Talk:Hexadecimal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Mathematics (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject Mathematics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mathematics 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.
Mathematics rating:
B Class
Mid Importance
 Field:  Basics
One of the 500 most frequently viewed mathematics articles.

Other characters used[edit]

NEC in the NEAC 1103 computer documentation from 1958, uses the term "sexadecimal" and the sequence 0123456789DGHJKV. See the brochure at http://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/text/NEC/NEC.1103.1958102646285.pdf. --(unsigned) 2007-07-18T04:08:21‎ 71.221.71.190

The article does not mention symbols 0, 1 and V. While 0 and 1 can be deducted, where can the V be derived from?
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 00:43, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Re "Verbal and digital representations" section[edit]

Could a caveat be added to the suggestion that "4D" could be mistaken for 'forty', pointing out that this is only true in North America? There is no confusion at all in the rest of the English-speaking world, which manages to pronounce a T as a T. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SP1R1TM4N (talkcontribs) 17:08, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

The claims in that paragraph are uncited and probably uncitable; I have trimmed them, and in particular removed the statement to which you (very reasonably) objected. --JBL (talk) 17:18, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
And they're probably incorect anyway. Spiritman is wrong about the pronunciation of medial /t/ in North America, which along with the rest of the English-speaking world uses an unaspirated voiceless consonant. In rapid speech that could be misheard as a /d/, and precisely because of that the speaker would normally use stress and tone to prevent confusion with "forty". -- Elphion (talk) 23:29, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Elphion, that is a ridiculous assertion to make. Please listen to more voices from the Anglophone world. For a start, many of us in England use a guttural stop in place of that T. And many (if not most) people in the US don't turn off voicing for the T, which makes it sound very similar to a D. SP1R1TM4N (talk) 01:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Which I guess means your claim that "the rest of the English-speaking world ... manages to pronounce a T as a T" is not quite true after all? But most Americans do use a voiceless stop. Phonetically it may not be quite the same stop you use, even if you use an alveolar stop. But there is enough distinction between /t/ and /d/ that the lyrics of Mairzy Doats are heard as nonsense, while their translation into actual spoken English is not. As you point out, the pronunciation of phonemes varies among dialectical populations. What I object to is your singling one population out for ridicule. -- Elphion (talk) 03:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
This discussion no longer appears to have anything to do with the article content. Perhaps, if you'd like to continue, you could do so somewhere else? Thanks. --JBL (talk) 15:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Origin of hexadecimal notation using ABCDEF[edit]

The article at present does not discuss the origin of the A-F symbols (for 10-15) at all, although prior versions attributed it to IBM somewhen in the 1950s. I think this is vital info for the article, so we should research and add this, ideally by nailing it down to a specific project and time, perhaps even to the inventor.

Having had only a cursory look so far, I have seen it being mentioned in IBM documents dated 1960, and I've seen third-party documents (dated decades later) attributing it to IBM. Has someone seen it in IBM documents of the 1950s (or earlier)? --Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

[I found this comment in an old thread in the talk page archive:]
IBM certainly was not the first to use A-F. Such was in use from the late 1940's through the late 1950's at MIT's Wirlwind Project - a 16 bit binary computer - I joined the project in 1952.
[...]
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kp2a (talkcontribs) 16:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
However, I've gone through a few Whirlwind I documents at Bitsavers and could not find this notation being mentioned there so far. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed numerical symbols.[edit]

I have removed the addition (twice) because:

  1. There is no hint of any evidence that this proposal was widely accepted (to date) (WP:UNDUE).
  2. It refers to the original research of the author in question.
  3. It is a very recent proposal by the author which to date does not seem to have attracted any outside attention (WP:MADEUP).

Kleuske (talk) 11:00, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm just curios about actual rules of regular editors. When I tried to describe proposal few years ago, it was rejected on "23:34, 3 May 2015‎" with comment "..Reverted good faith edits by Valdisvi: Someone's personal blog is not a reliable source. While this might, in the future, be of historical interest, at least Martin has a ref.."

When we get it publicised in peer reviewed journal it is still not enough, even though I don't see big difference from proposal of Bruce Alan Martin (except it was long time ago and that our proposal is much more practical). Is wikipedia source of all knowledge, or just source of history and old ideas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valdis.vitolins (talkcontribs) 15:02, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually, it does seem (to me) on a par with the proposal of Bruce Alan Martin. I think we should list both or neither. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:13, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree. Without any sourced notable use of Martin's proposal, it should go. Same applies to the Valdis' proposal. --A D Monroe III (talk) 16:52, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
The Martin proposal is from 1968 and is very reasonable in the history section as it is likely that using A–F was considered ridiculous by others at the time. There only needs to be one example of a proposal, namely the 1968 effort—it shows the general idea of using new symbols. A new proposal should not be added unless secondary reliable sources (independent of the authors) publish opinions on the proposal. Mentioning a new proposal that may be useful or which may never generate interest is not the purpose of an encyclopedic article. Johnuniq (talk) 05:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
This journal (IJCSET) is not reviewed, and not even indexed, by MathSciNet. This is a strong indication that it is not a reliable publication. Moreover, both authors of the article proposed (Cumings and Vitolins) are credited with zero publication by MathSciNet. It is not the role of wikipedia to offer notoriety to mathematicians and their ideas before they are recognized by the mathematical community. But I also agree with Arthur Rubin: The Martin proposal is not much better from this standpoint, as Comm. ACM (in which his proposal was published in 1968 in a letter to the Editor) is no longer indexed by MathSciNet since 1992, and as Bruce Martin is also credited with zero publication by MathSciNet. I thus think the mention of his proposal should also be suppressed. The argument proposed for keeping it, « it is likely that using A-F was considered ridiculous by others at the time » is pure speculation and supported by no source. Sapphorain (talk) 19:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Sure, I'm speculating—but I'm only speculating about whether the mention is WP:DUE, and due boils down to a matter of opinion. There is no speculation that there was at least a minor objection raised against ABCDEF in the early days. Johnuniq (talk) 22:27, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Martin's intervention would definitely need a secondary source mentioning it in order to be kept; I suppressed the reference to Vitolins's blog, which is not an appropriate reference. Sapphorain (talk) 10:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
If we can't find sources for a competing proposals being actually used (or at least more widely debated), I'd be good with leaving a general statement along the lines of "other proposals were made, but didn't catch on", and even giving Martin's proposal as a source for this without including it in the main text. But if we instead just take out the whole thing, I wouldn't complain. --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)