h a l f b a k e r yNeural Knotwork
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
"012345" is all you need.
Numbers: 0 is 0. 1 is 1. 2 is 2. 3 is 3. 4 is 4. 5 is 50. 6 is
51. 7 is 52.
8
is 53. 9 is 54. 10 is 10. 11 is 11. 12 is 12. 13 is 13. 14 is
14. 15 is
150...
Ascii: Z is 90 is 540. Zed is 90then101then100 is
5405510155100...
Use 55 to
represent the end of
one Ascii character and the
beginning of the
next.
List of numbers: 1 2 3 4 5 is
15525535545550
List of rational numbers: 1/2 1/4 1/8 is 1552551554551558
List of letters: a b c d e is 15525535545550
Binary data: Write it as a number. 01011010 is
101011010 is 346 is
3451.
Unpacked binary data: 000111 is 1000111.
Prefix to specify what coding system: Code0 uses a
prefix 0055.
Code1 uses a prefix 0155.
Code2 uses a prefix 0255... The prefix need only be
included when
it is necessary to communicate to someone what the
number
represents.
Make up your own codes to extend the language!
Senary
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senary
Base 6 [xaviergisz, Oct 13 2016]
[link]
|
| |
Why five? Why not three or twelve? |
|
| |
Our alphabet (plus digits) works nicely because it
has enough symbols to produce compact words,
but not too many symbols to remember. Chinese is
simply a failed language, because it contains too
many symbols for anyone to remember. Binary
contains too few symbols, leading to very long
words, but is good for computers. But five symbols
would seem to be the worst of all worlds. |
|
| |
//Why five? Why not three or twelve?// |
|
| |
so i can continue to think in decimal |
|
| |
Your numbering system falls apart when you get to 50 (decimal). Just stick to ordinary base-6 (as per [xaviergisz], in the links). |
|
| |
It's pointless, but it's still missing something [-] |
|
| |
You might use this to memorize a photo or an audio
sample.
I will use it to save trees by writing most things with
standard six-sided dice. REALLY BIG DICE IF I'M
ANGRY! |
|
| |
// It's pointless, but it's still missing something // |
|
| |
Now try doing some maths with your system... |
|
| |
I might memorize Microsoft Windows so I can
delete it from my computer. |
|
| |
"Our amplifiers, they go to 11." |
|
| |
Not a base method the universe would use. My opinion of course |
|
| |
i will use this (so i guess i am not the universe) |
|
| |
Just one of it's beautiful complex iterations |
|
| |
why thank you (my iterations are beautiful) |
|
| |
Works as an encryption scheme. (Encryption as in "make it really
difficult for someone not in-the-know to figure out what's going on"...) |
|
| |
1. spies with good memories |
|
| |
2. time travelers to the past who can't carry things
with them |
|
| |
doing math (as in arithmetic) is great fun |
|
| |
i use a list of numbers in my calculations |
|
| |
just messing around with my braille tablet i can now use
this code to read and write in total darkness |
|
| |
for those that don't know, braille uses up to six bumps per
character |
|
| |
Could this be the next Common Core? |
|
| |
[whatrock], i never know if you are mocking me. |
|
| |
This is not a language; it is merely a script or cipher for encoding English. |
|
| |
what if i were to present graphical images and
sounds (encoded as numbers) next to codes in
some order so that the
student is able to learn a totally invented
language?
All the student would need to know is the basic
rules and by the end they would be fluent in my
artificial language. i should write a book for this. |
|
| |
//0 is 0. 1 is 1. 2 is 2. 3 is 3. 4 is 4. 5 is 50. 6 is 51. 7 is 52. 8 is 53. 9 is 54.
10 is 10. 11 is 11. 12 is 12. 13 is 13. 14 is 14. 15 is 150...// |
|
| |
If you have "5" in your alphabet, why is 5 "50"? Why not just 5? And, if
"50" means 5, then what does "5" mean? |
|
| |
Also, if you have "511" in your alphabet, is that "51","1" (presumably, 61)
or is it "5" "1" "1" (511)? |
|
| |
Also also, I don't get how you are mixing digit addition and digit place-
values. Why is 12 (in normal digits) equal to "12" in your system? If you're
using addition (like Roman numerals) than "12" should mean "1+2", or 3. If
you're using place-values, then "12" should be "(1x5)+(2)"=7. |
|
| |
I think what I don't get is it. |
|
| |
//If you have "5" in your alphabet, why is 5 "50"? Why not
just 5? And, if "50" means 5, then what does "5" mean?// |
|
| |
just think of it this way - half of the decimal digits have a
two symbol code. "5" is used in two ways. in the first way "5"
is
followed by "0", "1", "2", "3", or "4". In this case you add the
two digits to get the intended decimal digit. in the second
use "5" is followed by "5". in this use the combination is a
separator or
special code |
|
| |
// You might use this to memorize a photo or an audio sample. // |
|
| |
Why use this instead of decimal for memorising? I don't see an advantage. |
|
| |
// I will use it to save trees by writing most things with standard six-sided dice. REALLY BIG DICE IF I'M ANGRY! // |
|
| |
Or you could use it to send messages with sequences of 1 to 6 taps. I think I might find this easier to pick up than Morse code, which I haven't learnt. Symbol 0 could be represented as 6 taps, while symbols 1 to 5 wouldn't need changing, they would be 1 to 5 taps. |
|
| |
it is also good for sign language |
|
| |
//Why use this instead of decimal for memorising? I don't
see an advantage.// |
|
| |
you are correct - the advantages lie elswhere |
|
| |
Easier to count to fifty if zelah's fly is down this
way. |
|
| |
[MaxwellBuchanan] I think engrish would be much easier if we expanded the alphabet to include as many characters as needed such that words could be written phonetically, something akin to hiragana (~50 characters). |
|
| |
The fact that we must remember how to spell something, when we can already say it, seems somewhat inefficient, and is a waste of time for kids who could be learning something useful, like science. |
|
| |
It might introduce a new problem though: that of accents, and how they might change spelling. The solution, of course, would be to set accent = Queen of England, and let the rest of the world know that's the real thing. |
|
| |
//The fact that we must remember how to spell
something, when we can already say it, seems
somewhat inefficient, and is a waste of time for kids
who could be learning something useful, like
science.// |
|
| |
or something even more useful like klingon |
|
| |
/ i use a list of numbers in my calculations
— zelah, Oct 13 2016/ |
|
| |
I like very much your annotations, Zelah. AND THE REALLY BIG DICE. |
|
| |
Also, the numbers list system could prove very useful. I often need some when I do calculations. |
|
| |
//expanded the alphabet to include as many
characters as needed such that words could be
written phonetically// You can already spell words
phonetically using the current alphabet (if you
standardize the sounds of certain letters). And I
agree, English is inefficient in that sense. But it is
many long miles ahead of, say, Mandarin. |
|
| |
[Max B] //But five symbols would seem to be the worst
of all worlds.//
- but "Five" has six symbols,
not five, of course. This, I assume, counters all
your objections... |
|
| |
Ah, well, in that case... |
|
| |
Personally I see Five's use of six symbols as being
a
sort of homage to the Islamic invention of zero
and,
more broadly, to the genesis of other counting
systems,
suggesting as it does that the inventor of "Five"
discovered the existence and utility of the concept
of zero halfway through the invention process -
i.e.
just after the name had been settled on, but before
any other features of lesser importance had been
decided. |
|
| |
And who cannot see in Five's rejection of 'place
value' ("1 is 1. 2 is 2. 3 is 3. ... 7 is 52. 8 is
53. 9 is 54") a bold assertion of pre-Enlightenment
values? |
|
| |
I'll be convinced of this as soon as I see the workings
for 189,243 divided by 17.1313, using Five. |
|
| |
The author seems to have mis-discovered non-decimal
counting systems. |
|
| |
//I'll be convinced of this as soon as I see the
workings for 189,243 divided by 17.1313, using
Five.// |
|
| |
answer is a rational number |
|
| |
//I'll be convinced of this as soon as I see the
workings// |
|
| |
Further to the esteemed [MaxwellBuchanan], the workings must be in Five; not converted to decimal, worked, then converted back. |
|
| |
I'm not fully esteemed yet, [ns] - I've barely started
my first G&T of the evening. But yes. |
|
| |