Maybe 128-bit Firefox will be Earthfox
and 256-bit Firefox will be Airfox. [whenever we get 256-bit systems]
I want to see ternary systems. I’d be satisfied with hybrid digital/analog solution. [keep the damn 0/1 but use the extra available dimension for the “/” part]
I have a ‘thing’ against 5s but I’ll happily jump up to a hept/sept  logic.
It’s too balanced. The 0 has no “direction”.
It’s just -0+
To m, if you’re going to do it that way, use -2, -1, -0, +0, +1, +2
Placeholder for “direction it came from”… or direction it’s going.
It’s part of one of my long time critiques about the number system.
Hm. Don’t know honestly. I just know flip/flop is awesome but not enough.
I also don’t think quantum CPUs are the right direction. GPUs which can natively transform 3D matrix calculations are a good direction however. They just have to stop melting the solder connections all of the time.
Let’s see if it shows up: The ‘gist’ of the problem, from my limited understanding of it, is that direction matters.
x*y isn’t the same as y*x.
There *is* something fascinating that’s coming to mind regarding trying to go beyond quadratic equations and why it’s impossible to have … oh here it is: Quintric equations:
If I was REALLY into math, which I’m not — just a curousity about curiosities, I might get into these more.
It’s one of those places where, in my mind, “math breaks”. This _should_ make it interesting to me but I’d rather focus on the analog/digital divide, going from 2 to 3 dimensions, rather than trying to go from the 4s to 5s : that shit’s beyond me.
so, I don’t like 5s. I like 7s though. I like some of the weird properties of 7s in how they relate to 2D vs 3D : For example, you can’t make a perfect septagon (or is it heptagon?) on paper. Can’t be done.
If you make a heptagon on paper and fold the parts together, you can’t make it perfectly flat. You just can’t. There’s always a leftover bit that “bumps” up into the 3rd dimension.
So to me it’s one of those “crossover” things where one dimension is forced to infiltrate the dimension above.
If I remember right, the impossibility has more to do with what happens when you divide by 7, which would affect robots and/or humans equally.
Here’s an example I threw together in Excel. In each fraction, you’re gonna end up with nothing breaking evenly. The decimal equivalent of the x/7 just keeps going and going and going and going….
So if you draw a figure with 7 even parts on paper, or on a computer, or have a ROBOT do it, if you try to fold the 7 parts over each other so that there’s a single triangle, it’s going to fail.
The sizes will be different.
If you MAKE the sizes exactly the same, you’re going to end up with an extra triangle of paper left over, sticking up.
7ths just don’t belong in a decimal system. They also don’t belong on a 2D piece of paper.
But I’d hang out with him whenever I could, and he’s prattle off tales of the number and I’d listen. I don’t remember much of it but he had a lot of stories.