Conference 7.286::digital

Ha! Clever!

[This note is just a public announcement that I'm cool
 enough to figure it out :-)   I haven't posted the "answer"
 here because it would spoil the fun.]

        What -.1 said (and .0 too for that matter).
        
        I.

you know you're in trouble when.....  You like it.  (oops, wrong note).

      -2989

re: .0

Hint for those who haven't gotten it yet:  It could be translated
as 5353246754.

re: -5

>      -2989

Hey, you got the sign wrong!

    Re: all replies... Good going, noters!
    
    I suppose a lot of people would rather hear:
    
        732777227
    
    Dave

.5 should be !2989.

    
    Think you've all gone 56063!

RE: .0

	hahahahahahahahah!!

	Oh God, I am a geek. Where's my Way Cool Frog?

							mike

    
    
    You all belong to both the pocket protector and protractor of the month
    clubs?
    
    Mike

    
    Ok.  I'm confused but somewhat intrigued.  +Dennis

    clueless, I remain

	i think you're right....

	and i think i've been playing with these computers far too long..
	i got it much to quickly.....

	denny

    Please, I'm a poor marketing slob
    
    Enlighten Me!!!!!
    
    Jeff
    

From a VMS DCL prompt, try this:

$ X = 732777964
$ SHOW SYMBOL X


				Steve

    I agree with .0 and must say that this is 2862380.
    
    (My 8 year old calls me a "geek",...it must be true!)
    

    Just as long as the bad news doesn't finally become -559084052

    
    	Personally I think you are all delightfully hexed. My kids are
    going to love this!!!
    
    		the Greyhawk

>    Just as long as the bad news doesn't finally become -559084052
    
    or -557064531

    please tell me.... what are you all saying?  I'm EXREMELY confused.
    If you can't "write" out what is being said, please give a better clue
    than the one that was provided.
    
    Thanks!		
    
    
    

The key is in .26.

re: .29

> The key is in .26.

Actually, the key is in .20 if you have access to a VMS machine.  If you
don't, see if you can find a calculator that converts from decimal to
hexadecimal (unless you're *really* a propellor-head and can do it mentally).

-Hal

    Re: .10
    
    Shouldn't 56063 have been 897009?
    Or is this coming from the East side of the pond?
    
    Dave

    How about 233627309 51979 ? :-)

    Gee, if y'all are going to make comments in code, shouldn't they be
    something we don't already know? -:)!
    
    m.
    

    and of course if -557064531 (in .26) then -1329865043 too...
    
    --bonnie

    T> cnv 732777964
      MATH$TEMP = 732777964   Hex = 2BAD4DEC  Octal = 05353246754
    Xlated Msg :- %NONAME-F-NOMSG, Message number 2BAD4DEC
    

Oh, all you high-level language guys got it too easy. Remember the good old days
when you had to toggle-switch the IPL instructions in from the front panel? Who
the heck uses decimal anyway?

    1011 1110 1101 1110 1100 1101 1110 1010 1101 1011 1110 1110 1111 ?

    I'm suprised no one has described digital's marketing:

    	 -559038737  

Re .0:

You had me wondering what was so interesting about 22-Mar-93.
				/AHM

    Ahhhh ... but can you remember the good old days with 233616545!
    VAXMail rules!
    
    Chuck

    Ok, I dialed the number and the recording said I must be 18 or older
    and that it would cost me $2.90/min if I stayed on the line.

    re: Cryptic Comment 
    
    unfortunately with base 16 (i.e. HEX) you can only use the letters 
    ABCDE and F to construct words. This is not fair to DEC becase D C and
    E are allowed but not I and M for IBM, or H and P, or ...
    
    How about more cryptic messages at base 36?
    
    /k

Let's not and say we did...

			Steve

    re. .-1
    Steve,
    
     then it would not be cryptic.
    
    /k
    

    Hmmm...  I didn't realize, when I posted .0, how many
    responders would begin "speaking in Geek".  (I guess that's
    as good a name for it as any...)
    
    Re:  using base 36.  I normally use base 128. (No MCS chars).
    It's called ASCII. The limitation to A..F is part of the fun.
    
    If you really, really have to say "IBM" in this "code", try
    
    435
    
    It's a pain in the neck to read, but...
    
    This has been fun.  Next?
    
    
             

DDRSNDIV

Has nothing to do with DEC; just a comment on a peaceful forest scene.

IMND4S2RU

    What, not 891702?
    
    Dick

    Moving to a 36 base (or even 30 base) would be great if
    it would let me end up getting a salary that was half way DECENT.

    here is an easy one (base 36):
    
    	17364 1517097 30701 713469.
    
    /k

    a little harder one:
    
    	998992 492 32211 532397 1068 19759660 29414313165 526628 1068 
    122102643738696450048 17556287.
    
    /k

    Speaking of base 36, 
      how many people here remember SQOZE code?
    
    Dave
    

    I remember it.  It's sort of like RADIX-50 from the PDP-11.  I once
    wrote a SNOBOL program to do SQOZE translations.
    
    					Steve

Of course, modern programmers don't understand why radix-50
is (was?) called radix-50.

It's because there were 50 characters in the character set

		32 letters
		12 digits
		 1 space
		 1 dot
		 1 dollar
		 1 underscore -or- question mark
		--
		50

    Re: .54
    
    I love it!
    

>       <<< Note 3304.54 by KLAP::porter "beware of geeks bearing GIFs" >>>
>It's because there were 50 characters in the character set
>		32 letters
>		12 digits
>		 1 space
>		 1 dot
>		 1 dollar
>		 1 underscore -or- question mark
>		--
>		50
    
    Actually, it's:
    
    		26 letters
    		10 digits
    		 1 space
    		 1 dot
    		 1 dollar
    		 1 underscore or question mark
    		--
    		40(10) = 50(8)

    	Nobody but an idiot used anything but radix 8, so .54 is correct.
    Some people could multiply and divide in hexadecimal, but nobody used
    *DECimal*.
    

    Oh dear.  My face is red.

    Re: .56
    
    I think you missed the whimsy in .54...
    
    All of the numbers in .54 are octal.
    
    Incidentally,  which characters are legal in VMS symbols?
    
    

    re: .56-.58 I hope I know you well enough to buy you a pint of beer on
    that when we next meet :-)
    
    	Dave

Re .59:

>    Incidentally,  which characters are legal in VMS symbols?

That's of no consequence.

The most important criterion when devising a symbol on VMS is embedding as many
dollar signs in it as possible.  Whoever codes the most dollar signs is the
winner.  You can play this game in any namespace, but here are some logical
names as examples:

@SHOW LOGICAL SYS$LOGIN
   "SYS$LOGIN" = "CXX$:[AMARTIN]" (LNM$JOB_86E8EA80)
       ^             ^                ^
@SHOW LOGICAL CXX$
   "CXX$" = "DISK$CXX_PACK:" (LNM$SYSTEM_TABLE)
       ^         ^               $
1  "DISK$CXX_PACK" = "DECCXX$DKA400:" (LNM$SYSTEM_TABLE)
        ^                   ^             ^
@SHOW LOGICAL/SYSTEM *$*$*$*

(LNM$SYSTEM_TABLE)
    ^
  "RPC$$$SWLMBX" = "MBA26:"
      ^^^
  "SLS$HIST_$ALL$" = "GENERIC"
      ^     ^   ^
@

Obviously the last two guys are tied for first place.
				/AHM

    re: .60 I hope that pint has 20 ounces ...
    
    ed

    Actually .56 is correct (using decimal).
    
    The purpose of RADIX-50 was to compress 3 characters into 2 bytes.
    
       40  *  40  *  40  = 64000
    
    maximum 2 byte value = 65535
    
    RSTS/E used RADIX-50 to store things like 6 character user name/uic's 
    into 4 bytes.  
    
    Gosh - we had to save every byte we could in those 16-bit address space days
    
    You've done got me all sentimental now ... sniff ...   ;-)
    Rick

    re: .61
    	The first "$" means "I don't have to talk to customers since I have
    registered my prefix". The second "$" means "I don't have to talk to
    DEC people outside my project". The third "$" means "If I talk to
    myself, nobody listens". The exact placing of the "$"s in the symbol 
    is unimportant.

    So *that's* what they meant when they said we had to increase 
    $$/employee!  ;-) 

    RE: .57
    >    Nobody but an idiot used anything but radix 8, so .54 is correct.
    >Some people could multiply and divide in hexadecimal, but nobody used
    >*DECimal*.
    
    
    too true! at one point I (accidently) started keeping my checkbook
    register with octal arithmetic. Boy, did I get a surprize when the
    bank statement came in and I tried to reconcile it!
    
    Deb

If god wanted us to count in decimal, he would have
given us ten fingers.

    Keep this up and we'll be moving onto Godel's proof by
    reply 85...

    
    re .67:
    we need is eight fingers to count in octal, plus two fingers
    for sign and parity ...

    Re: .68 
    
    What is Godel's proof by reply 85? :-)

	re 69

   I never needed more than three fingers to count in Octal. 


 

  

    Binary is a 0 or a 1.
    Octal is 0 thru 7.
    
    f.m.

   * Binary is a 0 or a 1.
   * Octal is 0 thru 7.
    
   * f.m.

     And to get a Octal digit you must combine three binary digits weighted by  
     powers of two.

     421

     000 = 0
     001 = 1
     010 = 2
     011 = 3
     100 = 4
     101 = 5
     110 = 6
     111 = 7

	Do you take your shoes off to count in Hex?

    re .75
    Exactly.
    
    re .76
    I tried that, but I kept getting lost after "A"  ;-)
    
    frank m.

    777
    
    If you understand you'll be stuck here for awhile...
    
    ;-)
    
    Jim

	14747
	14747

  With this you'll back your self into nowhere

  (;^)>

 Keith

(Only in octal, and then only if ...)

	paul

    I think this note is having a major "trap to vector 024".  Maybe we
    should RTI 000002??  Na' - this is too much fun.
    
    OP Code 000000 HALT
    
    

    seems that somebody's confusing octal digit (0-7) with
    octal number (an ordered sequence octal digits).
    
    We can all flash each other 3 fingered salutes representing
    octal digits but that doesn't diminish the fact that an
    octal digit is one of the set of squigly curves,
    and straight lines found in the numbers 0 through 7.

re .-1

So the octal digits are "I" and "V" ?

	I
	II
	III
	IV
	V
	VI
	VII

    re .-1
    
    (Sticking to his guns...)
    
    no, I and V are Roman numerals.
    
    It is true that octal the digit equivalent to I is 1
    but I does not denote an octal digit it denotes a
    Roman numeral.
    

    Re: .84
    
    I don't think you are going to prevail on this one, even though you
    may be  right. 
    
    The confusion between a symbol and the thing the symbol represents
    has been with us since the first caveman made a painting on the
    wall.  Computers have only speeded the process up.
    
    The misuse of symbols out of context is what, IMO, was the
    punch line behind the original base note.
    
    Dave
                                                                    

re .84

I stand corrected - I actually looked it up this time  :-(

My argument was based on the erroneous assumption that I
could use any scratchy marks I chose to represent the concepts
"zero" through "seven", and those scratchy marks would
therefore be described as "digits".

(Notwithstanding .85, I think I *do* understand the difference
 between a symbol and the referent of that symbol).

However, the OED says that the "digits" are the numerals
from 0 to 9, so my own scratchy marks can't be digits even
if they're conceptually equivalent to digits.

Hmm.  Now we can argue that there's no such thing as
a hexadecimal digit greater than 9...

The OED really restricts the term digit to the Arabic symbols? I am surprised.

That invalidates the different symbols used for the concepts '0' to '9' used
in other writing systems.

Unicode codes digits from the following distinct scripts

DIGIT ONE
ARABIC-INDIC DIGIT ONE
DEVANAGARI DIGIT ONE
BENGALI DIGIT ONE
GURMUKHI DIGIT ONE
GUJARATI DIGIT ONE
ORIYA DIGIT ONE
TAMIL DIGIT ONE
TELUGU DIGIT ONE
KANNADA DIGIT ONE
MALAYALAM DIGIT ONE
THAI DIGIT ONE
LAO DIGIT ONE

Tim

Well, it is an *English* dictionary.

(Although the definitions for "letter" and "alphabetic" are
 not culturally constrained.  Probably because the oxonians
 had heard of Greek.)

Btw, this is the Concise Oxford, not the real OED.  Sorry.

    this is deep, REALLY DEEP.
    
    Gotta love it ...

    Re: .86
    
    >>(Notwithstanding .85, I think I *do* understand the difference
    >>between a symbol and the referent of that symbol).
    
    Oops! I certainly didn't mean .85 to be taken as a negative comment
    about anybody in particular.  On rereading it, I think that maybe
    it *might* be taken that way.  Sorry if you were offended.
    
    In "Cryptic Comment", I'm just having fun, but not if it's at
    somebody else's expense!
    
    P.S.  I would hope to see a second entry in the OED under
        "digit" that might relate directly to fingers and toes....
        Is there one?
    
    
    Dave
         

re -1

digit 

1.(zool., anat., or joc.) Finger or toe.
2. Each numeral below ten (orig. counted on fingers); each Arabic numeral
   from zero to nine.
3. (astron) 12th part of a diameter of sun or moon (in expressing maginitude
   of eclipse).

digital - adj. Using digits; ~ computer: see COMPUTER

    In this context, what does OED say about the "bit"?
    
    ie the 'binary digit'
    
    	Dave

    digit (n): self-deprecatory term used by employees of Digital
    	       See entry for DEC (obs.)

    
    
    Re a few back.
    
    In the strictest sense there probably are no hexadecimal
    digits larger than 9. A-F would likely be classified as
    hexadecimal numerals.
    
    The 10 is naturally related to the original meaning of digit
    which is of course finger.
    
    Re another few back.
    Yes, this discussion _is_ culturally myopic or to put more
    in a positive context culturally efficient in the sense that
    we are dropping obvious (cultural) context.
    
    "0" denotes 0 by in Western society because we're all agreed
    to use the Arabic symbol "0" for this. If I don't mention
    the appropriate cultural context then we all automatically
    assume it to be Western.
    
    In order to override this then I would somehow need to explicitly
    identify the culture. Then I can talk about the Thai 0 (which
    is a concept that may or may not have strong resemblence to 0 -
    or more precisely the Western 0).
    
    The Thai "0" may or may not exist - I don't know - and if it
    does it may or may not represent 0. And if it does represent 0
    the (Thai version of) 0 may or may not be the same as our
    (Western verion of) 0.
    
    There now, everybody confused?
    No? One last try...
    
    Since zero and 0 are synonyms I can replace 0 with zero.
    Since "zero" and "0" can also be considered to be the same
    parts of speech (syntax) I can even replace "0" with "zero"
    in linguistic text such as above.
    
    This syntactical equivalence does not carry through to
    arithmetic text however since 2009 and 2zerozero9 are not
    the same.
    
    Have a nice day :-)
    
    re roelof

    re .92
    
    OED Second edition:-
    
    BIT [Abrv of binary digit]
    A unit of informationderived from a choice between two equally probable
    alternatives or events; such a unit stored electronically in a
    computer.
    1948 CE Shannon in Bell Syst Tech Jrnl July 380
    "The choice of a logarithmic base corresponds to the choice of a unit
    for measuring information. If the base 2 is used the resulting units
    may be called binary digits, or more briefly bits, a word suggested by
    J W Tukey."
    and
    DIGIT 3a Arith. Each of the numerals below ten (originally counted on
    the fingers), expressed in the Arabic notation by one figure; any of
    the nine, or (including the cipher, 0) ten Arabic figures.
    
    Andrew

re .93:

>    digit (n): self-deprecatory term used by employees of Digital
>   	        See entry for DEC (obs.)
                                   ===

Do you mean "obscene" or "obsolete"?

Steve

re -1

>Do you mean "obscene" or "obsolete"?

he meant obsequies  :(