From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Cyclic Redundancy Check (CRC) for a Base32 string[edit]

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 (talk) 00:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

A n-bit CRC will detect any single error burst not longer than n bits. So if you have some arbitrary bits, append 32 bits of CRC32 to the end, and then encode the resulting packet with base32, the receiver is guaranteed to detect that an error occurred as long as there are at most 4 characters between the first wrong Base32 and the last wrong Base32 digit. (More than that, and the CRC detects most errors, but not all).

Reed–Solomon error correction is an algorithm optimized for checking for symbol errors -- such as typing the wrong Base32 character. If multiple bits in a Reed-Solomon symbol are corrupted, it only counts as a single error. The number of check symbols C is a design parameter. If the locations of the errors are not known in advance, then a Reed-Solomon code can correct up to C/2 mistyped characters. A Base32 Reed-Solomon encoder would send data as encoded blocks of up to 31 Base32 symbols per block. For example, if you choose C = 8 check digits, you can send up to 23 characters of arbitrary data followed by 8 Reed-Solomon check digits per block, and the receiver could not only detect but also automatically correct up to 4 mistyped digits anywhere in the block. And the receiver is guaranteed to detect that an error occurred as long as there are at most 8 errors anywhere in the block. (More than that, and a Reed-Solomon receiver detects most errors, but not all). --DavidCary (talk) 05:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Finger counting[edit]

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 as of 04:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC). If you would like to continue the talk, please do so here and let me know.)


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[edit]

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[edit]

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 (talk) 11:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Crockford's Base32[edit]

This is incredibly un-noteworthy original research, why is this even in here? Vote remove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Crockford's Base32 has a few sources cited in this article, so it appears to meet the Wikipedia:Notability definition, and does not appear as the kind of "original research" described by Wikipedia:No original research. --DavidCary (talk) 05:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
This does indeed not look like original research, but I think some sources describing where it is used could be useful. Currently there is only a link to Crockford's website describing the system. (There used to be a few more links describing implementations for several platforms, but they were removed; anyway I don't think these references did prove notability.) —Cousteau (talk) 15:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Closest encoding relation[edit]

"Its closest encoding relation is Base30 that is used by the Natural Area Code." What does this even mean? In what sense is base 32 closely related to base 30? Is it just because 30 is close to 32? 31 and 33 are closer. Do they not could because they're not commonly used? So, what if 30 is close to 32 in terms of the difference between them? Isn't it more important to consider the factors? 30 = 2 × 3 × 5 but 32 = 25 thus base 2, base 4, base 8, base 16, base 64, base 128, etc. are more closely related than base 30. Jimp 01:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Looking at Natural Area Code, I think it's because they both assign a custom combination of letters and numbers to their numerical ranges and they both exclude characters that could be confused with each other. What differentiates these two from other bases like base-31 and base-33 is that they are encodings; base-16 (hexadecimal) just indiscriminately converts to a different radix. Of course you could argue its more analogous to Base64, but that has some extra rules related to padding that the former two don't have and also includes the full alphabet. "Closest to" is a subjective phrase anyway. Opencooper (talk) 11:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps that could be explained in the article. I'm not about to try explain it, I'm not familiar with these encoding systems. Jimp 06:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, considering that it's the second sentence in the lead a reader might assume the comparison is important. I think a general "Comparison to other encodings" subsection might be appropriate considering what we mentioned. The lead needs attention in general to better summarize the article points as well as the rest of the article considering half of it is on alternative versions. (I might not get to it personally though) Opencooper (talk) 10:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Base32. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:06, 27 October 2016 (UTC)