I know this is my first post at these forums, but it is because these are the only forums that I think people will understand what I'm saying.

So, for a while now, I've been thinking about how simplistic Binary Code is and how it wastes space/speed due to it's repetitaveness. I thought of Trinary Code as it is the next possible code type. I thought it would use 0s 1s and 2s, because those are the 3 basic numbers in my opinions, as they are all perfect numbers and also consecutive. The only problem I thought of is how the CPU gives out positive (on) and negative (off) traces of electricity to signify a 1 or a 0. I then thought of using positive and negative at the same time, then figured out that would just ruin the whole point of trinary code because it would double the amount of information sent through the databus at one time. I then talked to a few people about it, and LoRd[nK] did a google search on it for me, and came up with this website, which says it would work, but is not currently possible with our technology. Later on, I did google search myself and found this website, giving more hope because I had never directly though of Neutral energy, only indirectly when I thought of positive and negative which in reality is Neutral, and wouldn't take double the space to send out through the data busses like I thought.

There are more possibilties of code, such as Quadratic all the way up to Decimal, when Decimal would use every digit making it possible to use every single number. But I think that there should be more than 10 specific digits, and actually 12, due to 3 facts.

The first is human error, whoever came up with 10 digits probably thought it would be right because we are natures creation and have 10 fingers/toes. Yet, that wouldn't always be right, as human obviously weren't built perfectly. The second fact, is that if you have ever been related to music/strings, you would see the number 12 keep comming up. There are 12 half notes, and on guitar every 12 frets, the harmonics are sound exactly the same as the 12th fret itself. It works this way for the 24th fret and up. There somthing called String Theory, where very genious scientists believe that the whole universe is based on strings, as strings have so many patterns in them that are all related to physics. The third and last fact would be the use of prime numbers. Most of the Prime Numbers either end WOULD either end with 5 or 7 if there really were 12 digits instead of 10. They are willing to give 1 million dollars to whoever finds the equation for finding prime numbers, and I think it IS related to 12 specific digits in some way.

Back to trinary code now. Trinary code would be the only possible way as there are only 3 ways to show that information. All of the patterns of 3 show that in the second link I gave you. One last thing, I know everything would have to be made again to be compatible with Trinary code, and fiber-optic may not be compatible with it.

Please feel free to discuss this.

I found this really interesting, on the fact that everything would need to be re-written, How much better would technology be with this kind of code? Would it be worth doing this or would it just be a lot of agony for a lot of people?

I'm sure it would be agony a lot of people, yet in the long run, it should be worth it. Speed for current programs should increase by approximently 33%, and the same should happen with a 33% decrease in space taken. Perhaps more, as I do not want to check to make sure this is how it would do it. When I actually think about it, Trinary Coded computers will be able to read Binary code, yet not vice versa. It wouldn't be too hard to create a converter though.

Interesting.  A note:

Musical harmonics rely on sound waves, which (as you correctly stated) resonate well in 12 half-notes, and the frequency of these pitches doubles every octave (12 half-notes).  However, when you have two frequencies that are any less than 4 half-notes apart, you get a certain amount of dissonance, which cancels out sound waves.  The only perfect resonance you can achieve is every 12 half-notes, or else you can have data loss.  Because of the nature of this dissonance as well, you have no margin of error.  In digital electronics, at least back in the days of the 8086, a +/-5V had a margin of about 0.8V, and the 0 had a margin of about 2.2V in determining whether the data was 1 or 0.

There are also several problems with using something like this.  First, sound is significantly slower than electricity.  Second, sound is actually a physical wave of atoms, as opposed to electricity, which is a subatomic transfer of energy; even if we could get sound moving rapidly within a microprocessor, we would see more rapid degredation of the materials in which they were built.

Your idea of combining positive and negative energies to form a third type of energy is the exact reason that we do NOT use both types right now.  Electricity is entirely negative.  Positive signals are not passed along the data bus of a computer; they are used for grounding, which neutralizes the energy.  A digital signal is composed of the presence of a charge or an absence of a charge, not the value of the charge.

"Binary" is not a waste of space; in fact, if it was, telephone companies would not be switching from analog (a system that uses a wide range of signals to transfer data) to digital (a system that uses binary signals to transfer data).  And on that topic -- binary is just a way for us to represent the abstract "charge" concept in our minds.

As for string theory -- read about it before you try to claim that it has applicable use in determining that dodecimal is the right numbering system as opposed to decimal.  Just because there are x frets on a guitar doesn't mean that the theorized strings that compose the universe have x[sup]y[/sup] wavelengths.  If humans can screw up on a numbering system, don't you think that maybe they could screw up a guitar, too?

And your prime number theory is dumb.  Regardless of how we represent numbers, the fact of the matter is that there is a specific infinite subset of numbers that are prime, which means they are only evenly divisible by themselves and 1.  In decimal already that eliminates any number ending in 0, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 8.  In binary, any number that ends in 0 as well as any number that ends in 101.  It makes little difference that "most prime numbers would end in 5 or 7;" a prime number is dodecimal is a prime number in decimal as well.  11, for example, represented as B (if we keep the hex numbering system for dodecimal).

Adding on to MyndFyre's points:

Combining a 1 and 0 is known as an AND operation, and the result is always 1 for the expressedion (10, 1 * 0, 1 AND 0, etc...).  The binary system is fast because there are only TWO possible states: on or off, high or low, 1 or 0.  Adding a third would confuse the system, because it would be like "on, off, or on but off at the same time but neither really," which is just stupid.

Additionally:
Any number ending in a 5 is always not prime (except 5), because it can be divided by 1, 5, and itself (at least).
I forget the rule for 7 -.-

[quote author=R.a.B.B.i.T link=topic=10056.msg93900#msg93900 date=1104454471]
Additionally:
Any number ending in a 5 is always not prime (except 5), because it can be divided by 1, 5, and itself (at least).
I forget the rule for 7 -.-
[/quote]
Or a 0. :)

Nothing can be devided by zero, except zero, and be defined.

Mynd, I was not talking about using music for it, I was just giving an example at which there should be 12 specific digits instead of 10. I would not be combining it. There can be different frequences when tranfering engergy, which is how music is sent through your cables to your receiver. If we use frequencies, we would simply need a transistor at the end of the chain to convert it into the needed information. Binary IS a waste of space compared to Trinary. I was not saying at all that digital would be worse than analog, or anything of the such, and is pretty self explanable in what I said. When I was talking about guitar, I was just giving an example because all music for all instruments are the same. Actually, with the 12th harmonic meeting up with the 12th fret AND having 12 different half notes by using perfect maps proves that we did not have error on guitar.
And disreguard my Prime Number shit, I was just fooling around with it.

RaBBiT, the way we present the data is by on off or high and low, it only tells you if it is a 0 1 or 2, so they are basically juts variables. It will not interfere with the way the math works. And if you read what I said, I said if there were 12 specific digits. If there were, 5 would not have the same rules, and 7 never had any rules in the first place.

[quote author=R.a.B.B.i.T link=topic=10056.msg93918#msg93918 date=1104466255]
Nothing can be devided by zero, except zero, and be defined.
[/quote]
I meant if the number ended in a zero. :P

Trinary would be way slower, and would waste a lot more space than binary.

Not at all, binary is soo damn repetitive, trinary would have a lot more combinations, meaning less code for more stuff. Please back yourself up next time.

And if you read what I said, I said if there were 12 specific digits. If there were, 5 would not have the same rules...

Lets take the number 550 in decimal and convert it to base-12: 39a

Now is 39a in base-12 still not divisible by 5?  The rule may not apply in this form, but simply convert it to base-10 again and you will know if it's divisible by 5 or not! Thus the rule doesn't f***ing matter, because 39a == 550!

Then disreguard it, and chill the hell out, I said it was just a theory that I never really looked into.

EDIT: I will try to explain this one last time. It won't have any rule for it. The MAJORITY of prime numbers will end with a 5 or a 7. I never said anything about all of them. If this post is too bland for you, and my theory is too, just simply disreguard it.

[quote author=MetaL MilitiA link=topic=10056.msg93953#msg93953 date=1104511557]
Not at all, binary is soo damn repetitive, trinary would have a lot more combinations, meaning less code for more stuff. Please back yourself up next time.
[/quote]

OK.

A binary logic gate can be built with two transistors, and the transistors can be made very inexact and small because they only have to be "on" or "off". Trinary logic would need to use more states than just on or off. Such a transistor, calibrated for analog use, is very much larger. Hence the waste of space.

Furthermore, binary logic can be made faster because the target output level is at the limit of the range - maximum or minimum. You do not have to worry about an overshoot, and so there's much less of a stabilization time for the output. Think bang-bang regulators - why are they so fast? With trinary logic, you'd have a target output level that you'd want to reach, there'd be overshoot, and all in all the input to output delay of any gate would be larger than for binary logic. Hence way slower.

[quote author=MetaL MilitiA link=topic=10056.msg93955#msg93955 date=1104513991]
EDIT: I will try to explain this one last time. It won't have any rule for it. The MAJORITY of prime numbers will end with a 5 or a 7. I never said anything about all of them. If this post is too bland for you, and my theory is too, just simply disreguard it.
[/quote]

Um...if a number ends in 5, then it's divisible by 5 and therefore not prime.

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=10056.msg94002#msg94002 date=1104544569]
[quote author=MetaL MilitiA link=topic=10056.msg93955#msg93955 date=1104513991]
EDIT: I will try to explain this one last time. It won't have any rule for it. The MAJORITY of prime numbers will end with a 5 or a 7. I never said anything about all of them. If this post is too bland for you, and my theory is too, just simply disreguard it.
[/quote]

Um...if a number ends in 5, then it's divisible by 5 and therefore not prime.
[/quote]

In a number system with 12 specific digits (let's say they go up to B), he's saying that most prime numbers will end in 5 or 7.  Like so:
(base)
10    12
5      5
7      7
11    B
13    11
17    15
19    17
23    1B
29    25
31    27
37    31
41    35
43    37

Not that that's significant in any way...  by adding 2 to the base, you're eliminating only one (for that SMALL subset of primes) and you're gaining one ending.  OOOOOHHHHH.

[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=10056.msg94015#msg94015 date=1104556829]
In a number system with 12 specific digits (let's say they go up to B), he's saying that most prime numbers will end in 5 or 7.
[/quote]

Bah!  That's what I get for not reading the whole thread :P

How do you nay-sayers know this wouldn't work? Can you show me your research for proof and provide back up claim from other sources? If not then stop saying it's stupid/waste of time.

[quote author=Snake link=topic=10056.msg94028#msg94028 date=1104592958]
How do you nay-sayers know this wouldn't work? Can you show me your research for proof and provide back up claim from other sources? If not then stop saying it's stupid/waste of time.
[/quote]

I don't think the burden of proof is of the nay-sayers.  Rather, it is the burden of whomever came up with the ideas to convince everyone else.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=10056.msg94001#msg94001 date=1104544339]
[quote author=MetaL MilitiA link=topic=10056.msg93953#msg93953 date=1104511557]
Not at all, binary is soo damn repetitive, trinary would have a lot more combinations, meaning less code for more stuff. Please back yourself up next time.
[/quote]

OK.

A binary logic gate can be built with two transistors, and the transistors can be made very inexact and small because they only have to be "on" or "off". Trinary logic would need to use more states than just on or off. Such a transistor, calibrated for analog use, is very much larger. Hence the waste of space.

Furthermore, binary logic can be made faster because the target output level is at the limit of the range - maximum or minimum. You do not have to worry about an overshoot, and so there's much less of a stabilization time for the output. Think bang-bang regulators - why are they so fast? With trinary logic, you'd have a target output level that you'd want to reach, there'd be overshoot, and all in all the input to output delay of any gate would be larger than for binary logic. Hence way slower.

[/quote]This does not prove that trinary code would be slower, all it proves is my idea for the representation of the data is poor and would be slower. It would not effect the way the math with trinary code would work. I guess trinary code would not be possible with the current technology we have, but that does NOT mean that it would be slower than trinary in any possible way. THat you for saving me an argument MyndFyre. dxoigmn, I wasn't trying to convince other people, as there is no point in trying to convince somebody 1+1=2. Please, if you discuss this further, try to actually prove the idea of trinary code wrong. Or, you can even add to the idea, or just even ask questions.

[quote author=MetaL MilitiA link=topic=10056.msg94053#msg94053 date=1104620863]
This does not prove that trinary code would be slower, all it proves is my idea for the representation of the data is poor and would be slower. It would not effect the way the math with trinary code would work. I guess trinary code would not be possible with the current technology we have, but that does NOT mean that it would be slower than trinary in any possible way. THat you for saving me an argument MyndFyre. dxoigmn, I wasn't trying to convince other people, as there is no point in trying to convince somebody 1+1=2. Please, if you discuss this further, try to actually prove the idea of trinary code wrong. Or, you can even add to the idea, or just even ask questions.
[/quote]

You are correct; however, the medium by which the data would be transfered is inextricably tied to the system itself.

As Adron and I pointed out, the reason that binary is so efficient with our current technology is that there are two states: on or off.  Two states doesn't inherently make it efficient, but the fact is we do not need to be remarkably precise with voltages.  If we were going to use electricity, we'd need to increase the range of acceptable voltages or decrease the acceptable "miss".  The former will increase heat and degredation in the components; the latter, more misses.

There is, sort of, already a kind of FORM of trinary, which it actually isn't.

I forget what it's used in, I'll have to ask my teacher again when I go back to school, but I do remember the states:
0 - low
1 - high
x - high resistance, so 0 or 1 doesn't matter

[quote author=MetaL MilitiA link=topic=10056.msg94053#msg94053 date=1104620863]
This does not prove that trinary code would be slower, all it proves is my idea for the representation of the data is poor and would be slower. It would not effect the way the math with trinary code would work. I guess trinary code would not be possible with the current technology we have, but that does NOT mean that it would be slower than trinary in any possible way. THat you for saving me an argument MyndFyre. dxoigmn, I wasn't trying to convince other people, as there is no point in trying to convince somebody 1+1=2. Please, if you discuss this further, try to actually prove the idea of trinary code wrong. Or, you can even add to the idea, or just even ask questions.
[/quote]

With your logic, infini code would be the best one. In this code, we don't deal with multiple digits. Every number could be represented with a single symbol. This code would be extremely fast of course. Now I have added to the idea, brought it to the far end of additions, from which there can be no improvements. The part of discussion that doesn't cover implementation is completely exhausted.

However, in reality, implementation is what matters. You cannot measure speed of trinary vs binary vs infinary without considering implementations. Implementation is all that matters.

[quote author=R.a.B.B.i.T link=topic=10056.msg94070#msg94070 date=1104628908]
There is, sort of, already a kind of FORM of trinary, which it actually isn't.

I forget what it's used in, I'll have to ask my teacher again when I go back to school, but I do remember the states:
0 - low
1 - high
x - high resistance, so 0 or 1 doesn't matter
[/quote]

That's called tristate. It's used when you hook outputs up to a bus. All inactive devices tristate their outputs.

Then lets just discuss ways we could make it work now. We need to think of something else other than an electric current (Notice I didn't use the inaccurate word of electricity, when eletricity actually moves slower than maple syrup.). Maybe Fiber Optic, since there are different frequencies of lights too. I'm not to familular with that though.

EDIT: Now that I think of it, this could work in a great way to, as I'm sure there is a way to make a certain frequency of light cut off into a different channel using a certain type of prism, so it would be as simple as possible still.

Diagram:
[code]
                /
------------(---
                \[/code]
(=prism used to seperate the different frequencies.
/=one frequency would use this path
\=another frequency would use this path
--- after the (=a third frequencie would use this path.

In theory, this would be the fastest way to do it, as long as when the light bends it does not delay the information.

[quote author=MetaL MilitiA link=topic=10056.msg94076#msg94076 date=1104630467]
Then lets just discuss ways we could make it work now.
[/quote]

Quatum computing?

I havn't really looked too much into Quantum Physics, could you give a breif summery on how it works?

[quote]To answer your last question there since I'm too lazy to sign up to the vL forums.
Quantum Physics is a way trying to describe the universe on a subatomic level. It is far opposite to regular physics since it doesn't have exact answers. The Uncertainity property states that the more your know about something the less you know about something else. Like if you know an atoms position you can only guess at the speed its going and vise-versa. But I think what the kid is talking about by Quantum Computing is building a computer from the atom up, using quanti (small packets of energy) of enery to run it.
BTW I love that topic, really makes you think.[/quote]
He gave a pretty breif summary, which makes me understand the majority of it. Anybody like to add?

[quote author=MetaL MilitiA link=topic=10056.msg94076#msg94076 date=1104630467]
In theory, this would be the fastest way to do it, as long as when the light bends it does not delay the information.
[/quote]

All you have *really* accomplished there is recovering the binary code to do some work. Multiplexing of signals in fibres already exists. You can transmit data on several different wavelengths at once to gain a higher transfer speed. That's a matter of encoding information for transfer though, not for actual computing. And you're still using binary code, just transmitting more than one binary digit at once on separate channels in the same fibre.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=10056.msg94114#msg94114 date=1104667024]
[quote author=MetaL MilitiA link=topic=10056.msg94076#msg94076 date=1104630467]
In theory, this would be the fastest way to do it, as long as when the light bends it does not delay the information.
[/quote]

All you have *really* accomplished there is recovering the binary code to do some work. Multiplexing of signals in fibres already exists. You can transmit data on several different wavelengths at once to gain a higher transfer speed. That's a matter of encoding information for transfer though, not for actual computing. And you're still using binary code, just transmitting more than one binary digit at once on separate channels in the same fibre.
[/quote]

Vis-a-vis parallel data transfer.

I gave thought to using quantum principles, too, when considering whether or not your trinary system would work.  The best example I could come up with is the "mini-teleporter" that they have not, which they can use to align the charge of an ion a certain way -- specifically, exactly the way that another ion is aligned at an arbitrary distance away.  The practical application of this is not yet known, but they suspect it to be the beginnings of a rudimentary teleportation system, similar to what is seen in Star Trek.

The problem with this is that (currently) you have only a 25% chance of getting it right.  Not really a practical application.  Oh -- and you need a particle accelerator.  Fit THAT into your bedroom.

To also build onto the fiber-channel idea: you COULD calibrate a 3rd light frequency.  For ease of discussion, let's say it's based on intensity, like a monitor pixel (0 is off, 255 is the highest).

With this range, you could say:
0-127 -- considered 0.
128-255 -- considered 1.

If you wanted to get ternary, you'd have to reduce that:
0-85 -- considered 0
86-170 -- considered 1
171-255 -- considered 2

The problem with this is the same problem I described with sounds and electricity -- you need a more fine calibration, and you will end up with more misses on data.  If you're going to go through all that trouble, why not just:

(R) 0-127 -- considered 0
(R) 128-255 -- considered 1
(G) 0-127 -- considered 0
(G) 128-255 -- considered 1

and then combine them for faster, parallel transfer?

[quote author=Adron link=topic=10056.msg94072#msg94072 date=1104629465]
[quote author=R.a.B.B.i.T link=topic=10056.msg94070#msg94070 date=1104628908]
There is, sort of, already a kind of FORM of trinary, which it actually isn't.

I forget what it's used in, I'll have to ask my teacher again when I go back to school, but I do remember the states:
0 - low
1 - high
x - high resistance, so 0 or 1 doesn't matter
[/quote]

That's called tristate. It's used when you hook outputs up to a bus. All inactive devices tristate their outputs.
[/quote]Ahh yes, we were looking at a diagram of a SAP-1.  Thanks :)

@MyndFyre:
Wouldn't the parallel method require 2 separate paths for each wavelength so they would not affect each other?  Your parallel method would also allow for quadrinary (or however the prefix is added).  IE: 0[sub]R[/sub]1[sub]R[/sub]1[sub]G[/sub]1[sub]R[/sub]0[sub]G[/sub]1[sub]R[/sub]0[sub]R[/sub]1[sub]R[/sub]

Yes, like RaBBiT said, if I were to seperate the light into different channels, I would just have 3 detectors ending at all 3 of the channels. And it is not mine or his idea (Even though I stated the idea in this thread first), it is the idea of the IBM researches who research Quantum Computing. Yes, it would work for quadratic* code too.

If you're using light with high/low, each frequency would have 2 values, which would mean only even numbered -ary codes, unless you had R[sub]01[/sub] and say, G[sub]0[/sub] only, but that would be weird X|

It would be multi-channel binary, not trinary.

Touché.

You could use polarized nuerons, which is what Quantum Computing uses. Simply throw in Diagonal after the Vertical and Horrizontol.

[quote author=MetaL MilitiA link=topic=10056.msg99615#msg99615 date=1108323934]
You could use polarized nuerons, which is what Quantum Computing uses. Simply throw in Diagonal after the Vertical and Horrizontol.
[/quote]

First it occurs to me that you mean neutrons, which are subatomic particles and not nerve cells.  Correct me if I'm wrong, though.

To be perfectly honest, though, it seems like you're throwing out a response to something you know absolutely nothing about.  Please explain what it means to "throw in diagonal after the vertical and horizontal" when you're talking about it.

The idea is that the basic quantum particle is oriented along one of four axces(?) , represented by either a + (vertical/horizontal) or an x (the diagonals). The problem with the proposed solution of measuring the spin of the particle is the reason that the spin is used in quantum cryptograhy: if you measure the particle with the wrong gate (a + gate instead of an x gate), the particle will a) not go through the gate (and possibly alter its orientation), or b) go through the gate with an altered orientation.  Thus an eavesdropper cannot observe the spin of a particle without altering it.

What about the receiver then? If when you observe the spin of the particle the spin is altered, how would you view the original state?

[quote author=Ban link=topic=10056.msg100811#msg100811 date=1109002061]
What about the receiver then? If when you observe the spin of the particle the spin is altered, how would you view the original state?
[/quote]

The viewer guesses too -- the correct guesses are then used to generate a one-time pad. old post

My post here talk about quatum particles with rotations applied, if you care to read it.

And all this is supposed to be a cheaper replacement for binary.  OK, you're nut.

[quote author=Grok link=topic=10056.msg101034#msg101034 date=1109093057]
And all this is supposed to be a cheaper replacement for binary.  OK, you're nut.
[/quote]

Hehe, thanks for pulling us back on the original track :)

Trinary code is a silly idea, IMO.

Not as silly as quadrary(?) or quinary(?)!

[quote author=rabbit link=topic=10056.msg101116#msg101116 date=1109121742]
Not as silly as quadrary(?) or quinary(?)!
[/quote]

No, quantum computing is a pretty serious area of research.  But what the original poster was suggesting was a step backwards.  There's a reason computers use digital signals instead of analog.

What if the extra information besides a 1 and 0 was used to carry a wider rage of frequencys?

[quote author=Snake link=topic=10056.msg104872#msg104872 date=1111457351]
What if the extra information besides a 1 and 0 was used to carry a wider rage of frequencys?
[/quote]

A wider range of frequencies? What does frequency have to do with 1's and 0's? If anything, you'd have to lower your modulation speed to be able to accurately detect the other states beside 1 and 0...

[quote author=Adron link=topic=10056.msg104906#msg104906 date=1111469229]
[quote author=Snake link=topic=10056.msg104872#msg104872 date=1111457351]
What if the extra information besides a 1 and 0 was used to carry a wider rage of frequencys?
[/quote]

A wider range of frequencies? What does frequency have to do with 1's and 0's? If anything, you'd have to lower your modulation speed to be able to accurately detect the other states beside 1 and 0...
[/quote]
...which is exactly the reason that we advocate binary.

In addition, by widening the modulation speed, you require more bandwidth, which could be better used by adding another parallel data bus.

[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=10056.msg105218#msg105218 date=1111622610]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=10056.msg104906#msg104906 date=1111469229]
[quote author=Snake link=topic=10056.msg104872#msg104872 date=1111457351]
What if the extra information besides a 1 and 0 was used to carry a wider rage of frequencys?
[/quote]

A wider range of frequencies? What does frequency have to do with 1's and 0's? If anything, you'd have to lower your modulation speed to be able to accurately detect the other states beside 1 and 0...
[/quote]
...which is exactly the reason that we advocate binary.

In addition, by widening the modulation speed, you require more bandwidth, which could be better used by adding another parallel data bus.
[/quote]Which would be a 100% increase in data transfer capability, as opposed to the 50% bonus trinary provides.

Edit nevermind, I know little on this subject.

50%?

8 binary bits = 256 possibilities
8 trinay bits = 6561 possibilities
2562.890625% times more efficient.

Requiring over three times the equipment and storage.

[quote author=raylu link=topic=10056.msg110480#msg110480 date=1114822254]
50%?

8 binary bits = 256 possibilities
8 trinay bits = 6561 possibilities
2562.890625% times more efficient.
[/quote]

According to your thinking, if I have a 20.000000000 GB hard drive and someone else has a 20.000000001 GB hard drive, his hard drive will be 27487.7906944% times more efficient than mine. Does that make sense? No....

No...

If you had a 1MB hard drive in binary, and I had a 1MB hard drive in trinary, then mine would be that much more efficient.

[quote author=raylu link=topic=10056.msg110561#msg110561 date=1114874707]
No...

If you had a 1MB hard drive in binary, and I had a 1MB hard drive in trinary, then mine would be that much more efficient.
[/quote]

How much more efficient exactly?

Apparently 27487.7906944% so.

That's like saying a pound fo lead is heavier than a pound of feathers.

Hmm, you raise a good point. 1MB is indeed 1MB, no matter how it works.

Yes, but even if his was actually bigger in binary bits, I'm having trouble with his measure of "more efficient". If how good something is is measured in the number of possible combinations, a single trinary bit is 50% more efficient than a single binary bit, a trinary byte is 2563% more efficient than a binary, and a trinary word would be even many times more more efficient than a binary. Just like a 1 byte larger hard drive is 256 times more efficient since you can store 256 times as many combinations....

[quote author=Adron link=topic=10056.msg110933#msg110933 date=1115143769]
Yes, but even if his was actually bigger in binary bits, I'm having trouble with his measure of "more efficient". If how good something is is measured in the number of possible combinations, a single trinary bit is 50% more efficient than a single binary bit, a trinary byte is 2563% more efficient than a binary, and a trinary word would be even many times more more efficient than a binary. Just like a 1 byte larger hard drive is 256 times more efficient since you can store 256 times as many combinations....
[/quote]

But it would take more space to store, thereby negating the added "efficiency."

Doubt it. With more speed, you can make it more efficient affordably without losing usability.

Explain?

The whole issue with Trinary code is that you have to change everything, plus more storage space because of 50% increase of voltage.

If you were to convert the current amount of space/equipment from binary -> trinary, you would still gain a 25% increase in efficiency, without losing anything in particular.

It's kind of hard to explain =/

What is your measure of efficiency?

I think trinary would be much less efficient. The hardware would be much more complicated and probably slower.

[quote author=Topaz link=topic=10056.msg111642#msg111642 date=1115622116]
The whole issue with Trinary code is that you have to change everything, plus more storage space because of 50% increase of voltage.

If you were to convert the current amount of space/equipment from binary -> trinary, you would still gain a 25% increase in efficiency, without losing anything in particular.

It's kind of hard to explain =/
[/quote]

The whole issue with Trinary code is that a basic binary gate can be made with two transistors. The transistors can be made very small and inaccurate because they only have to be all-on or all-off. When you build something analog, something where transistors can be other than either full open or all closed, you need to design them with more precision. This makes them bigger.

You further cannot use the same circuit that a binary gate uses. The basic building block of a binary code computer is an inverting amplifier with "infinite" amplification. That's a "not gate" or "inverter". Inverters are used all over the place in digital circuits to amplify the signal and remove noise.

An inverter consists of one n-mos and one p-mos transistor. Depending on the input signal applied, either the n-mos will be open and the p-mos closed, or the p-mos will be open and the n-mos closed. Between clock signals (i.e. when the input isn't changing), no current will flow.


When getting technical, it's easier to think about it in terms of an analog circuit where your analog ground is at a 2.5V level. This turns binary 1 into +2.5V and binary 0 into -2.5V. The basic inverter, "infinite" amplification inverting amplifier might in practise have an amplification of say 100 times. An input of -2.5V will make the inverter want to output -250V, but the clipping of the supply voltage causes it to become just -2.5V. An input of -1.5V will generate an output of -150V which is also clipped to just -2.5V, meaning that a whole Volt of noise has just been removed.

If you were to use a trinary signal, there would have to be a middle state where the voltage was right between Vdd and Vss, i.e. 0V in the analog scale. The inverter as described above would not remove noise for that. If you have 0.1V of noise on that signal, you'll be inputting 0.1V to the inverter, which will generate 10V on the output, which will be clipped to 2.5V, which is now a logic high. The value of the bit has been destroyed.

To accurately reproduce and de-noise such bits, you need to design a much more complicated circuit, consisting of many more transistors. I haven't seen a minimal one, so I can't say for sure how big, but perhaps 5-10 transistors could do it if you were clever. Here's an example of an analog amplifier, you can see the circuit diagram in one of the first pages.


In addition to a trinary logic gate being bigger than a binary one, power consumption becomes a big problem. To generate the intermediate voltage, you need to have a bias current flowing through the amplifier at all times. Outputting the mid level voltage means that both of the output transistors would be conducting current at the same time. This would increase the power consumption of the circuit extremely much.


Another problem, connected to the power consumption one, is speed. To limit the power consumption of an analog amplifier, you limit the current flowing through the two output transistors when a mid-level voltage is being output. This limit will also limit the maximum output current of the amplifier.

The binary inverter is designed to drive a lot of current through its transistors. That is not a problem because the two output transistors will never be conducting current at the same time more than momentarily. The more current you can generate from the output of the gate, the faster the input of the next gate can be charged (stray capacitances).

To make the chip survive the heat generated, you'll have to limit the bias current through the output transistors. But then you'll be limiting the output current and the speed at which the input of the next gate can be charged, i.e. increasing the gate delay.


Conclusion: Trinary logic may be possible, and you'll have more information processed in comparison to the number of logic gates used. However, each logic gate will be at least three times as big, and your power consumption will be up perhaps 10-100 times, as will your gate delay.

Maybe you could turn a Pentium IV from a 32-bit binary processor to a 32-bit trinary processor (50-bit binary equivalent) in a 5x5 inch package, with a power consumption of 3 kW and a clock speed of 25 MHz. Would you want to?

Technology improves over time, and the efficiency should more than make up for its space and expense.

My measure of efficiency is the amount of processing power and speed it can manage without burning out.

I think trinary processors are only worth it when using high end applications and/or server administration/applications.

Did you actually even read Adron's post? Sure, technology improves, but you're missing the point: even if electronics was sufficiently 'efficient' (whatever that means) binary would still be more 'efficient' than trinary. High end applications are exactly what you wouldn't want to run on a trinary processor.

[quote author=Topaz link=topic=10056.msg111714#msg111714 date=1115663289]
Technology improves over time, and the efficiency should more than make up for its space and expense.

My measure of efficiency is the amount of processing power and speed it can manage without burning out.

I think trinary processors are only worth it when using high end applications and/or server administration/applications.
[/quote]

Read my post carefully. I took the time to write it, the least you can do is read it and try to understand it.

Respond to the three problems brought up in my post:

* Circuit design and complexity for analog vs digital circuits
* The requirement of idle current in analog circuits
* Gate delay in logic gates with non-saturated transistors.


After rereading my post, find the part about speed going down 10-100 times and power usage going up by 10-100 times (i.e. processing power going down 10-100 times).

[quote author=Topaz link=topic=10056.msg111714#msg111714 date=1115663289]
Technology improves over time, and the efficiency should more than make up for its space and expense.

My measure of efficiency is the amount of processing power and speed it can manage without burning out.

I think trinary processors are only worth it when using high end applications and/or server administration/applications.
[/quote]By the time practical trinary computers become available (which won't happen, because nobody is investing in their developement), quantum computers will already be in a position to 'retire' binary, so it doesn't really matter.

No, you're missing the point too. Trinary is not better than binary. It is not preferable. It would not be an improvement. It is not a beneficial thing to develop or use.

That's why I said "practical" :)
I was stating that by the time effecient trinary proccessors would have become avaiable quantum computers would already be making a move into the market.

And there ends the great discussion  :)

[quote author=Topaz link=topic=10056.msg112020#msg112020 date=1115791283]
And there ends the great discussion  :)
[/quote]

By everyone agreeing trinary computing is no advantage over binary? :)

It's advantage is that when converted to an integer its value is greater than that of 'binary'.  That's about all, though.

This is a silly thread.

[quote author=Banana fanna fo fanna link=topic=10056.msg112159#msg112159 date=1115857833]
This is a silly thread.
[/quote]Indeed, especially considering I haven't seen any new posts from MetaL in about 4 months

[quote author=rabbit link=topic=10056.msg112103#msg112103 date=1115841546]
It's advantage is that when converted to an integer its value is greater than that of 'binary'.  That's about all, though.
[/quote]

Well, one could also put it this way:

Assuming binary gate = 2 transistors, trinary gate = 6 transistors, then given X transistors, you would be able to process X/6=n trinary bits, and X/2=3n binary bits).

When you convert the maximum trinary value to an integer, you get 3**n - 1, and when you convert the maximum binary value to an integer, you get 2**3n - 1, or 8**n - 1. This means that when converted to an integer, the binary value will be greater than the trinary... :)

I was stating the only instance I could think of in which 'trinary' is greater.  Thank you for proving my point :)

[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=10056.msg110978#msg110978 date=1115162098]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=10056.msg110933#msg110933 date=1115143769]
Yes, but even if his was actually bigger in binary bits, I'm having trouble with his measure of "more efficient". If how good something is is measured in the number of possible combinations, a single trinary bit is 50% more efficient than a single binary bit, a trinary byte is 2563% more efficient than a binary, and a trinary word would be even many times more more efficient than a binary. Just like a 1 byte larger hard drive is 256 times more efficient since you can store 256 times as many combinations....
[/quote]

But it would take more space to store, thereby negating the added "efficiency."
[/quote]
Not if you find a way to store 3 possible values (not exactly sure how you could do this, but I'm sure there's a way).

Everybodies saying trinary code would be less efficient than binary. Let's take a look at Boolean Algebra which can give a good example of how much of an increase Trinary Code would have in performance. With two input variables (0, 1; binary code), there's 16 possible functions. With 3 input variables (0, 1, 2; trinary code), there's 256 possible functions. Since there are 16x more possible functions for the same amount of bits (or would it be trits?), you would be able to for example handle 256 colors in trinary code just as fast as handleing 16 colors. In theory, if you could store 3 possible values as well, you would be able to store 256 possible values in the same amount of space as you could 16 possible values. This would theoretically increase performance by 16x (1600%; and also should not depend on the workload).

I havn't been able to reveiw all the posts in this thread yet, but I will soon. This post was simply made to explain the possible performance increase.

EDIT: [quote author=Adron link=topic=10056.msg111667#msg111667 date=1115638744]
[quote author=Topaz link=topic=10056.msg111642#msg111642 date=1115622116]
The whole issue with Trinary code is that you have to change everything, plus more storage space because of 50% increase of voltage.

If you were to convert the current amount of space/equipment from binary -> trinary, you would still gain a 25% increase in efficiency, without losing anything in particular.

It's kind of hard to explain =/
[/quote]

The whole issue with Trinary code is that a basic binary gate can be made with two transistors. The transistors can be made very small and inaccurate because they only have to be all-on or all-off. When you build something analog, something where transistors can be other than either full open or all closed, you need to design them with more precision. This makes them bigger.

You further cannot use the same circuit that a binary gate uses. The basic building block of a binary code computer is an inverting amplifier with "infinite" amplification. That's a "not gate" or "inverter". Inverters are used all over the place in digital circuits to amplify the signal and remove noise.

An inverter consists of one n-mos and one p-mos transistor. Depending on the input signal applied, either the n-mos will be open and the p-mos closed, or the p-mos will be open and the n-mos closed. Between clock signals (i.e. when the input isn't changing), no current will flow.


When getting technical, it's easier to think about it in terms of an analog circuit where your analog ground is at a 2.5V level. This turns binary 1 into +2.5V and binary 0 into -2.5V. The basic inverter, "infinite" amplification inverting amplifier might in practise have an amplification of say 100 times. An input of -2.5V will make the inverter want to output -250V, but the clipping of the supply voltage causes it to become just -2.5V. An input of -1.5V will generate an output of -150V which is also clipped to just -2.5V, meaning that a whole Volt of noise has just been removed.

If you were to use a trinary signal, there would have to be a middle state where the voltage was right between Vdd and Vss, i.e. 0V in the analog scale. The inverter as described above would not remove noise for that. If you have 0.1V of noise on that signal, you'll be inputting 0.1V to the inverter, which will generate 10V on the output, which will be clipped to 2.5V, which is now a logic high. The value of the bit has been destroyed.

To accurately reproduce and de-noise such bits, you need to design a much more complicated circuit, consisting of many more transistors. I haven't seen a minimal one, so I can't say for sure how big, but perhaps 5-10 transistors could do it if you were clever. Here's an example of an analog amplifier, you can see the circuit diagram in one of the first pages.


In addition to a trinary logic gate being bigger than a binary one, power consumption becomes a big problem. To generate the intermediate voltage, you need to have a bias current flowing through the amplifier at all times. Outputting the mid level voltage means that both of the output transistors would be conducting current at the same time. This would increase the power consumption of the circuit extremely much.


Another problem, connected to the power consumption one, is speed. To limit the power consumption of an analog amplifier, you limit the current flowing through the two output transistors when a mid-level voltage is being output. This limit will also limit the maximum output current of the amplifier.

The binary inverter is designed to drive a lot of current through its transistors. That is not a problem because the two output transistors will never be conducting current at the same time more than momentarily. The more current you can generate from the output of the gate, the faster the input of the next gate can be charged (stray capacitances).

To make the chip survive the heat generated, you'll have to limit the bias current through the output transistors. But then you'll be limiting the output current and the speed at which the input of the next gate can be charged, i.e. increasing the gate delay.


Conclusion: Trinary logic may be possible, and you'll have more information processed in comparison to the number of logic gates used. However, each logic gate will be at least three times as big, and your power consumption will be up perhaps 10-100 times, as will your gate delay.

Maybe you could turn a Pentium IV from a 32-bit binary processor to a 32-bit trinary processor (50-bit binary equivalent) in a 5x5 inch package, with a power consumption of 3 kW and a clock speed of 25 MHz. Would you want to?
[/quote]
Simple answer: an analog amplifier won't work, and I don't know why everybody was stuck with that solution. I think I have a solution in mind, I'll post it soon.

Note: If double posting is against the rules, tell me, I'd be glad to combine this with my above post.

My solution consists of multiple binary channels simultaneously transmitting bits (it probably hurts reading that). With this solution, we would be forced to skip to quadratic code, as it would be a waste to have 1.5 channels. Instead of only increasing performance by 16 times like trinary code would, quadratic code would increase it by 4096 times (Four input variables create 2**(2x2x2x2) or 2 to the 16 power, or 65,536, where 65,536/16=4096).

Discuss?

[quote author=Adron link=topic=10056.msg112233#msg112233 date=1115873072]
[quote author=rabbit link=topic=10056.msg112103#msg112103 date=1115841546]
It's advantage is that when converted to an integer its value is greater than that of 'binary'.  That's about all, though.
[/quote]

Well, one could also put it this way:

Assuming binary gate = 2 transistors, trinary gate = 6 transistors, then given X transistors, you would be able to process X/6=n trinary bits, and X/2=3n binary bits).

When you convert the maximum trinary value to an integer, you get 3**n - 1, and when you convert the maximum binary value to an integer, you get 2**3n - 1, or 8**n - 1. This means that when converted to an integer, the binary value will be greater than the trinary... :)
[/quote]
Rabbit is correct, when converted to an integer it's value is greater than that of binary. Your post proves the following: with my idea, a quadratic gate would = 4 transistors, but cutting in half the amount of transistors would negate anything changed, which would make quadratic code = binary code in this case. If we could somehow use something other than something that generates heat, we wouldn't have to use transistors. Yet if you think about it even more, if you have more channels in a system that doesn't generate heat, that would be doubling the size, negating the purpose of it again. The only possible way to gain something out of trinary code, is to have 3 possible values on one channel that, and have the entire system not generate heat.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=10056.msg93946#msg93946 date=1104492247]
Trinary would be way slower, and would waste a lot more space than binary.
[/quote]
[quote author=Banana fanna fo fanna link=topic=10056.msg101112#msg101112 date=1109120857]
Trinary code is a silly idea, IMO.
[/quote]
[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=10056.msg111767#msg111767 date=1115677394]
No, you're missing the point too. Trinary is not better than binary. It is not preferable. It would not be an improvement. It is not a beneficial thing to develop or use.
[/quote]
In-conclusion, you're all incorrect. Trinary would be 16x faster and save 16x the space if implemented into a system that does not generate heat and can have three or more values on one data stream. This is the only possibility for trinary code, meaning it's likely impossible (I've also seen many topics over the internet about this, and none of them represent my final conclusion, so I'm thinking about writing a paper for this and publishing it over the internet).

I'd also like to apologize for my behavier and for my ignorance I had at the beginning of this thread.

[quote author=MetaL MilitiA link=topic=10056.msg115977#msg115977 date=1118893717]
Note: If double posting is against the rules, tell me, I'd be glad to combine this with my above post.

My solution consists of multiple binary channels simultaneously transmitting bits (it probably hurts reading that). With this solution, we would be forced to skip to quadratic code, as it would be a waste to have 1.5 channels. Instead of only increasing performance by 16 times like trinary code would, quadratic code would increase it by 4096 times (Four input variables create 2**(2x2x2x2) or 2 to the 16 power, or 65,536, where 65,536/16=4096).

Discuss?
[/quote]

Having multiple binary channels simultaneously transmitting bits is still just a binary system. Today's computers use 32 or 64 binary channels simultaneously transmitting bits. Those systems are called 32-bit processors and 64-bit processors. This is nothing new or revolutionary?

Aside from that, your calculations on the efficiency of systems as a function of the number of possible functions are flawed. You talk about storing 256 possible values or storing 16 possible values. 16 possible values correspond to 4 binary bits (2**4 == 16) and 4 trinary bits correspond to 81 possible values (3**4 == 81). Using your quarternary bits, you get 256 possible values though (4**4 == 256).

To have the same number of possible values with binary bits as with quarternary bits, you need 8 quarternary bits for 4 binary bits (2**8 == 4**4 == 256) meaning that the binary bits are 50% less efficient than the quarternary bits.

Interestingly enough, you created each quarternary bit using 2 binary channels, so each binary bit takes up 50% less space than a quarternary bit. Net result: No efficiency improvement!

[quote author=Adron link=topic=10056.msg116045#msg116045 date=1118940817]
[quote author=MetaL MilitiA link=topic=10056.msg115977#msg115977 date=1118893717]
Note: If double posting is against the rules, tell me, I'd be glad to combine this with my above post.

My solution consists of multiple binary channels simultaneously transmitting bits (it probably hurts reading that). With this solution, we would be forced to skip to quadratic code, as it would be a waste to have 1.5 channels. Instead of only increasing performance by 16 times like trinary code would, quadratic code would increase it by 4096 times (Four input variables create 2**(2x2x2x2) or 2 to the 16 power, or 65,536, where 65,536/16=4096).

Discuss?
[/quote]

Having multiple binary channels simultaneously transmitting bits is still just a binary system. Today's computers use 32 or 64 binary channels simultaneously transmitting bits. Those systems are called 32-bit processors and 64-bit processors. This is nothing new or revolutionary?[/quote]
If you actually read my post above yours, you would notice you're repeating exactly what I said.
[quote]
Aside from that, your calculations on the efficiency of systems as a function of the number of possible functions are flawed. You talk about storing 256 possible values or storing 16 possible values. 16 possible values correspond to 4 binary bits (2**4 == 16) and 4 trinary bits correspond to 81 possible values (3**4 == 81). Using your quarternary bits, you get 256 possible values though (4**4 == 256).[/quote]
I also discovered my calculations were flawed last night, yet wasn't able to post the following. This is how trinary code relates to binary code: 1 bit of trinary (3**1=3) is 50% more effecient than 1 bit of binary (2**1=2). 2 bits of trinary is (3**2=9) is 2.25x more effecient than 2 bits of binary (2**2=4). 3 bits of trinary (3**3=27) is 3.375x more effecient than 3 bits of binary (2**3=8). Now, let's jump to 8 bits. 8 bits of trinary (3**8=6561) is 25.62890625x more effecient that 8 bits of binary (2**8=256). The number will just keep growing exponentially like that, so the performance increase will always depend on the workload.
[quote]To have the same number of possible values with binary bits as with quarternary bits, you need 8 quarternary bits for 4 binary bits (2**8 == 4**4 == 256) meaning that the binary bits are 50% less efficient than the quarternary bits.

Interestingly enough, you created each quarternary bit using 2 binary channels, so each binary bit takes up 50% less space than a quarternary bit. Net result: No efficiency improvement![/quote]
If you actually read my post above yours, you would notice you're repeating exactly what I said.

Trinary is only more efficient in a mathematical sense.  Actually determining the values would degrade the quality severely.  The point of binary is that it's either "on" or "off", with trinary there is "on", "off", and "that place in the middle...you know the one".  Creating circuits/components which could accurately and speedily determine the state (1, 2, 3) with no margin of error would cause said degredation.  Shh.  You've been proven wrong REPEATEDLY, please just drop it.

Metal, the point isn't whether you can represent more values, because you can.  As rabbit said, there simply isn't the technology available to make the stuff more efficient.

You can use binary and have a fair bit of fluctionation in the voltages and still reliably tell if it's a digital signal.  We would either have to use a LOT more electricity (which would cause heat) or be much more precise in measurements in order for a single signal to be both digital and tri-state.

Eventually, it may be possible -- probably some time after we discover how to travel faster than light.  :P

[quote author=rabbit link=topic=10056.msg116101#msg116101 date=1118958263]
Trinary is only more efficient in a mathematical sense.  Actually determining the values would degrade the quality severely.  The point of binary is that it's either "on" or "off", with trinary there is "on", "off", and "that place in the middle...you know the one".  Creating circuits/components which could accurately and speedily determine the state (1, 2, 3) with no margin of error would cause said degredation.  Shh.  You've been proven wrong REPEATEDLY, please just drop it.
[/quote]

Did you not read what I said either? You see that post directly above Adron's? Let's review it!
Inside of that post, I said the following.

[quote]...but cutting in half the amount of transistors would negate anything changed...[/quote]

This means that I know my system would not work.
Now, this following post shows the only circumstance that trinary code would make an improvement.

[quote]Trinary would be [faster and save more space] if implemented into a system that does not generate heat and can have three or more values on one data stream. This is the only possibility [to implement] trinary code, meaning it's likely impossible [to ever occur].[/quote]

Now, let's review! I prove my theory for multiple binary channels wrong before anybody else does, yet other people are still trying to prove it wrong, like you! So uhh, don't tell me to drop it, I've totally dropped even the possibility of it a long time ago. You guys drop it. You're the ones that keep comming and trying to prove it wrong again when it's already been proven wrong.

[quote]Metal, the point isn't whether you can represent more values, because you can.  As rabbit said, there simply isn't the technology available to make the stuff more efficient.

You can use binary and have a fair bit of fluctionation in the voltages and still reliably tell if it's a digital signal.  We would either have to use a LOT more electricity (which would cause heat) or be much more precise in measurements in order for a single signal to be both digital and tri-state.

Eventually, it may be possible -- probably some time after we discover how to travel faster than light.  Tongue[/quote]

MyndFyre, if you actually read and comprehended my post above Adron's, you would realize you repeated exactly what I said, but missed one thing. You won't be able to implement trinary code into a system that involves electricity as that would require another transistor, which would increase heat. With more heat on the CPU, you would have to get rid of some of the other transistors that helped with speed to keep it the same size (meaning speed reduction), which would simply negate any improvement.

I don't know how many times I'm going to have to say this before people understand, so I'll make the font a little bigger. Read it slowly multiple times if you have to, just make sure you comprehend those 2 sentences before your next post.

[size=6]Trinary coding would be faster and save more space than binary if implemented into a system that does not generate heat and can have three or more values on one data stream. This is the only possibility for trinary code, meaning it's probably impossible to ever happen.[/size]

Then DROP IT ALREADY.  Stop posting if we have it right and you know it.

Here, let's take a look at exactly what happend!

  1. I came back, and decided to make a final conclusion that wasn't previously posted.
  2. You guys come back trying to prove something wrong that I not only already proved wrong, yet I don't even agree with anymore.
  3. I make a couple posts telling you guys that you're just repeating exactly what I said.
  4. You come back like a complete moron making a post that proves you didn't read one thing I say, and you tell me to drop it.

Now, none of your posts are even relevant to anything in my final conclusion and nobody has came up with the conclusion that I had, yet you say I agree with you? Then you have the nerve to say what you just said, even though you were just a complete idiot this entire topic? Just for fun now, I'm probably going to make a post in the "Stupid People Arguing About Stupid Things Forum" consisting of every single one of your posts in this thread, and a follow up for each of them on why it makes you look like a moron.

EDIT: You know, I'm not even going to go through the trouble; people must already realize how much of a dumbass you really are (it's really hard to miss), so why even bother?

[quote author=MetaL MilitiA link=topic=10056.msg116156#msg116156 date=1118977330]
Now, let's review! I prove my theory for multiple binary channels wrong before anybody else does, yet other people are still trying to prove it wrong, like you! So uhh, don't tell me to drop it, I've totally dropped even the possibility of it a long time ago. You guys drop it. You're the ones that keep comming and trying to prove it wrong again when it's already been proven wrong.
[/quote]1. We proved you wrong.  Repeatedly.
2. My last post was May 11.  You came June 15, more than a month later, and posted again, so don't tell us "we came back and keep coming".
3. If you've dropped it, stfu.  YOU TRIPPLE POSTED.
4. See #3.

@Mod: Lock please.

[quote author=rabbit link=topic=10056.msg116162#msg116162 date=1118979305]
[quote author=MetaL MilitiA link=topic=10056.msg116156#msg116156 date=1118977330]
Now, let's review! I prove my theory for multiple binary channels wrong before anybody else does, yet other people are still trying to prove it wrong, like you! So uhh, don't tell me to drop it, I've totally dropped even the possibility of it a long time ago. You guys drop it. You're the ones that keep comming and trying to prove it wrong again when it's already been proven wrong.
[/quote]1. We proved you wrong.  Repeatedly.[/quote]
Please, just explain it to me. How the hell could you or anyone prove my 3 consecutive posts wrong when I proved it wrong myself before anybody else posted? Also, how could you even involve in proving me wrong when nothing you said is even relevant to anything that I said in those 3 posts (which might just be a sign that you're too damn stupid to comprehend it in the first place)?
[quote]2. My last post was May 11.  You came June 15, more than a month later, and posted again, so don't tell us "we came back and keep coming".[/quote]
I guess you couldn't comprehend that either. After my 3 posts (which I already proved myself wrong inside of the third one), 3 people (Adron, MyndFyre, and yourself) came back and tried to prove my theory wrong (yes, the one I already proved wrong before anybody posted about it). Even after I explained it to you, you came back just to have the last word (which makes me wonder what your next moronic post is going to be like, because it seems that you'll just continue blowing random shit out of your ass just so you don't look bad. Oops, I guess you didn't notice that makes you look even worse).
[quote]3. If you've dropped it, stfu.  YOU TRIPPLE POSTED.
4. See #3.

@Mod: Lock please.[/quote]
Hmmm, let's look at something I said in my second post out of those 3.
[quote]Note: If double posting is against the rules, tell me, I'd be glad to combine this with my above post.[/quote]
Just shut the fuck up already.

<INSERT MORONIC LAST WORDS HERE>

STFU MetaL, it's no wonder everyone hates you.  YOU'RE STUPID.

Why do you think I would care if people hate me over the internet?

Statements without facts aren't taken very seriously.

EDIT: I decided for fun, I would take apart your post that has "proven me wrong" and show everyone how... I think I don't even need to finish that sentence.\
[quote author=rabbit link=topic=10056.msg116101#msg116101 date=1118958263]
Trinary is only more efficient in a mathematical sense.[/quote]

Not if you have a system to properly implement it into, which happens to be exactly what my last post was talking about, the impossible "perfect scenario". On a side note, you can't base trinary code off of the system it runs off of, trinary code is more effecient than binary code.

[quote author=rabbit link=topic=10056.msg116101#msg116101 date=1118958263]Actually determining the values would degrade the quality severely.  The point of binary is that it's either "on" or "off", with trinary there is "on", "off", and "that place in the middle...you know the one".  Creating circuits/components which could accurately and speedily determine the state (1, 2, 3) with no margin of error would cause said degredation.[/quote]

If you actually read and comprehended my post, you would decipher that I was talking about quadratic code, not binary. I also wasn't talking about having quadratic code on a single channel, yet 2 parallel channels. This means that there would still be the "on" and "off" state, yet just on 2 channels that are simultaneously transmitting combinations of "ons" and "offs" to emulate the effect of four different values on a single channel.

As you can see, your post has almost no relevance to my 3 posts, yet have no direct relevance at all to my idea of 2 parallel binary channels. This means that you did not comprehend my post, yet you still decided to say I'm wrong. You didn't know about what, but that doesn't matter, I'm just wrong, and you helped prove that!

Now, I guess you're not really an idiot, and you're probably actually intelligent, yet what irritated me is the fact that you tried saying that I was wrong about something you don't even understand.

[quote author=MetaL MilitiA link=topic=10056.msg116077#msg116077 date=1118950429]
[quote]
Aside from that, your calculations on the efficiency of systems as a function of the number of possible functions are flawed. You talk about storing 256 possible values or storing 16 possible values. 16 possible values correspond to 4 binary bits (2**4 == 16) and 4 trinary bits correspond to 81 possible values (3**4 == 81). Using your quarternary bits, you get 256 possible values though (4**4 == 256).[/quote]
I also discovered my calculations were flawed last night, yet wasn't able to post the following. This is how trinary code relates to binary code: 1 bit of trinary (3**1=3) is 50% more effecient than 1 bit of binary (2**1=2). 2 bits of trinary is (3**2=9) is 2.25x more effecient than 2 bits of binary (2**2=4). 3 bits of trinary (3**3=27) is 3.375x more effecient than 3 bits of binary (2**3=8). Now, let's jump to 8 bits. 8 bits of trinary (3**8=6561) is 25.62890625x more effecient that 8 bits of binary (2**8=256). The number will just keep growing exponentially like that, so the performance increase will always depend on the workload.
[/quote]

The efficiency doesn't grow exponentially, if it does, it means your calculations are flawed. Calculate the number Y of binary bits required to represent the same number that you are representing with X trinary bits. The difference in efficiency between binary and trinary given the same resource usage for implementing a binary and a trinary bit will be Y / X, and that will be a constant except for rounding. That is what I have been trying to tell you in at least two previous posts.

The performance increase will not depend on the workload, because the ratio Y / X describes how many more binary bits you need to store a certain amount of data, or how much more time it will take to process a certain amount of data. And that is a constant!

That makes sense. The only way to really calculate it though would be to put 2 different sums of the possible combinations for one 1 bit of trinary (3**2=9, 3**1=3) into a ratio (9/3=3) and compare it to that of the binary (must be corresponding) (2**2=4, 2**1=2; 4/2=2) (might not make sense to you, but it does to me). Trinary would be I guess only 50% more effeicent than binary (what I originally thought, but I just had to make things more complicating).