Ternary
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /g/ - Technology
You are currently reading a thread in /g/ - Technology
I posted this on /sci/ a week ago, sadly it didn't get many replies
from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radix_economy
If both b and N are positive integers, then the radix economy E(b,N) is equal to the number of digits needed to express the number N in base b.
E(b,N)≈b logb(N)=bln(N)/ln(b)
Then for a constant N, E(b,N) will have a minimum at e. Meaning e is therefore the base with the lowest average radix economy.
And since 2 / ln(2) ≈ 2.89 and 3 / ln(3) ≈ 2.73, it follows that 3 is the integer base with the lowest average radix economy.
I am convinced that three-valued logic might hold the key to some fundamental computing problems, (like having to round periodic decimals in binary)
I can imagine new types of transistors like PETs(piezoelectric) or Optical Transistors.
Why should ternary not be the design of all our hard- and software?
>>54892186
Because on/off or up/down or north/south or what have you is way simpler to implement than on/off/? up/down/neither and north/south/neither.
A transistor can be on or off. Can it be both?
>>54892186
I feel your pain.
/sci/ looks down on us and /g/ is consumers only. There really is no place for cs-masterrace around here.
>>54892186
/g/ is consumer tech and trolls. They won't know anything about this
>>54892314
you need 2 transistors for cmos anyways. I guess it wouldn't be too hard to add a third and make some stable ternary.
>>54892186
>>54892314
>A transistor can be on or off. Can it be both?
quantum computing probably uses this
>>54892363
Quantum computing utilizes spin, which can be either up or down. Some particles have half-spin but those aren't really usable for this. Quantum computers also utilize superposition. They do not utilize ternary.
>>54892347
Do you realize how inefficient that would start to get
>>54892186
ternary is widely used in networking. e.g. : 100BASE-T, isdn,
>>54892314
that is why I mentioned PETs and Optical Transistors, you are correct you'd need an array of MOSFETs to build ternary but you're wrong if you think there don't exist single transistors that can.
>>54892403
>inefficient
no. please explain.
As I see it: 2 transistors are needed for binary, 3 are needed for ternary.
Where is the inefficiency in that?
>>54892415
Somehow I didn't see those in your post. Apologies.
>>54892422
I meant more in creating chips for that. You will end up needing a lot more transistors than currently and companies aren't going to like that
>>54892472
maybe because I said "I can imagine.. ", orthough there are attempts to build optical transistors, I'm not sure a highspeed optical circuit has ever been build but I'm pretty sure it will be in the near future.
>>54892472
yes, you need 50% more chips. As OP pointed out, ternary has more information per transistor then binary (assuming 3 transistors are enough).
