|
|
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:di2l64-1h1.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 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.
When I said there was nothing there, this is what appears when I point to:
"Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name. Please search for
Flip-flop (electronics in Wikipedia to check for alternative titles or
spellings.
Start the Flip-flop (electronics article or add a request for it.
Search for "Flip-flop (electronics" in existing articles.
Look for "Flip-flop (electronics" in Wiktionary, our sister dictionary
project.
Look for "Flip-flop (electronics" in the Wikimedia Commons, our repository
for free images, music, sound, and video.
Look for other pages within Wikipedia that link to this title.
If a page was recently created here, it may not yet be visible because of a
delay in updating the database; wait a few minutes and try the purge
function. If a page previously existed at this exact title, check the
deletion log and see Why was my page deleted?."
"
>
>>
>>> 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.
And what about Turing?
It wasn't intended to point to a particular originator - but to point to the
methodology used.
Nick
|
|