Piet van Oostrum wrote:
Scott David Daniels <scott.dani...@acm.org> (SDD) wrote:
SDD> James Harris wrote:...
Another option:
0.(2:1011), 0.(8:7621), 0.(16:c26b)
where the three characters "0.(" begin the sequence.
Comments? Improvements?
SDD> I did a little interpreter where non-base 10 numbers
SDD> (up to base 36) were:
SDD> .7.100 == 64 (octal)
SDD> .9.100 == 100 (decimal)
SDD> .F.100 == 256 (hexadecimal)
SDD> .1.100 == 4 (binary)
SDD> .3.100 == 9 (trinary)
SDD> .Z.100 == 46656 (base 36)
I wonder how you wrote that interpreter, given that some answers are wrong.
Obviously I started with a different set of examples and edited after
starting to make a table that could be interpretted in each base. After
doing that, I forgot to double check, and lo and behold .F.1000 = 46656,
while .F.100 = 1296. Since it has been decades since I've had access
to that interpreter, this is all from memory.
--Scott David Daniels
scott.dani...@acm.org
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
