Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!husc6!seismo!mcnc!xanth!kent
From: kent@xanth.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: number bases (was Question: on-chip or off-chip MMU?)
Message-ID: <1208@xanth.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 11-Jun-87 10:22:52 EDT
Article-I.D.: xanth.1208
Posted: Thu Jun 11 10:22:52 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 13-Jun-87 09:36:15 EDT
References: <5635@shemp.UCLA.EDU> <3460004@hpsrla.HP.COM> <4656@columbia.UUCP>
Reply-To: kent@xanth.UUCP (Kent Paul Dolan)
Organization: Old Dominion University, Norfolk Va.
Lines: 21
Summary: Surely I jest!

In article <4656@columbia.UUCP> dupuy@amsterdam.columbia.edu (Alexander Dupuy) writes:
[...]
>Even though there's no way to use a transcendental base in hardware, this does
>argue in favor of ternary logic,[...]  For example, there are several ways
>of representing signed ternary numbers.  The most interesting is using the
>symbols -1, 0 and +1, rather than 0, 1, and 2.  This avoids wasting a ternary
>symbol on the (bivalued) sign bit.  

Ah, yes!  Besides, it would give a whole raft of new possiblities for incorrect
implementations of the C construct "unsigned long", providing additional 
years of job security for C compiler writers and maintainers, who have almost
perfected themselves out of jobs!  ;-)


Kent.
--
Kent Paul Dolan, LCDR, NOAA, Retired; ODU MSCS grad student	 // Yet
UUCP  :  kent@xanth.UUCP   or    ...{sun,harvard}!xanth!kent	// Another
CSNET :  kent@odu.csnet    ARPA  :  kent@xanth.cs.odu.edu   \\ // Happy
USPost:  P.O. Box 1559, Norfolk, Virginia 23501-1559	     \// Amigan!
Voice :  (804) 587-7760    -=][> Last one to Ceres is a rotten egg! -=][>