**From:** Cristian Secarã (*orice@secarica.ro*)

**Date:** Mon Oct 11 2004 - 00:11:25 CST

**Previous message:**Doug Ewell: "Re: bit notation in ISO-8859-x is wrong"**Maybe in reply to:**Cristian Secarã: "bit notation in ISO-8859-x is wrong"**Next in thread:**Doug Ewell: "Re: bit notation in ISO-8859-x is wrong"**Reply:**Doug Ewell: "Re: bit notation in ISO-8859-x is wrong"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]**Mail actions:**[ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 02:22:46 +0000, James Kass wrote:

*> Most people begin counting with one, although in the recent
*

*> past some computer technicians have begun to begin counting
*

*> with zero.
*

There is serious reason for that: when it comes to exponent of 2,

counting from zero makes sense, as the first bit (b0) value calculation

is

2^0=1, the second bit (b1) value calculation is 2^1=2, ..., the eight

bit

(b7) value calculation is 2^7=128.

This is for 8 bit, but the same apply for 16 etc. number of bits (the

same apply to Unicode characters in binary representation).

Cristi

**Next message:**Doug Ewell: "Re: bit notation in ISO-8859-x is wrong"**Previous message:**Doug Ewell: "Re: bit notation in ISO-8859-x is wrong"**Maybe in reply to:**Cristian Secarã: "bit notation in ISO-8859-x is wrong"**Next in thread:**Doug Ewell: "Re: bit notation in ISO-8859-x is wrong"**Reply:**Doug Ewell: "Re: bit notation in ISO-8859-x is wrong"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]**Mail actions:**[ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5
: Mon Oct 11 2004 - 00:11:41 CST
*