FPGA

[Eric Johnson]

On 8/12/07, Jared <jared at hatwhite.com> wrote:
> David Nicol wrote:

> Notice that in all three of your examples to achieve true
> randomness, you are utilizing an analog-to-digital conversion.
> (i.e. you are capturing a random pattern occurring in the
> Real World with digital annotation). Note also that ternary
> logic handles analog-to-digital conversion much more efficiently
> than binary. This is empirically true, and demonstrated
> mathematically here:
>
> http://www.trinary.cc/Tutorial/Interface/Analog.htm

I hate to get involved in what looks like it could become a perfectly
good flame war, but I looked at your link.

By the same logic, we would be much better off using a decimal
computer. It takes 15 trits to write 143, but I could write 999 in
just 3 decimal bits (dits?)

I don't think you're going to get a lot of argument that the higher
the base the fewer digits it takes to represent a number. That does
not, however, make it a more efficient design for anything other than
printing. I frequently write values in hex when programming or
documenting things for the same reason.

-- 

Eric Johnson

"Where your pleasure is, there is your treasure: where your treasure,
there your heart; where your heart, there your happiness."
Saint Augustine