrt(-1)]^2, or "the square root of minus one,
> squared".
>
> --
100 in base 2*sqrt(-1) should equal -4
1*((2*sqrt(-1))^2) + 0*((2*sqrt(-1))^1)+0*((2*sqrt(-1))^0) = -4
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mark Wagner wrote:
> 42 in base 2*sqrt(-1)
3 * 2^4 * i^4 = 3*16*1 = 48
0 * 2^3 * i^3 = 0*8*-i = 0
2 * 2^2 * i^2 = 2*4*-1 = -8
0 * 2^1 * i^1 = 0*2*i = 0
2 * 2^0 * i^0 = 2*1*1 = 2
----------------------------
42
gotcha
what're the rules for this base? Couldn't I also write it 40602? I mean,
because you can't write a number two ways with other bases. (Or do you
take the smallest representation possible? If you know what I'm trying
to say... if you can cancel out values in two of the digits you do so)
--
___ ______________________________________________________
| \ |_ <dav### [at] faricynet> <ICQ 55354965>
|_/avid |ontaine http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/
"Sitting on a cornflake, waiting for the van to come" -Beatles
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> wrote in message
news:38C32280.8A0A755F@faricy.net...
> Mark Wagner wrote:
>
> > 42 in base 2*sqrt(-1)
>
> 3 * 2^4 * i^4 = 3*16*1 = 48
> 0 * 2^3 * i^3 = 0*8*-i = 0
> 2 * 2^2 * i^2 = 2*4*-1 = -8
> 0 * 2^1 * i^1 = 0*2*i = 0
> 2 * 2^0 * i^0 = 2*1*1 = 2
> ----------------------------
> 42
>
> gotcha
>
> what're the rules for this base? Couldn't I also write it 40602? I mean,
> because you can't write a number two ways with other bases. (Or do you
> take the smallest representation possible? If you know what I'm trying
> to say... if you can cancel out values in two of the digits you do so)
>
Shouldn't all coefficients be "less" than the base?
Is 3 less than 2i ?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
What's all this discussion for anyway? If you know the answer to the
question of life, the universe, and everything, you can't know the
actual question, and vice versa, so...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
David Fontaine wrote in message <38C32280.8A0A755F@faricy.net>...
>what're the rules for this base? Couldn't I also write it 40602? I mean,
>because you can't write a number two ways with other bases. (Or do you
>take the smallest representation possible? If you know what I'm trying
>to say... if you can cancel out values in two of the digits you do so)
No. Base 2i uses the digits 0 through 3, so the number 40602 cannot be in
base 2i
Mark
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Well actually you can for less than a fraction of a second and then
................. =)
( if my memory serves me >?)
Scott Reid wrote:
> What's all this discussion for anyway? If you know the answer to the
> question of life, the universe, and everything, you can't know the
> actual question, and vice versa, so...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
