|
|
In sci.math, Nick
<tulse04-news1@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on Sun, 31 Dec 2006 09:53:59 -0000
<f6qdndOUp7gnFQrYnZ2dnUVZ8tKsnZ2d@xxxxxx>:
>
> "David T. Ashley" <dta@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:LYydnQUocI0qwQrYnZ2dnUVZ_uSgnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> <bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:1167543213.802821.253360@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>I was just wondering why people tend to use a base 10 number system. I
>>> can't help but wonder if it is due to us having ten fingers. Anyone
>>> have any insight into this?
>>
>> It is definitely due to having 10 fingers.
>>
>> The reason for base-2 with computers is that it is easier to build an
>> electronic circuit that is stable in two states rather than in a larger
>> number of states.
>
> The original reason for base-2 in computers was that this was simply an
> electric circuit either being on or off.
>
> See Logic gates http://www.kpsec.freeuk.com/gates.htm#not
It's a bit more complicated than that, as some very early computers did
indeed compute using either binary-coded-decimal or analog. The former,
of course, parcels out 4 bits, wasting 6 states; the latter is wiring up
a circuit using various components to model/solve a problem and read the
result using a volt or ammeter.
The results of very early BCD computers might have been displayed using
Nixie tubes. There are also issues such as 1's complement versus 2's
complement and it took a long time for the notion of a computer as a
digital control system (where each bit represents a device to be
switched on and off -- e.g., lights in one's house, traffic signals) as
opposed to either an "electronic brain" or calculating device to catch
on for some reason.
>
>>
>> See:
>>
>> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flip-flop_">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flip-flop_(electronics)
>
> There is nothing there!
That appears to be temporary; I'm having no problems pulling it up here.
>
>> Trust me, computers would have been base-10 if the underlying fabrication
>> technology supported it.
>
> "George R. Stibitz is internationally recognized as the father of the modern
> digital computer. Stibitz's interest in computers arose from an assignment
> in 1937 to study magneto-mechanics of telephone relays; he turned his
> attention to the binary circuits controlled by the relays, to the arithmetic
> operations expressible in binary form, and, in November 1937, to the
> construction of a two-digit binary adder. The next year, with the help of
> S.B. Williams of Bell Labs, he developed a full-scale calculator for complex
> arithmetic. This computer was operational late in 1939 and was demonstrated
> in 1940 by remote control between Hanover, New Hampshire, and New York.
> Several binary computers of greater sophistication followed. In these were
> introduced the excess 3 code, floating decimal arithmetic, self-checking
> circuits, jump program instructions, taped programs and 'table-hunting'
> subcomputers."
>
> www.invent.org/hall_of_fame/140.html">http://www.invent.org/hall_of_fame/140.html
>
> See also www.greatachievements.org/?id=3981">http://www.greatachievements.org/?id=3981
>
> and
> www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/dictionaries/computers/data/m0005781.html">http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/dictionaries/computers/data/m0005781.html
>
> Nick
>
>
And here I thought it was either Babbage or von Newmann. :-) Then
again, the article on von Neumann
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann
mentions Eckert, Mauchly, and Richtmyer. I suspect a lot of people
ultimately got involved, resulting in EDVAC, apparently.
--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Is it cheaper to learn Linux, or to hire someone
to fix your Windows problems?
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from www.teranews.com">http://www.teranews.com
|
|