Could we start to see computers that use the decimal system or at least higher than binary system?
I'm not very knowledgeable in this field, so I'm wondering if that can be done if if not, why not? Is there anything to even gain by doing it?
>>52195765
no.
binary isn't about numbers, its about electric signal.
1 = on
0 = off
>>52195765
Do you even quantum computer
>>52195765
Only in quantum computing, but we'll never see that on a consumer level.
>>52195868
>>52195861
hardly, i think you mean quantum ships (CPU)
as for the rest it is translated to binary because its easier to handle
>>52195765
>"Hey guys I just got a C in my CompTIA A+ class am I qualified to be a l33t haxx0r yet?"
>>52195824
He's right
>>52195765
Going up in number base requires more precision in the hardware and more space to house it; and then there's the problem of it not being backwards compatible with anything that already exists.
It's been done periodically with ternary, decimal, and hex systems, but it has yet to solve more problems than it creates.
>>52195765
i wanna see computers built into our brains
>>52195765
The Sovjet Union had about 50 Setun ternary computers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Setun
>>52195824
This. In electronics you can probably replace complete on and off with varying resistances, but for computing that would require a lot of precision and money. It's more impractical than impossible, really.
>>52195824
Basically this. Computing as we know it is built on binary because it's far easier to base everything on a simple electrical on/off state than anything else, with no particular benefit to doing it any other way.
Quantum computers won't be better than normal computers for everyday tasks. If you think other wise, you probably don't know what's it's all about.
>>52195765
actually, decimal computers predate binary computers. the IBM 1400 series is an example. IBM abandoned decimal architecture and embraced hexadecimal (binary) with the introduction of S/360.
don't fuck with things you don't understand
>>52197786
the soviet union doesn't exist
>>52198210
Fucking with things you dont understand is the only way to learn them
You COULD make different voltages mean different things instead of just on and off. But then errors might be much more common because you have a billion transistors that are slightly different so what is supposed to be a 6 might have slightly higher or lower voltage due to random chance and turn into a 7 or 5. Technically it would be a pain in the ass and would have no real benefits.
>>52195765
Literally every mainstream CPU supports BCD...
>>52197799
Von Neumann architecture depends on it my good friend
>>52198726
Stop making me face reality tovarish
No.
Google transistor on the simple English wikipedia and you might understand why.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thrx3SBEpL8
>>52201734
You realize that three-state logic CPUs exist, right?
That was the type of analogic computing used before transistor
Good luck running complex programs quickly
>>52195765
I've learned there are 10 types of people in this world: those who understand binary and those who do not.
>>52198148
>Hexadecimal (binary)
I hope you meant "embraced binary in which 4 bits equal one hexadecimal number"
>>52202323
I've learned that there are 10 types of people in this world. Those who understand binary, those who don't, and plebs who can't into ternary computing.
Also benefit of ternary computing is that it technically should use the least space for computing. Imagine each possible value of a transistor takes up one space and a number of transistors takes up as much space as the number of transistors times the type (binary ternary quadinary(?)) imagine 12 spaces, you could either have 6binary, 4 ternary or 3quadrinary transistors. Six binary transistors can store 2^6 values;64. 4 ternary can store 3^4 values;81. 3 quadinary, same as binary can store 64 after that shit gets even worse two hexanal(?) transistors can store just 36 values. Ternary is in the sweet spot
>>52197799
? but if you had 2 offs and 2 ons then you could theoretically have double the pathways and double the performance no?? kid
It was done in the 1800's, stupid.
>>52202865
Except the hypothetical spaces you're speaking of have no real meaning
