Index
> Main > Base 4 numbers |
| Author |
|
|
scientica
looks understandable to me, just as undestandable as the binary. But the quadrary is perhaps easier for some.
_________________ ... a professor saying: "use this proprietary software to learn computer science" is the same as English professor handing you a copy of Shakespeare and saying: "use this book to learn Shakespeare without opening the book itself. - Bradley Kuhn |
|||
15 Aug 2003, 23:11 |
|
|
Eoin
Maybe its just me, but in the shuffle instruction pair of binary digits means something, not the number as a whole.
So if you want to quickly see whats being shuffled into say the second slot you first have to look carefully to see which two binary digits refeer to that slot, then translate them. Base 4 numbers allow you to pick out the one important digit very quickly. Yeah its not very important, but it would be nice. |
|||
|
16 Aug 2003, 00:17 |
|
|
roticv
That's a really weird request I must say.
 |
|||
|
16 Aug 2003, 08:52 |
|
|
Eoin
I know I know, maybe look at it this way, we have number types for
2^1 Binary 2^2 ? 2^3 Octal 2^4 Hexadecimal Theres a gap there that needs filling  nah on second thought my origional posts make more sense  . |
|||
|
16 Aug 2003, 11:36 |
|
|
scientica
Eoin wrote: 2^1 Binary ? = quadral, quadrinary, quattrinary, qtal, quadtal, q(u)nary, butanary. - which foolws the patter the best? _________________ ... a professor saying: "use this proprietary software to learn computer science" is the same as English professor handing you a copy of Shakespeare and saying: "use this book to learn Shakespeare without opening the book itself. - Bradley Kuhn |
|||
|
16 Aug 2003, 11:47 |
|
|
eet_1024
tetral?
|
|||
|
19 Aug 2003, 09:15 |
|
|
scientica
tetral - good one too.
 _________________ ... a professor saying: "use this proprietary software to learn computer science" is the same as English professor handing you a copy of Shakespeare and saying: "use this book to learn Shakespeare without opening the book itself. - Bradley Kuhn |
|||
|
19 Aug 2003, 11:04 |
|
|
comrade
Quadratic?
|
|||
|
20 Aug 2003, 00:53 |
|
|
Madis731
(Unary), Binary, Triary, Quadrary, Pentary, Hexary, Septary, Octal, Nonal, Decal(Decimal), Unadecimal, Bidecimal, Tridecimal, Quattrodecimal, Pentadecimal, Hexadecimal, Septadecimal, Octadecimal, Nonadecimal, Dekadecimal, 21, 22, 23, you get the poind
 |
|||
|
10 Aug 2004, 12:22 |
|
|
vid
okay, "q", but who would use it anyway? Why should we fill FASM with things almost never used that can be as well achieved another way. Why are two binary digits less readable than one "quadrary"?
(same opinion about octal numbers) |
|||
|
10 Aug 2004, 18:12 |
|
|
crc
Quote: (same opinion about octal numbers) Octal is VERY useful for some things... like assemblers. Most of the x86 opcodes can be organized via opcode easily in octal, but not as much so in hex or decimal. |
|||
|
10 Aug 2004, 19:12 |
|
|
Madis731
I've gotten used to it
and PLEASE, stop converting hex to dec in your mind or on your computer think as if you have never heard of base 10 system and you'll get used to it - like your mother language or a base 10 system. Let it go, you don't need q or o or even dec in assembly |
|||
|
10 Aug 2004, 19:31 |
|
|
crc
Quote: think as if you have never heard of base 10 system and you'll get used to it - like your mother language or a base 10 system. Let it go, you don't need q or o or even dec in assembly Hmm, I like decimal, though I also use hex, octal, binary, and other exotic bases (Base 60 is good when dealing with large numbers...). There's no reason NOT to use the base you're most comfortable with, if it's supported by the tool. |
|||
|
10 Aug 2004, 20:13 |
|
|
Imagist
The computer interprets numbers of all bases into binary, so I don't see how it matters.
|
|||
|
10 Aug 2004, 20:19 |
|
|
Madis731
I have a story:
My English teacher always persuaded us to 'think' in English. I wondered what she ment by that 'til I suddenly started doing that one day. Nothing seemed to need translating any more. Few monts ago I started thinking in HEX and BIN so I don't need to go throuhg any DEC to compare them to 'real' values - I just accept it. It's not hard if you once get the point 
...and now, children - it's bedtime. The digits lived happily ever-after. =>00:04 is really a good time to go to bed, because it's Q |
|||
|
10 Aug 2004, 21:00 |
|
|
mike.dld
Eoin wrote: I've a suggestion for Fasm. I think the addition of Base 4 numbers would greatly improve the readability of shuffle instructions. I think it's so useless as writing 248004015204 (in base 256) and expecting the compiler to translate it to 0xF8040FCC. |
|||
|
11 Aug 2004, 05:51 |
|
|
Madis731
You did something wrong because 248004015204base256 is
623843501854137515595923460DEC and its 20408000004000105020004HEX I don't get it, what did you mean with that? |
|||
|
11 Aug 2004, 06:16 |
|
< Last Thread | Next Thread > |
Forum Rules:
|