On Aug 27, 2:26 pm, Piet van Oostrum <p...@cs.uu.nl> wrote: > >>>>> Mensanator <mensana...@aol.com> (M) wrote: > >M> On Aug 26, 4:59 pm, Piet van Oostrum <p...@cs.uu.nl> wrote: > >>> >>>>> Mensanator <mensana...@aol.com> (M) wrote: > >>> >M> That's my point. Since the common usage of "binary" is for > >>> >M> Standard Positional Number System of Radix 2, it follows > >>> >M> that "unary" is the common usage for Standard Positional > >>> >M> Number System of Radix 1. That's VERY confusing since such > >>> >M> a system is undefined. Remember, common usage does not > >>> >M> necessarily properly define things. Saying simply "unary" > >>> >M> sounds like you're extending common usage beyond its proper > >>> >M> boundaries. > > >>> But the customary meaning of `unary' is the tally system, as a radix > >>> system wouldn't make sense. I don't know when this term came into use > >>> but I have known it for a long time. > >M> Ok, I'll accept that and in the same breath say such common usage > >M> is stupid. I, for one, have never heard such usage and would never > >M> use "unary" in the same breath as "decimal, octal, binary" even if > >M> I had. > > As I see it, unary just means that there is one symbol. Binary just > means that there are two symbols, etc.
Right, and neither word, by itself, gives the full meaning. > > With unary, the only sensible numerical interpretation is to count the > number of occurrences of that symbol, or if you also want to have the > number 0, the number of occurrences - 1. Trouble is, nothing's stopping you from making a non-sensible interpretation. > > With binary and higher you can come up with more numerical > interpretations but the most efficient one is the radix interpretation > (for different values of `efficient'). I doubt that there are many other > interpretations that you can call sensible. But not impossible. You could have a base-3 tally system for ticking off how many cars on a three lane road pass a given point. And you can have mixed radix systems (pounds, shillings, pence or degrees, minutes seconds). > Therefore we immediately > think of a radix system when we talk about binary, octal, decimal etc. > But the word `binary' itself doesn't imply that. Just as unary doesn't imply that it's an extension of binary made by simply changing the base because there's more to it than that. Yet, I constantly run into people who get confused by this. As a result, I will never use the word "unary" even if it is considered acceptable. If I'm trying to imply some sort of base-1 system, I'll explain what I'm talking about and not assume the listener will fully understand what is meant by "unary". > -- > Piet van Oostrum <p...@cs.uu.nl> > URL:http://pietvanoostrum.com[PGP 8DAE142BE17999C4] > Private email: p...@vanoostrum.org -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
