jutntog1 Posted August 2, 2005 Share Posted August 2, 2005 I was thinking... can every object in the world be described 100% acurately in bianary, theoreticaly i mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted August 2, 2005 Share Posted August 2, 2005 Binary is a numbering system. It doesn't actually do anything except count. It's a base-two numbering system--we have base ten. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted August 2, 2005 Share Posted August 2, 2005 Binary is a numbering system. It doesn't actually do anything except count. You realise the irony in saying that via the medium of a computer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted August 2, 2005 Share Posted August 2, 2005 I forgot the "except when interpreted by a computer" bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted August 2, 2005 Share Posted August 2, 2005 You know, this is really a yes/no kind of a subject. I mean, the answer is pretty black-and-white, wouldn't you say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daecon Posted August 2, 2005 Share Posted August 2, 2005 I guess theoretically you could account for everything, using whatever terms you like best. Regarding things in Binary is no different that regarding them in 100 Monkey Points, it's just that binary is easier to work with. Although physically you'd need more than just a "one-or-the-other" system, as the universe is far more complicated. Quarks, Electrons, Photons, Bosons, etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeternus Posted August 2, 2005 Share Posted August 2, 2005 Just like in our own number system, it is hard to account for certain numbers in binary (for instance we find representing 1/3 hard in decimal/denary (0.3333 recurring, ie you can't actually represent it accurately)). I would imagine a third itself is very hard to represent in binary accurately (in either floating point or fixed point binary). Saying this I'm sure you could find a way of interpretting bits to let it represent various constants and variables given certain bits set or given certain formats (such as ASCII etc) so... I suppose anythings possible but whether or not it would be practical or reasonable is another matter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted August 2, 2005 Share Posted August 2, 2005 One of the more interesting problems is that if your goal is to represent an analog entity in a digital (binary) fashion, you're more or less stuck with one approach -- sampling. The accuracy of a digital sample of an analog event or entity is dependent upon the frequency with which you sample. So long as your threshold of detection is below the frequency rate of the sample, you don't (in theory) have a problem. But perception is a funny thing, and this always seems to be a compromise. Since your sampling frequency could never in theory equate to a 1:1 relationship of analog to digital data, the answer to the original question of this thread would seem to be "no". But perhaps someone who knows more about sampling and its inherent problems can give an answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted August 2, 2005 Share Posted August 2, 2005 If we worked in unary then decisions would be easier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psion Posted August 6, 2005 Share Posted August 6, 2005 You know, this is really a yes/no kind of a subject. I mean, the answer is pretty black-and-white, wouldn't you say? nice. You're kinda on, but off. No, I don't think you could describe the world in binary. I would think, because of the digital vs. analog properties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5614 Posted August 6, 2005 Share Posted August 6, 2005 because of the digital vs. analog propertiesThat's my answer too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeonBlack Posted August 7, 2005 Share Posted August 7, 2005 Since your sampling frequency could never in theory equate to a 1:1 relationship of analog to digital data' date=' the answer to the original question of this thread would seem to be "no". [/quote'] Why not? At some level everything is discreet. I think we could represent anything digitally, we'd probably just have to go down to the Planck scale. So I say in theoretically yes but practically no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted August 7, 2005 Share Posted August 7, 2005 Well, the obvious question is: why would you want to? I can't see any practical application of representing everything in binary. I guess we just need to know why semag68 wanted to know in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neutrino86 Posted August 7, 2005 Share Posted August 7, 2005 My answer to your question is incomplete(i.e the fact that '"everything" has not yet been described by any mathematical model), but whatever can be described with a decimal system can obviously be described by a system of another base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
postgrep Posted August 16, 2005 Share Posted August 16, 2005 Everything can be described in binary theoretically? I say no. What about particles of spin 1/2 ? Theres no way to express a half in binary unless you use an operator on it, which is in fact NOT expressing it in binary, but as an equation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DQW Posted August 16, 2005 Share Posted August 16, 2005 Theres no way to express a half in binary 1/2 is expressed as 0.1 in binary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DQW Posted August 16, 2005 Share Posted August 16, 2005 unless you use an operator on it, which is in fact NOT expressing it in binary, but as an equation.Separating terms by an operator creates an expression, not an equation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
postgrep Posted August 16, 2005 Share Posted August 16, 2005 1/2 is expressed as 0.1 in binary. It can't be. If it is a binary system, then everything MUST be a one OR a zero, if something is to be less than one and more than zero then that is an invalid state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DQW Posted August 16, 2005 Share Posted August 16, 2005 Okay, don't believe me.... http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Binary.html Therefore, 1/2 would be represented as 0.1, 1/4 as 0.01, 3/4 as 0.11, and so on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neutrino86 Posted September 17, 2005 Share Posted September 17, 2005 Yeah...the comp in front of you is using the same "conventions for doing binary operations which involve decimals...1's and 2's complements and so on.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted September 17, 2005 Share Posted September 17, 2005 the world is analog, not even the binary 1s and 0s in a computer are true, there are never two 1`s or 0s the same, it`s No voltage or A voltage, but take the decimal places of A voltage to the N`th degree, and no 2 "Voltages" will be the same. so although we can represent a "False" or Approximation of Binary, a computer is Still basicly 100% analogue, the Binary is the Virtual part Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xyph Posted September 17, 2005 Share Posted September 17, 2005 Yeah. I see no reason why not. If everything is truly discrete at some level, then even binary represented only by approximate voltages should be good enough. It would only be a representation, obviously, but theoretically it could still be a 100% accurate one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted September 17, 2005 Share Posted September 17, 2005 and what if the discrete properties are above 2 in type? BINARY is the Illusion here, it only works in concept or with heavy "Filtering" of the real to distingiush parameters that fit into either 1 of 2 catagories. the real world is Not Naturaly like this at Any KNOWN level, not even day and night Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xyph Posted September 17, 2005 Share Posted September 17, 2005 If there are more than 2 types of discrete properties to represent, it'll just take more code to represent it. Binary could still be used for this. Yeah, the result isn't going to be the real world, but I still see no reason why, theoretically, it couldn't be a perfectly accurate representation of it, when the right equipment is used to read the binary. Although, chances are, by the time such a thing could be done even for an incredibly small part of reality, there'd be less clumsy ways to do it than binary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neutrino86 Posted September 18, 2005 Share Posted September 18, 2005 Numbers are numbers what ever be the base.In decimal its base ten so every integer between 0-9 is multiplied to powers of ten according to the value one wants to describe be it form 0 to 9 or more. The base 2 case is treated similarly. Because there are only two discrete elements in this number system it has bee chosen in digital systems to indicate the 0 by a ground and a 1 by a high. This is how we have chosen to represent the number line to a comp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now