Talk:Base32: Difference between revisions
→Crockford's Base32: new section |
|||
Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
This does not seem a good idea. The two subjects, Base 32 and Base32 encoding, are very different. Merging the two would only result in replacing two clear and concise articles with a single long and confusing article. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/194.221.133.226|194.221.133.226]] ([[User talk:194.221.133.226|talk]]) 11:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
This does not seem a good idea. The two subjects, Base 32 and Base32 encoding, are very different. Merging the two would only result in replacing two clear and concise articles with a single long and confusing article. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/194.221.133.226|194.221.133.226]] ([[User talk:194.221.133.226|talk]]) 11:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
== Crockford's Base32 == |
|||
This is incredibly un-noteworthy original research, why is this even in here? Vote remove. |
Revision as of 22:59, 16 July 2013
Cyclic Redundancy Check (CRC) for a Base32 string
Just wondered if any CRC experts could provide some insight into what the best CRC scheme would be to check for errors in a user-inputted Base32 string. The algorithms listed under [Crc32] are optimised for checking for individual bit errors rather than errors on a 5-bit block (i.e. the user typed the wrong Base32 character). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.14.113.26 (talk) 00:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Finger counting
I have removed this recent addition from the article:
- Base32 can also be used for counting binary, and then each hand represents a digit. With one hand you can count to 31 and with two you can count to 1023. This is how I do it: Since it's hard to keep down the ring finger while having the little and middle finger up, I figured out that keeping them all down (except the thumb), and to indicate that one finger is down, you touch the pawn. The thumb is kept right up, apart from the hand and index finger, and to indicate it's down you touch the index finger.
If any other sources describe this as a procedure used by more people than the author, this may be relevant, though I think it would be more so at Binary. As it stands, unsourced, I don't think it belongs here.--Niels Ø 11:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- I do that, too! Of course that doesn't mean that it should be in the article; it's certainly WP:OR, and thus unfortunatly no material for Wikipedia. But since we're talking about it here, I'd like to relate my way of doing it: I rest my hand on a surface such as a table or my thigh. Thumb represents the lowest digit. Touching the surface means 1. I start counting with 0 by moving all fingers up. I use that method of counting when I'm analyzing music; it's amazing how many arrangements fit to the binary scheme - each finger corresponds to a certain level of change or repetition in the music. — Sebastian 19:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC) (I stopped watching this page. If you would like to continue the talk, please do so here and ping me.)
Triaconta-wha?
The part about the 32-sided polygon sounds like pure weapons-grade balonium to me. Anyone for killing it? --tcsetattr (talk / contribs) 21:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Tria-conta-kai means three-tens-and- and is used in poligon naming.
A Tria-conta-kai-digon is a poligon with 32 sides.
Instead I would say that Tria-conta-kai-decimal is wrong and means a base30 number. It should be: Tria-conta-kai-di-decimal. And a base 64 should be named: Hexa-conta-kai-tetra-decimal.
08:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Proposal for merging
In reality, the only interesting thing one can say about this base is its use in Base32. In my opinion, the article Base 32 should be "merge" to this article in accordance with Wikipedia:Notability (numbers). QQ (talk) 11:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- (Oppose) I have added base-32 numerals of Ngiti to meet the notability criteria. - TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 08:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- (Compromise?) Given the similarity of the names, and the differences in concept, perhaps a disambiguation reference would be in order. Mdin617 (talk) 21:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Response to Proposal for merging
This does not seem a good idea. The two subjects, Base 32 and Base32 encoding, are very different. Merging the two would only result in replacing two clear and concise articles with a single long and confusing article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.221.133.226 (talk) 11:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Crockford's Base32
This is incredibly un-noteworthy original research, why is this even in here? Vote remove.