Talk:Bijective numeration

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

[edit] Talk:Decimal without a zero

I can't find any reference to this peculiar concept on the Web, nor does it make any sense; there really is a zero-equivalent as defined in this article -- it just is indicated with an "X" and functions a bit differently. I think perhaps this is gubbish? --Jpgordon 15:54, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well if you think ten is a zero-equivalent but functions a bit differently, then I suppose you are correct. Perhaps you haven't looked hard enough. Try "A Logical Alternative to the Existing Positional Number System" Volume 1 (Dec 1995) of SouthWest Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics http://www.maths.soton.ac.uk/EMIS/journals/SWJPAM/vol1-95.html or try to decipher http://digilander.libero.it/ultimus2001/introd.htm --Henrygb 02:06, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Thanks! Now I see the point (from the SWJPAM article). I wonder if anyone has followed his suggestion and gone back and looked at seemingly incorrect archeological arithmetic? --jpgordon 06:28, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to merge this into bijective numeration, since decimal without a zero is just the case k=10 of the bijective base-k system described there. Does anyone object? 4pq1injbok 03:30, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I have a question. Couldn't you solve the problem of there being an infinite way of expressing 2 when you expand the system to decimal fractions by making the base symbol associate to the left when on the left of the decimal place and associate to the right when on the right of the decimal place? This would make 1.A equal to 1.01. Then, you have .001, which, in the way described, would be, I think, -1.9A1. This simplifies it to .A9. The only problem I see with this is that .A9 x A becomes .A, which adds further confusion to a confusing system. --Some Random Guy 22:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/i/j/Talk%7EBijective_numeration_0b28.html"