# werty's new number notation ?

#### Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary

Translate This Thread From English to

•  Subject
• Author
• Posted on
Conventionly we have the 10 'ascii' digits possibly mapped into a [I think]
5 * 7 'image matrix' - the '0 to 9' character renderings.

For machine code programming of a 16 bit CPU, it is much more intuitive
to have the number, hex in this case, mapped to a 4 * 4 'image'.

So. eg. 13=hex0D would be rendered in it's 4 * 4 'image' as:
[13=8+5=8+4+1=##0# : pixel on/off = #/0]
0000
0000
0000
##0#
And the following char, which looks a bit like a "Z"
####      > 256 * 16
00#0      > 256
0#00      > 16
####      > 1
represents the number: (8+4+2+1)*256*16+2*256+4*16+15 =  ?
Wow !  I don't find my calculator !
= hexF24F

I've chosen to give the MSbit first [top-posters are screwed here!].

So if the "Z" looking image represents the number %F24F, then
perhaps 'ADD %F24F ...' could be displayed as "+Z..." ?
And you could see the individual bits change the "Z", another image.

IMO the concepts which werty is selling are similar to the
abacus, which more DIRECTLY represents eg. "7 - 5 = 2",
than 'our way of going via the 'symbols': "7", "5", "2", "-","=".

werty correctly realises that skipping the extra stage of
translating concepts to text has great advantages, when
communicating with a CPU-systems.

Of course we still need the text, in our case ascii, to
communicate with humans  - because of convention.

== Chris Glur.

Re: werty's new number notation ?

That's a great idea indeed, but let me enhance it a little. How
about 8x8 images with 8-bit of color information per pixel, allowing
for many more images. In fact the total number of unique images
is 2^2048, that's more than enough to associate each atom in the
universe with an image and still have enough room for any parallel
universes we haven't discovered yet!

And why not give everybody on our planet a unique image, dispensing
with passports, social security numbers, barcodes etc! Basically we
replace everything with an image! Programming would be a breeze as
each image encodes up to 64 instructions! This means you can't make
any mistakes any more - you instantly notice there is something
wrong in an image!

But let me try out something really far out futuristic... How about
associating some of the useless images with the sounds that we
can make with our throats? Perhaps use images that can be easily
written with a few twists of your wrist. That way we can see an image,
immediately know what sound it represents, and quickly write it all in
one go! I call this new concept an "alphabet". It's just a dream, but I
know I can patent it (in the US anyway). Imagine the possibilities...

Wilco (in qwerty mode)

Re: werty's new number notation ?

This mode of communication must be catching, because your werty-
inspired idea is simply an unusable extension to Braille. Both you and
werty suffer from unfettered imaginations (that's good) untempered by
even a little research and contemplation before hitting the keyboard

Of course you're right there; so, if I'm actually communicating with a
human, read this the conventional way.

*plonk*

--
Alex McDonald

Re: werty's new number notation ?

--snip--

No. UI must be based on human attributes.
Because of the '5 plus or minus 2 rule', the hex system has already
proven to be optimum.  Human minds can much more easily
handle 4 'items' than 8.

Although colour is great for adding info, the OP's context was/is
a minimalist hand-held device. So colour is not cost effective.
--snip--

That works fantastically, since the body movements soon become
a reflex, giving fast efficient input.  Perhaps in future eye movements
will be used. But OP is considering present hardware, just freed from
commercially derived mental constraints.

Alex McDonald wrote:

We aren't talking about what's "catching".
We know that currently the herd is following Micro\$hit.
I've used M\$ and currently linux which has better inet connectivety
than my prefered OS, but the herd hasn't used [to be qualified to
evaluate and reject] my less conventional prefered OS.

Yes Braille confirms it, but less so than the abacus.

A key element of brain-storming is to not be limited by any research.

werty wrote:

Well we are mutually communicating now ?
--snip--

If you are writing 'fragments': sequences of asm-instructions;
they must be based on a higher-level model/concept.
Eg. the standard forth primitives were based on [or evolved
from] a stack-machine model.

Similarly the [some 68] p-code instructions which I ported
as minimalist Pascal to several MCUs, was based on the P-code,
stack machine.

I suppose you CAN just start, without a higher model/plan to
code in hex/asm, and hope to be able to later factor the code
into primitives; which can be forth-like-threaded as it evolves ?

an assembler was available.

Now I want to go to the other extreme: no selecting keys
to type near English notes to the-little-man-in-the-box.
Just selecting 'constructs' from a syntax directed menu.
Of couse the Luddite herd, who are always just following
this month's flavour, say it can't be done.

== Chris Glur.

Re: werty's new number notation ?

And Forth is an appealing language for defining the
language that is used to define new entries in the
menu. Indeed, if the language used to define new
entries is well designed, there could easily be no
need to type notes to the little-man-in-the-box
at all ... the system can generate and store those
notes, and the only time it becomes necessary to
look at the contents of the notes is when the system
is not behaving as desired.

Re: werty's new number notation ?

Having trouble seeing the tongue for the cheek? ;)

Robert

--

Re: werty's new number notation ?
Hi,

No, no, no. Hex is not the optimum. Historically proven is that people
tend to use a decimal system or something on base 12 or 20. Base 20 is
my favourite btw....

What for the messures of a minimum would you like to have in your
hands? We dont talk about what Werty was able to buy in his prefered
hardware shop ;)

That result of research is not really usable in a brain-storming. I
would like to see research results too - since otherwise we'll always
have to reinvent the wheel. That would not be that cost efficient as
needed. So you should not make another limitation to what is good
inside a "brain-storming" ;)

In my first computer there was a BASIC and I wrote a FORTH based on it
(or better: based on parts of it) ;) This was comfortable these days.

-Helmar

Re: werty's new number notation ?

Chris Glur.
--------------------------------------

No i will do it different .

I will bypass the assembler .
I will not write a

"one for one"   Prim' to OopCode
assembler ,

I will start by creating Primatives that are not one

for one with Op Codes .

This quickly tunnels the  need to learn / memorize the

unintuitive gotchas  of the Op Codes .

Notice Forth HAS a built in assembler , which

is merely bait .

I wont do the bait , i will give the Primatives , that

are very intuitive and powerful .

It will be a competition to see who can improve
these Primatives ...
----------------------------

Building a state machine can show the methods

of modern Forth .

Clever S'M' 's have 3 , low cost SRAMs .

The first has the Primatives , the 2nd has the

Jump tables , the 3rd has the

higher level Jump Tables .

of the 2nd SRAM , but 2nd SRAM has a counter
driving 2nd SRAMs lowest address lines .

And same for the 2nd to the 1st SRAM .

1st SRAM is "started" or jumped to a place
then 1st SRAMs "asyncronous" , built in
Address registers "burst" 4 OpCodes .
Address register is merely a up counter ,
that counts to 4 , wraps around , then waits
for the next address from the 2nd SRAM .
When 2nd SRAM finishes one of its jump table ,

, its time for the  3rd SRAM .

Its the way Forth executes ...

Dont worry about conditional branches yet .

Attach this SM to a tiny mcu , and let it boot

the mcu .

You can learn ARM opcodes and how they work
together , without cracking a book .

But you will NOT be able to explain what you learned.
Because as you learn the Op Codes , you will not want
to waste time , passing this to the Left Cerebral cortex
for translation , into English .
It will go directly into the Right C'C' .

Re: werty's new number notation ?

Chris Glur.

Re: werty's new number notation ?

I dont think one can create on meds nor

drugs , because its not accidental imagination

its hard work , mental control of what is

imagined .

I have 40 years of programming computers

and i hate asides .  If it is not simple and

straight forward , needs no Doc's ( sorry Elizabeth)

then i have no place for it .

All the s/w you see , study /disassemble today

is an aside ,  everything .

The fastest way is to do it yourself , with min'

hardware that expands to megabytes of RAM .

Then Apps like    ____.JPG and __.MP3

will NOT be studied nor copied .

There is a much  faster way , than goin to

college and studing computer science .