Talk:Binary number

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Binary number article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2

Template:Vital article

Mathematics B‑class Mid‑priority

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-priority on the project's priority scale.

ternary-coded decimal numeral

I'd like to know how to create a ternary clock using LEDs to express ternary values, so that I can add it to the ternary wikipedia page. Backinstadiums (talk) 01:50, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You should only add that sort of thing to Wikipedia articles when it can be reliably sourced — otherwise it is original research, something that is fine on other sites but not here. I doubt you will find much sourcing for ternary-coded-decimal digital clocks. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Title seems a little misguided

IMHO the title should really be binary numeral system (as I think it used to be) or just binary or binary (mathematics), because you don't so much have "binary numbers" as real numbers that happen to be expressed in base 2. You could just as well express the reals in base 3 or base 4 or base 10 or base 720720 if you invented enough symbols, but that doesn't mean that we somehow have "base-3 numbers" or "base-720720 numbers", as those would be exactly the same set; only "numbers expressed in base 3" and "numbers expressed in base 720720". Double sharp (talk) 14:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked above at #Requested move? JBL (talk) 14:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK, I just noticed that. Still, since that one was conducted just over four years ago, it may be reasonable to open another one now. Double sharp (talk) 14:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I didn't mean that the question was settled always and forever, just that it has been discussed before. (I do not personally have a strong feeling one way or the other about what the title should be.) --JBL (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Computer Binary

I think that the binary system used here is different from the binary of computer science. May I request to add a section in this article or computer binary is already included in another page? Redpo888 (talk) 12:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's anything different about binary in CS. In what way do you think it's different? --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 12:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Computer implementations treat negative values in various ways - is that what Redpo888 has in mind?--Nø (talk) 17:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's handled at Two's complement. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Binary number. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100709213530/http://www.invent.org/hall_of_fame/140.html to http://www.invent.org/hall_of_fame/140.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

About the lead of history part

This is the my previous edition [1] and it was reverted by others. Most books divide the history of binary to before and after Leibniz. Every development before Leibniz was claimed as the predecessors. For example, See "History of Binary and Other Nondecimal Numeration"[2], "Development of the Binary Number System and the Foundations of Computer Science" [3] and "Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz invents the Binary System" [4]. Hence, the common theory considered Leibniz as the start of modern binary. If we defined all European scholar who studied this area before Leibniz as the modern binary, why don't we define the development in Egypt, China and India as the real start of modern binary number so that we can become more neutral for each region. —Miracle dream (talk) 15:50, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Most books" are ignorant of modern scholarship, which points to the work of Harriot and Caramel as providing complete descriptions of modern binary notation before Leibniz. Leibniz was certainly important, as his contributions are the ones that stuck, but it is inaccurate and wrong to write the summary paragraph of the history section in a way that assigns him all the credit and completely snubs the other pioneers of the subject. To put it another way: that paragraph is supposed to be a summary of the whole history section. Your change rewrites it to completely omit any mention of one of the main subsections in the section. That is not an improvement. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leading with the history?

Are you kidding? Most people are here looking for a mathematical explanation -- not a silly history lesson.24.107.121.66 (talk) 16:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know where you coming from. As a C/S teacher it is hard to forget the past and explain current affairs moving history lessens to where they belong. But, however binary numbers where at the cradle of electronic computing this was not always the case and binary was invented outside the realm of electronic computing. Having said that, I do agree that currently binary numbers exclusively bear a meaning in electronic computing and the history is a fringe show. It should be move to a section history of binary theory and not be at the core of the article. Theking2 (talk) 14:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

colums order: Fraction, Binary, Decimal, Fractional approximation

The current order Decimal - Binary misgui is misleading, leading to believe that 1/1 is 0.9999... is the norm. --Backinstadiums (talk) 20:32, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

binary fractions in wikibooks. --Adam majewski (talk) 23:14, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Negativ numbers

Two complements is mentioned but I do believe it should have at least a section explaining the basics and eventually referring to Two's_complement Theking2 (talk) 14:15, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Technical mathematics

Multiplying the binary numbers its soo hard to understand i am struggling with it 41.115.106.9 (talk) 19:31, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"011000100110100101101110011000010111001001111001" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect 011000100110100101101110011000010111001001111001 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 3#011000100110100101101110011000010111001001111001 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 08:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]