|
The Unary Numeral System is not base 1. Position does not determine value. It's not really even a numeral system.
|
|
|
|
|
Unary is not base 1, but base 1 is a unary system so the point is still valid.
|
|
|
|
|
Not really, as base 1 is, of course, logically impossible as mod 1, mod 1(1), mod 1(1(1)) etc. always return zero. Any attempt to represent a number in base 1 therefore produces an infinite series of 0 which means that it represents all values as equal and therefore fails to be a numeral system at all. In the sequence given therefore there is no entry which can possibly represent 10 in base 1.
|
|
|
|
|
No, base 1 just means there can only be 1 of something before it moves to the next level of units. So 1 is 1, 2 is 11, 3 is 111 and so on. Of course the "1" is arbitrary, you could choose "0" and say that 1 is 0, 2 is 00, 3 is 000 and so on.
|
|
|
|
|
No it isn't. You've forgotten that in any base b if there is b of any column value then you move to the next column to the left add 1 there and subtract b from the original column. In the tally system you do neither of these things so it cannot be a standard based numeral system, by definition. For further proof follow the procedure through ....
So counting in binary for example.
1 is 1 and all alone and ever more shall be so = 1
2 is 2 many for the rightmost column so we add 1 to the 2 column and enter 0 in the unit column = 10
3 is too many for the rightmost column so we take 2 to the 2 column and add 1 there and subtract the two from the unit column = 11
4 is too many for the rightmost column so we take 2 to the 2 column and add 1 there and subtract 2 from the unit column but that leaves 2 which is too many for the unit column so we take another 2 to the 2 column and add 1 there and subtract 2 from the unit column leaving 0. But now we have 2 in the 2 column which is too many so we take it to the 4 column and add 1 there and subtract 2 from the 2 column = 100
Now let's try that in unary ...
1 is .... too many for the first column so we take it to the 1^2 column and enter 0 in the unit column but it's also too many for the 1^2 column so we take it to the 1^3 column and subtract it from the 1^2 column leaving 0 but then it's also too big for the 1^3 column so ....
Like I said, whatever number you try to represent will always end up being an infinite series of 0s, in other words 0. So 1 > 0, 12 > 0, 3333 > 0. Not a numeral system.
|
|
|
|
|
Well I'm a programmer, not a mathematician. Proper mathematicians all agree how base 1 works so that's good enough for me. It might not fit your definition of what makes a base (you're forgetting that the "1" is symbolic, it doesn't mean "one unit greater than zero", so consider 3 in base 1 to be "xxx" and run that through your definition of base), but it fits my definition, and the definition of actual mathematicians so that's good enough for me.
modified 14-Nov-15 9:29am.
|
|
|
|
|
Actually it is infinity as the only two valid numbers in base one is 0 and infinity.
Brent
|
|
|
|
|
How ever old your wife is, as I'm guessing these are the ages of your sexual conquests.
|
|
|
|
|
I suspect the answer is in some shifty bits:
1011
1100
1101
1110
10100
10110
1100101
But, before I get a migraine trying to figure out where/what the last number derives from: I'd enjoy your answer 
cheers, Bill
«I want to stay as close to the edge as I can without going over. Out on the edge you see all kinds of things you can't see from the center» Kurt Vonnegut.
|
|
|
|
|
The first response was right - 1010:
1010 == 119 == 128 == 137 == 146 == 205 == 224 == 1013 == 10102 
veni bibi saltavi
|
|
|
|
|
Well, technically "ten" would have been right, too. You only asked for the next number, not the proper representation 
GOTOs are a bit like wire coat hangers: they tend to breed in the darkness, such that where there once were few, eventually there are many, and the program's architecture collapses beneath them. (Fran Poretto)
|
|
|
|
|
I have a family member who is at the start of an important new government project that will involve a Windows application. One of the consultants is advising them to base the new project on Delphi. I am strongly in favor of Visual Studio.
I was wondering how experts on this forum feel about Delphi versus VS?
Please let us know your preferences. Thanks!
How do we preserve the wisdom men will need,
when their violent passions are spent?
- The Lost Horizon
|
|
|
|
|
Delphi is too expensive for me, and support seems edgy, I would stick with your idea and use Visual Studio If it were 2003 or 2005 sure, use Delphi, but I would stick with VS. Also, Delphi docs suck.
i cri evry tiem
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consider the company, the resources, the community, and the masses and masses of code and support available to .NET developers. Compare to Delphi.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
|
I do not like anything by Embarcadero, and have always had more trouble with their products then with Microsoft, even when Borland owned the line before Embarcadero.
I would use C# and Visual Studio, personally.
Delphi, is a language. Visual Studio is an IDE, not a language.
|
|
|
|
|
I thought Delphi was a platform and Object Pascal the language.
i cri evry tiem
|
|
|
|
|
Well, that's a tricky situation. Originally, Delphi (the platform) used Object Pascal, but then Borland began evolving the language and it became Delphi. There were some minor syntax deviations initially, but now there are all kinds of extensions (e.g. generics, anonymous methods) that exist in Delphi that aren't in Object Pascal. If you want more information or just want to get even more confused, head on over to the Object Pascal wikipedia page[^].
The United States invariably does the right thing, after having exhausted every other alternative. -Winston Churchill
America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. -Oscar Wilde
Wow, even the French showed a little more spine than that before they got their sh*t pushed in.[^] -Colin Mullikin
|
|
|
|
|
Oh that makes me laugh, back in the 90s, when Borland owned Delphi I was in precisely the same boat, Govt department wanted to rewrite an app I had built using SuperBase into Delphi. I refused to have anything to do with it so they paid me to write the specs for the redevelopment.
Some years later I asked the primary stakeholder what the result was. IT WAS NEVER REBUILT. They could not get enough resources at a reasonable rate to do the job.
And here we are, almost 20 years later, and rotten bloody consultant is still trying it on!
Listen to CM.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
Excuse me...
Have you said SuperBase? do you mean that Access like database system that came in a cardboard box that was like a leather case with SuperBase written in an Indiana Jones like font?
|
|
|
|
|
Yep that's the one although that was very much the later design, they tried a number of designs, none worked well. It was a competitor to access but was nothing like it. Competing with ms was painful.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
I worked with that software at one company that used it to store data and to perform programming tasks.
It was very limited and the people in the IT department there ended up developing several things in C++ and putting them into a DLL to be used from SuperBase... 
At that time (20+ years ago) I was like: "does anyone else works with this?" but it seems that it was... 
|
|
|
|
|
It never did reach critical mass, then it got sold and sold and eventually was so marginalised I think it disappeared. I made a comfortable living in the 90s building solutions using it and was sad to see it die, especially as the alternative was access. It was nice being able to turn up with 2 360k disks and have your database and solution installed.
I used Delphi for a while and eventually got into the dress vb6.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
Looks like that consultant knows only three things:
1. Delphi.
2. Delphi.
3. Delphi.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
