On 8/12/07, Jared <jared@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:
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