On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 01:34:10 +0000, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 10:58:12 -0700, Mensanator wrote: > >>> But I certainly wouldn't call it "binary", for fear of confusion with >>> radix-2 binary. >> >> That's my point. Since the common usage of "binary" is for Standard >> Positional Number System of Radix 2, it follows that "unary" is the >> common usage for Standard Positional Number System of Radix 1. > > Er, no, that doesn't follow. There is no such thing as a radix-1 > positional number system -- it just doesn't work.
Sorry, this is clumsy writing... of course radix-1 positional number system is defined, it's just pointless -- it is only capable of representing 0 = 00 = 000 = 0000 ... -- Steven -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
