On 8/12/07, Jared [email protected] 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.