Talk:Alphanumericals

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Alphanumericals article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Count

Done

"There are either 36 (single case) or 62 (case-sensitive) alphanumeric characters." Shouldn't it be 72? --80.129.12.123 11:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 22:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it shouldn't 36 is a number of letters plus digits. When you add up another 26 of Upper Case for letters you are getting 62. Digits are not case sensitive.202.92.40.4 03:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

L10n and I18n?

What about accented characters, ñ, ç, to avoid speaking of ideograms, arabic, etc.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.69.29.49 (talk) 18:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Base 36? Base 64?

"Alphanumeric data can be stored even more compactly in computer systems if the storage medium is calculated in base 36, where each numerical position represents a character. Storing characters in base 36 and base 64 (6 bits per character) is more memory efficient for storing text-only data than base 2 ASCII (using 8 or 7 bits for each character)."

This makes no sense. True, characters CAN be stored in 6 bits (only 62 characters possible, and 64 values available in 6 bits). And true, this is more memory efficient than storing in ASCII (7 or 8 bits per character).

However, that has NOTHING to do with anything "base 36" or "base 64". Bits are by their very nature base 2. If it is stored in bits, it is a base 2 representation of something. "6 bits" are base 2. ASCII is stored in base 2. A sequence of bits can represent a base 36 value or a base 10 value or an ASCII value, but it is still stored in base 2. Whomever wrote this entry seems to have no idea what these terms actually mean. I'm a little surprised that this has stayed on the page for so long.

This paragraph is factually wrong and contributes nothing that isn't explained better in the paragraph that precedes it. Removed.

(Additionally, I'm re-adding the content lost in the February vandalism. Please UNDO vandalism, don't just delete it) 146.187.130.125 (talk) 01:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the word 'radix' would be more appropriate than 'base'. 192.122.237.11 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge alphanumeric code

Somebody suggested that alphanumeric code be merged with this article. That sounds like a good idea to me; it could go under "Computing" in a subsection. — SkyLined (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]