# Re: Re: 32'nd bit & UTF-8

From: Clark Cox (clarkcox3@gmail.com)
Date: Tue Jan 18 2005 - 17:17:25 CST

• Next message: Mark E. Shoulson: "Re: 32'nd bit & UTF-8"

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 23:16:31 +0100 (CET), Philippe VERDY
> > If one should philosophize on the question of general multi-byte encodings
> > (or rather "transformation formats"), then UTF-BSS uses a leading byte the
> > number of bytes displayed in a unary number format, numbers of base 1. In
> > fact, in a computer, it is more efficient to use binary numbers :-), so I
> > would probably put a binary number there for instead. One could still use
> > the unary number idea in order to indicate the length of the binary numbers.
>
> If I want to philosophe, the only UNARY number that exists is ZERO.
> Unary number(s!) is not making an arithmetic.
> I suppose you meant BINARY throughout... because numbers of base 1 DON'T EXIST!
>
> (just ask yourself what is the definition of a base for numbers, and think about powers of this base to scale each digit: 1^n equals 1 for scaling every digit position n, so all digits scale by the same factor. To be a unique representation of numbers in that system, the only satisfying integer is zero...)

One could argue that tally marks are a unary numbering system :) Each
digit has a value of 1:

1 = 1
2 = 11
3 = 111
4 = 1111
5 = 11111
6 = 111111
7 = 1111111

```--
Clark S. Cox III
clarkcox3@gmail.com
http://www.livejournal.com/users/clarkcox3/
http://homepage.mac.com/clarkcox3/
```

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jan 18 2005 - 17:22:53 CST