Start New Discussion within our Hardware and Software Community

I'm going to build some radically different computer components soon. (could be a few years). My theory is that ternary computers are infintely better than binary and will last longer, and make our computing lives much happier and efficient.

true ternary computers don't process the zero. It's not a digit that counts. It's a node that can either put the computer in another MODE, or move on to another line of code, etc. You get the point. They don't process zero, so zero is not actually read,the components will simply electrically respond by going to the next number, while at the same time understanding what the zero state of the transistor meant. But it's automatic instead of processed. So we have a 0 (which is UNDERSTOOD but is NOT read/processed) a 1, 2 and 3.

1 stands for 3. 2 stands for 6. 3 stands for 12. This is the base multiplication of a true ternary computer. This is how it will do math. It will save time and energy and will be CONSIDERABLY easier to code for. We just have to let go of our napoleon 10 based craptastic math. For multiplication in the universal sense doesn't understand a 0.333333333forever. It understands the concept of zero, which is relative and simply means "without a certain object/item". Then it understands that one whole object at it's base is 3, and to multiply that it's 6, and for 6 it's 12. We say base of 3, because that is literally how everything in the universe works.

So this is how 3 works. You have 3 fundamental particles. Protons, electron, and neutrons. Each of them have 3 quarks. If any of them only had 2, for instance, they'd be thrown off balance. The spinning nature of 2 points would exhaust itself. Try it with a stick. Somehow try to make the stick spin at a constant rate. Measure the vibrations and wind speed, and weight distribution, you will see that in order for it to continue spinning at a constant rate, it needs to use more energy than a triangular object would, which actually means the spin rate changes too much for it to be of economical use. This is why you generally see fans having at least 3 blades :). They simply last longer.

So if we are to use a base of 3, it's easy to understand that you need to properly MULTIPLY 3, without ever losing it's properties. THat means you can't multiply 3 and 3 and get 9. 9 is half of six being multiplied by 2. Let me try to explain that further because I'm using base 3 multiplication to explain it. 6 x 2 = 12. But split the MULTIPLICATION OF SIX (6x2) in HALF and you get 9. Get it? You can certainly represent 9 with a ternary computer, but our brains (the universe) and the ternary computer should and will be looking for the missing 3. Ok. so that's that.

As much as I hate taking dreams apart peice by peice, I feel like I need to serve the truth.

My theory is that ternary computers are infintely better than binary and will last longer

Scientists would back it up, and would not use the phrase "infinetly better". So the first thing I would recommend is learning about scientific method, and how to read/write formal papers. Otherwise, no one would take you seriously (rather, this was the first hint that you lack the rigorous study required). In fact, the first step would to be write a formal academnic paper, and publish it to be critisized.

true ternary computers don't process the zero. It's not a digit that counts. It's a node that can either put the computer in another MODE, or move on to another line of code, etc.

I would suggest you pick up a book on computer design (I've used Digital Design and Computer Architexture by Harris and Harris). I feel like you're minsinformed about how computers work. In particular, you seem to be confused about the idea of information context. It will also shed light as to why modal bits are a bad idea.

For example, in binary, what does 0x6689D8 mean? You can interpret it as the base 10 number 6719960 for example. Or it could be interpreted as -1668648. Or prehaps even an ieee 754 half-precision number. Or, in x86 assembly, it could also mean mov ax, bx. How does the computer know which one to choose? By using context (ie, how code interacts with it). You are suggesting that you should use this extra radix of information to introcude a context-free system. The problem with that is that it does not improve on the much simpler context system, and infact complicates a lot of other things (like representing 0 for example would require extra care in the circuitry, making things like addition use about 2-3x as many gates).

1 stands for 3. 2 stands for 6. 3 stands for 12. This is the base multiplication of a true ternary computer. This is how it will do math.

We know how base systems work, thanks. Your discribing it in a very awkward way however, that doesn't even seem to be implying the correct idea.

They don't process zero, so zero is not actually read,the components will simply electrically respond by going to the next number, while at the same time understanding what the zero state of the transistor meant. But it's automatic instead of processed.

That's contradictory. Again, I would suggest studying how this problem was solved using context. I doesn't make sense to say it is proccessed yet it isn't. If it's ever read in, it's proccessed. Also, you seem to be confusing design with implementation.

It will save time and energy and will be CONSIDERABLY easier to code for

Actually, it won't. Compilers will hide however the computers do math away from us. They do such a good job that they seemed to have fooled you. Also, you can't just say 'it makes things easier because', and not explain why it makes things easier.

We just have to let go of our napoleon 10 based craptastic math.

Base systems are just how we write it down. The base does not effect the math itself. Furthermore, why is base 10 "craptastic"? And I hope you relise that computers use base 2. Compilers can hide it away from you (so much so, that it seemed to confuse you), but all operation are computed using base 2. And it doesn't even matter if a programming language accepts base 10, base 16. base 18, base 2 or even base 3. They're all completly equivalent.

I would suggest you considering studying some more math.

For multiplication in the universal sense doesn't understand a 0.333333333forever.

This is why you use context. With proper context, you can represent irrational numbers with exact accuracy.

We say base of 3, because that is literally how everything in the universe works.

Where'd you pull that from? Again, the base is irrelevant for storing information, and the universe is far from representing "everything" in base 3.

(attempt as physics)

Yes, there are some things in the universe that are observed to be composed of three things. That has nothing to do with anything however. You can make an argument for something even more fundamental, like the four forces of nature. It's also important to note that mathematics runs independantly of the universe.

This is why you generally see fans having at least 3 blades :). They simply last longer.

Where is your evidence? No, that doesn't make any sense at all. Using that logic, I could ask why to planes with props have 2 blades. You need to use much more rigour in your arguments.

So if we are to use a base of 3, it's easy to understand that you need to properly MULTIPLY 3, without ever losing it's properties. THat means you can't multiply 3 and 3 and get 9. 9 is half of six being multiplied by 2. Let me try to explain that further because I'm using base 3 multiplication to explain it. 6 x 2 = 12. But split the MULTIPLICATION OF SIX (6x2) in HALF and you get 9. Get it?

Why are you making it so complicated? If base 3 was practical, why not, you know, use regular base 3?

but our brains (the universe) and the ternary computer should and will be looking for the missing 3.

Wha? Where is this comming from?

Taking this further, maybe it will help to explain why we use base 2. It's becasue we can represent it as "current" and "no current" using semiconductors. I suppose you could try to use "current" "some current" and "no current" to represent base 3, but then how would the physics of the transistors work? You would need to measue the current at each step and add some logic to is, which isn't easy to do. You would easlu increase the size of all of the transisters by 1000 times, not to mention make it slower. Base 2 on the other hand, we know we can work with on the level of a few hydrogen atoms in diameter.

As much as I hate taking dreams apart peice by peice, I feel like I need to serve the truth.

By all means, don't.

Scientists would back it up, and would not use the phrase "infinetly better". So the first thing I would recommend is learning about scientific method, and how to read/write formal papers. Otherwise, no one would take you seriously (rather, this was the first hint that you lack the rigorous study required). In fact, the first step would to be write a formal academnic paper, and publish it to be critisized.

I could care less what the majority of scientists think, seeing as they cater to a global agenda to dissent from truth and hide the fact that black holes and the big bang theory is just a scam to scare the crap out of people so they can be controlled. I do not think the earth is flat, therefore in the modern day science world, I shouldn't have to think that when some stars explode they magically form an infinitely dense black hole out of nothing, which is impossible as the matter would simply cave in on itself and be forced back out. That's the law of physics my friend. What you give, you get back. Even steven hawkings admits to this.

I would suggest you pick up a book on computer design (I've used Digital Design and Computer Architexture by Harris and Harris). I feel like you're minsinformed about how computers work. In particular, you seem to be confused about the idea of information context. It will also shed light as to why modal bits are a bad idea.

Computers do in fact process a zero. They are not read so much as they are processed, but nonetheless, there is more electrical power going through a modern day x86 cpu when glossing over a zero than there needs to be. The problem is they WAIT to see what the next digit is going to be, whether it's a 0 or 1 which is a waste of time. That's a fact. In fact, if it didn't process the zero in some way, we'd have a 1 digit computer (with a zero state). If they already did it my way, that would have already paved the way for better computers. We simply don't have them because the industry is controlled by evil monsters such as Intel and AMD. They aren't going to allow you to have it better. I'll look at your book and I gaurantee I'm right on how modern CPUs function. Unfortunately for you, you don't use common sense or logic, rather your academic snobbery.

You are suggesting that you should use this extra radix of information to introcude a context-free system

Yes that is what I'm suggesting. It's hard to explain it because I don't want to have super long posts. But the zero in my computer would not be processed but will act as a switching node that is automatic. You know what happens when you hook a lightbulb into a socket when the light switch is already on? The lightbulb lights up... let's leave that switch on instead of turning it off, and then walking back to the switch to turn it back on after we've installed it. We don't need to go back and forth like an intel cpu when it processes zeros.

We know how base systems work, thanks. Your discribing it in a very awkward way however, that doesn't even seem to be implying the correct idea.

It's simple. You have the concept of zero, which is a relative concept... that relates to the absence of a certain object. The universe works on a base of 3 at it's fundamental level. Therefore it understands Three as a base unit, a mirror image of that which is six, and a mirror image of that which is twelve. A triangle is the strongest structure we can build, unless of course you build a half dome instead, but that's not necessary. Polygons are made with triangles because triangles are the lowest common denominator for processing shapes. There are 3 fundamental particles, each with 3 quarks. 3 colors for any color scale to make any other color out of. We use red, green and blue. But you can use another color scale. But it has to be three colors.... each equally mathematically removed from each other as RGB are.

That's contradictory. Again, I would suggest studying how this problem was solved using context. I doesn't make sense to say it is proccessed yet it isn't. If it's ever read in, it's proccessed. Also, you seem to be confusing design with implementation.

The computer would be designed to automatically do something with the zero without checking that there is a zero. It's hard to explain. It's more hard coded. THe true ternary cpu "senses" a zero but it's designed to automatically go to the next number. But it doesn't process any zero. Zero is actually the only open state because it's interchangeable. Open means interchangeable. It's a node.

Actually, it won't. Compilers will hide however the computers do math away from us. They do such a good job that they seemed to have fooled you. Also, you can't just say 'it makes things easier because', and not explain why it makes things easier.

Lol no it won't. You still have to "compile" the zero, but once it's compiled it's never read again in a true ternary computer. It has to read it as it's being compiled because it need to know how to encode the program. But after that it's over with. After all, I'm not adding hardware support for your language. Like a traditional computer, the computer's hardware will only understand digits at it's base. So it mimics quantum mechanics, in that it's math processing is based on 3. remember that a true ternary computer has 3 digits + the concept of zero (nothing). SO that's a 0, 1, 2 and 3. Zero is a switching node...

Base systems are just how we write it down. The base does not effect the math itself.

Yes it does. 10 is completely abitrary. What's 1/3rd of 10? You can't write that down, now can you? You could say what's 1/3rd of 12 and I'd tell you it's 3, not 4, in TRUE 3-base (12 being full circle) math. And don't tell me "well this is the symbol for infinite". And 3 based (12 full circle) math does not need symbols. You ask it a question (math problem) and it tells you a simple, raw, full number with no bullshit.

Let me make it easier for you. Men and women are separate sexes. But in order for them to procreate, we count one man and one woman having a sexual encounter to bear children as ONE UNIT. So the male/female factor TOGETHER counts as ONE because without both sexes present, procreation is impossible. The act of sex is what creates children, so we can only count the act of sex between a man and a woman as ONE (even though they're 2 distcint people). But we're counting what is capable of multiplying. We cannot count the man without the woman present in the context of human multiplication/procreation. So together they are ONE in this example. But what is wrong with that multiplication? Nothing except that they can't bear children... with their own children. That's like using a battery to run an alternator to charge the same battery. It doesn't work. Humans are composed of energy, and much like a battery's energy it's not perpetual. So we need different energies to "recharge" or in human terms, procreate. We need different genes and variety.

However, it's entirely possible that 3 units of male/female can populate an entire civilization. The genes should be far enough removed that it shouldn't be a problem. Like the undeniable and infintely expanding red, green and blue hues of our 3-based color system, a 3 based male/female paradigrm can also infinitely expand into an entire nation.

This my friend is why 3 based math is NOT arbitrary, but in fact necessary to avoid conflicting and confusing sums.

This is why you use context. With proper context, you can represent irrational numbers with exact accuracy.

No you can't. Because accurate determines absolute and whole. An infinitely run on 0.33333333333forever is not accurate because it's not a real number. You can't stop it. It's never a whole number, therefore it cannot be accurate because you cannot divide 10 by a third. It's not possible. It will never be right. Dividing something by a third, means there are three EQUAL thirds. But you can't have them equal, as there is no way to "infinitely" divide a third from 10. Try it on 10 bread sticks. You can't do it.

Yes, there are some things in the universe that are observed to be composed of three things. That has nothing to do with anything however. You can make an argument for something even more fundamental, like the four forces of nature. It's also important to note that mathematics runs independantly of the universe.

I like how you purposely left out my quantum example and refuse any attempt at rebuttal of it. There is no "four forces" of nature. Again, most of what we think we know is arbitrary. ALso, just becuase i challenge the status quo doesn't mean i'm wrong. So did all those people who thought the earth was round. THOSE FOOLS.

There are 12 notes in a musical octave. But how do we understand music theory? 3 notes per chord (the basic ones), 3 chords per key, 3 keys per song. That's 3, 3, 3. And all of them together literally uses all 12 notes, but not all at once. Let me explain the 3 note per chord thing. You'll probably say "well what about the dorian shape?" What about it? It's not a basic chord shape. It's a transitional shape because it's basically 2 chords in one. They are not mathematical, it's a transitional effect, nothing more. It may sound interesting, but it's kinda like how on the radio when one good song ends at the same time another good song beings. It's an interesting effect, but it's not a basic principle of music.

Western philosophy TRIES to dictate there are 7 notes. But there are 12 lol. Why would you continue to halve the notes just to have 7 notations? It makes absolutely no sense. I can remember 12 just as much as I can remember 3, because 3, 6, 12. Get it? The number 7 is a useless number in nature and is not found anywhere but the bible and other horseraddish. It's completely arbitrary and contains no possible structural integrity, even though you COULD build something with 7 sides. I can build a house out of paper plates that have been dipped in epoxy. But it wouldn't be structurally sound. Lucky seven comes from pagan and christian quackery.

Where is your evidence? No, that doesn't make any sense at all. Using that logic, I could ask why to planes with props have 2 blades. You need to use much more rigour in your arguments.

Hmm you know something that's a good question. Why do they have 2 blades when 3 would be necessary to properly balance the vibrations coming from the engines... hmm.... deep thought .... deep thought... you think... yeah... you think maybe because they are stupid?

Because they're morons? You can do it with 2, with more wear and tear on the bearings of the engine. The weight distribution is terrible. And them damn planes crash all the damn time due to engine failures, ROFL.

Why are you making it so complicated? If base 3 was practical, why not, you know, use regular base 3?

I don't understand the question sir because, I'm LITERALLY using "regular" base 3.

Taking this further, maybe it will help to explain why we use base 2.

That's polar. Like a propellar, you can use 2 if you want, but it's inefficient. And that was my point from the very beginning. For a binary computer to do the same work a ternary computer, it's AT LEAST 1/3rd slower. In fact, it's much slower than that because of how we generally do math with computers. If we use my way it's much much MUCH more efficient. How much more efficient, i don't know. It's just observably and infinitely better lol.

Comments
+1 for part about scientists lying.

I love it when the clueless try to reinvent the wheel, using straight elements (no curves). My wife, a particle physicist gets equally p.o'd when I try to explain the fundamentals of mesons, even though I have at least 1/2 a clue...

So good luck, and I'll send your regards to Don Quixote as he tilts with that windmill of his.

I love it when the clueless try to reinvent the wheel, using straight elements

If your wheel has 2 points instead of 3 (circles have 3 measurable points) then it's a goddamn stick and your wheel SUCKS. Thank GOD i re-invented it for you. What's funny is, a TRIANGLE would be a better choice than your 2 point stick. That's pathetic hahahaha. But seriously it depends on how you USE the triangle as a wheel. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9xDcbS3J6o

there's actually a couple examples of how wheels can be made solely from triangles and put on a vehicle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vk7s4PfvCZg

I'll find more if i can. Nonetheless, if you want a straight edged triangular wheel, you'll have to modify it's attachments. At least, that's my theory. I'm going to work more on that.

Listen, if you want to invent a ternary computer without writting down your ideas, or sharing the ideas with other humans, then good luck to you. I'm not sure why you wouldn't want to document the proccess, but maybe eventually you'll share your secret with the rest of the world eventually, se we could all benifit from the technology. That of course raises the question of why you shared your "insight" on daniweb. But if you want other humans to take a look at what you're saying, write it down. IE, a formal paper.

I could care less what the majority of scientists think, seeing as they cater to a global agenda to dissent from truth

It has nothing to do with what other people (or the "majority of scientists") think. The scientific method is just writting down your ideas. Then, other people are free to read them, free to critisize them, free to build on them, free to reproduce experiments, etc... From what you're saying, you don't want to write down your ideas for people to look at. Yet you tried to describe them on daniweb. Contradictory.

If you want anyone to take your idea seriously, you'll need to rigorously explain your idea, and then address critisism with validatable arguments. You can't force people to beleive you using only your word.

and hide the fact that black holes and the big bang theory is just a scam to scare the crap out of people so they can be controlled.

It sounds like an elabortate conspiracy theory.

Computers do in fact process a zero. They are not read so much as they are processed, but nonetheless, there is more electrical power going through a modern day x86 cpu when glossing over a zero than there needs to be. The problem is they WAIT to see what the next digit is going to be, whether it's a 0 or 1 which is a waste of time. That's a fact. In fact, if it didn't process the zero in some way, we'd have a 1 digit computer (with a zero state). If they already did it my way, that would have already paved the way for better computers. We simply don't have them because the industry is controlled by evil monsters such as Intel and AMD. They aren't going to allow you to have it better. I'll look at your book and I gaurantee I'm right on how modern CPUs function. Unfortunately for you, you don't use common sense or logic, rather your academic snobbery.

Say you're working with a 32-bit computer. Data is loaded into the proccessor via a 32-bit bus. All 32-bits are proccessed at the same time. It does not read one bit at a time. This picture shows you how a lw instruction might be passed through a single-cycle mips proccessor. Unless otherwise specified, all the the data reaches each section at the same time (intructions with arguments are obviously loaded into regesters for futher processing, etc.). Now, let's look at an addr component specifically for example. Here is the diagram showing the addr. As you can see, it does not "wait" for any bits, it goes ahead and adds everything.

You also mentioned AMD and Intel. Did you know that many processors are open source? Why does the open source hardware also do this "evil act" of "glossing over zeros" without anyone noticing, even though it's all publically availible and modifiable?

Can you show me where this "evil act of glossing over zero's" is in this open soruce processor? https://github.com/grantea/mips32r1

Yes that is what I'm suggesting. It's hard to explain it because I don't want to have super long posts. But the zero in my computer would not be processed but will act as a switching node that is automatic. You know what happens when you hook a lightbulb into a socket when the light switch is already on? The lightbulb lights up... let's leave that switch on instead of turning it off, and then walking back to the switch to turn it back on after we've installed it. We don't need to go back and forth like an intel cpu when it processes zeros.

No intel CPU's (or open source cpu's for that matter) don't spend any extra time on 0's (or equivallently 1's for that matter). The only point to 0 is that it's distinguisable from 1. They are both proccessed equally. Futhermore, it's not like 0 provides some special modal command in intel CPU's. As I've mentioned there is no need to becasue we have the help of context.

It's more hard coded.

You seem to thing that modern cpu's slow down when they see a zero, and that you can "hard code it more" such that it's faster. The problem with you're argument is that it's easy to verify (open source hardware atleast) that it's untrue. It's also easy to see that most closed source hardware can outspeed open source hardware as well as be more power efficient, so I dout that the closed source hardware is trying to make it slower for no apperent reason.

remember that a true ternary computer has 3 digits + the concept of zero (nothing).

A ternary computer is one that proccess a sequence of 3-state bits. My point was that even if you tell the compilerto do a calculation in base 10, it's still using binary, since it's equivalent. Thus, you're computer can be working in base 47, but it doesn't change programming much, because a compiler would still read in base 10 since it's just a notational difference.

What's 1/3rd of 10? You can't write that down, now can you?

The answer is "10/3". Yes, I can write it down. That is a legitimate value, and you can do computations based on that value. This is where context help. You can create a structure in C like so:

struct fraction {
    int numerator;
    int denominator;
};

And now you have the ability to write addFraction, etc...

(Attempt at proving that base 3 is the divine base)

Yes, you can define a problem such that the answer is 3. That doesn't mean that base 3 has an advantage over any other base.

No you can't. Because accurate determines absolute and whole. An infinitely run on 0.33333333333forever is not accurate because it's not a real number. You can't stop it. It's never a whole number, therefore it cannot be accurate because you cannot divide 10 by a third. It's not possible. It will never be right. Dividing something by a third, means there are three EQUAL thirds. But you can't have them equal, as there is no way to "infinitely" divide a third from 10. Try it on 10 bread sticks. You can't do it.

Again, yes you can. The answer is "10/3", and that is definatly representable in a computer.

Here's a question, what does a number mean? - In all honesty, it means nothing without some kind of context. For example, say you're driving at 10/3 km/h. We added the context of km/h to the number 10/3. What does 10/3 km/h mean? Well, it's a speed of a particular object. How is the number 10/3 obtained? Through an approximation - that's the best we can do.

Now then, how does base 3 fix the problem of the value of "10/3" ? 10/3 in ternary is "101 / 10". You still cannot reduce it any further to get a whole answer. The two problems are equivalent - and just because you wrote it in a different base, doesn't mean the problem disappears.

I like how you purposely left out my quantum example and refuse any attempt at rebuttal of it.

Yes, it takes 3 quarks to form a hadron. I don't see how that proves that base 3 is better then any other base. There is no connection.

ALso, just becuase i challenge the status quo doesn't mean i'm wrong. So did all those people who thought the earth was round. THOSE FOOLS.

No one's saying you're wrong, but you need to show people you're right. Otherwise people won't listen. Show me a mathematical proof that base 3 is supiror, and see if it stands up to critisism.

(You again try to prove the 3 is the best by showing that it occurs in music theory)

Yes, the number 3 shows up in a lot of places. It doesn't appear a unusual ammount of times however, and it has nothing to do with proving that the base is better then any other base. I could argue that the number 'e' is far more natural, and exists in far more places then 3 does. Does it mean it's a better base? Of course not, it just means that it's more natural and shows up more.

Hmm you know something that's a good question. Why do they have 2 blades when 3 would be necessary to properly balance the vibrations coming from the engines... hmm.... deep thought .... deep thought... you think... yeah... you think maybe because they are stupid? Because they're morons? You can do it with 2, with more wear and tear on the bearings of the engine. The weight distribution is terrible. And them damn planes crash all the damn time due to engine failures, ROFL.

Actually, the reason is that it was easier to cut out a straight prop out of a piece of wood. There are 3 and 4 blade props, but they seem to have a mix of advantages and disadvantages, so its really a toss up.

That's polar. Like a propellar, you can use 2 if you want, but it's inefficient. And that was my point from the very beginning. For a binary computer to do the same work a ternary computer, it's AT LEAST 1/3rd slower. In fact, it's much slower than that because of how we generally do math with computers. If we use my way it's much much MUCH more efficient. How much more efficient, i don't know. It's just observably and infinitely better lol.

As I said, the implementation would be difficult. You're right, if we could make ternary logic gates that were as space and power efficient as regular gates, the speed would be increased by 3/2 times. Using the context-free ciruitry however would slow it back down. If you scrapped that idea, then yes, you would have a faster comptuer. However, it would be very difficult to make these said logic gates without making it much slower then conventional binary gates. If you have any ideas, by all means, share.

We generally do math with computers in a very efficient way. They can add two bus's togeather (for example) in a single stroke.

Again with the infinately better? Where did you get the value infinity from?

I will answer hiroshe's last response in a few. First i want to report on my "triangle" wheel progress. My hypothesis is correct. You can literally use a straight edge triangle as a wheel. I also pondered a primitive but extremely practicle way of preventing the wheel from "wobbling". You use another triangle wheel on top. As the center of the bottom wheel goes down, the center of the top wheel goes up, keeping the car or vehicle's chassis compeltely flat. This extra wheel, provided that both wheels are actually insulated with super strong but light foam, will also act as the cushioning/suspension of the vehicle. Now you may ask how am I going to attach the axis of both wheels to the chassis? There's a couple of ways. Mainly i want to use a reduction system. If properly designed, (whether or not you use the extra wheel on top of each BASE wheel as that's simply for suspension in my example) the same principle of the extra wheel will apply. The induction gear system on the axis of the bottom wheel can allow spin by following the motion of the wheel. So it's designed to be half the distance between the center of the triangle and one of it's points. I could just put a bar on it and glue it (i'm using birch wood for this example which you'll see soon in a utube video) while the bar itself takes care of the actual spinning. Since i don't want to use cylinders however (because of my three-universality hypothesis) i will use TOOTHLESS triangle gears in a reduction gear system attached to the "well" of the wheel. This will not require any lubrication if done properly, but I will add some due to any possible vibrational discharge.

And the best thing is, because we are not using ball bearings, rather, we are using the strongest structure in the universe, there is no chance of early deterioration of either the wheels or the reduction gears attached to them. Ball bearings tend to squish and scrape and wear away over time, even though if well lubricated and taken care of will last a life time. Triangles however require less maintenence. And so the axel support in our system will be made of toothless triangle reduction gears.

It has nothing to do with what other people (or the "majority of scientists") think.

yes it does. Black holes do not exist. If most scientists agree that they do, they aren't being very scientific then are they?

It sounds like an elabortate conspiracy theory.

THere is no such thing as a conspiracy. More quackery on your part. THe only "conspiracies" that exist are ones that we make up in our heads because we are too lazy to think for ourselves and overcome odds. So when someone says there is a conspiracy, most likely they're just too damn lazy to fix a problem and decide to lay around and blame others for that same problem. There is no "black hole fraud" conspiracy to me because I see that's it bullshit. Conspiracies require that people support bad stuff happening in some way. But if normal good people believe their are black holes? Doesn't make a damn difference. I used to believe it to. Still no conspiracy even then... I don't support conspiracies of any kind... Saying that such a thing as a "conspiracy" exists is like saying "i have a drinking problem and I need help!" No you don't you just need to freaking stop drinking. It's that goddamn simple. There are no actual conspiracies in the world, so please kindly leave it out of this conversation. We are already talking about a plethora of quackeries, we don't need "conspiracy theory" BS in this thread.

Say you're working with a 32-bit computer. Data is loaded into the proccessor via a 32-bit bus. All 32-bits are proccessed at the same time.

I know how CPUs work thanks. My prototype ternary CPU will process things radically different. Instead of 0110001 to write "1" it's just... 1. This also means all source code and operating system libraries and files will function on a 3-base, node switching method. I'm not going to share with you how that works because I want to patent this technology. I'm simply pointing out it's all possible. If you need further explanation, help me to understand what YOU don't understand.

A ternary computer is one that proccess a sequence of 3-state bits. My point was that even if you tell the compilerto do a calculation in base 10, it's still using binary, since it's equivalent.

No. My trinary computer uses 3 based math. So even when counting in 10's, it's still going to use 3 base math to add/subtract/etc, unless of course (as it's an 3-digit FPGA prototype) you want to program it to do only binary stuff. You can do whatever you want with my machine. But I'm more interested in the 3 bits + zero state. But yes you can literally use it solely as a 100% binary computer if you so desire.

You also mentioned AMD and Intel. Did you know that many processors are open source? Why does the open source hardware also do this "evil act" of "glossing over zeros" without anyone noticing, even though it's all publically availible and modifiable?

AMD and Intel do not have open source products. They are closed source, with public interactions. They tell you how their processor works but their actual blueprints remain a mystery. That's not a problem however if you want to reverse engineer it. It's easier to reverse engineer hardware than software. Less 1's and 0's. And of course, hardware is physical. You can see what you're doing.

AMD's radeon for instance, have an "open source" social thing. But it's mostly for the drivers, not the hardware. They give you very little detail on how they make radeon chips at the hardware level. You really think they're going to giv eyou their CPU secrets as well? If you can prove otherwise, I'd be glad to hear it. I seriously doubt it, however. Sounds to me like a dumb move on their part if they wish to have a monopoly.

No intel CPU's (or open source cpu's for that matter) don't spend any extra time on 0's (or equivallently 1's for that matter). The only point to 0 is that it's distinguisable from 1. They are both proccessed equally. Futhermore, it's not like 0 provides some special modal command in intel CPU's. As I've mentioned there is no need to becasue we have the help of context.

Intel's cpus suck ass and have horribly hard to use features. Documentation Shmockumentation. Their cpus suck.

I didn't say that traditional x86 cpus spend anymore time on 1 than 0 (or more time on 0's than 1s, whichever you like). I said they SHOULD spend more time on the 1. But they don't so...

I also did not say intels have a mode command on the zeros. That's MY processor I was talking about.

The answer is "10/3". Yes, I can write it down. That is a legitimate value, and you can do computations based on that value. This is where context help. You can create a structure in C like so:

Dude you do not even know what youa re talking about. The computer rounds off a 3rd from 10. Just because you can tell the computer to do a 3rd of ten doesn't mean their isn't any draw backs from it. It rounds it off and depending on how you're using the code, could be less of a number, sometimes more of a number. Nonetheless it rounds it off because you cannot split 10 into a true 3rd. If you can't do it in the real world, you sure as hell can't do it on a coputer.

Now then, how does base 3 fix the problem of the value of "10/3" ? 10/3 in ternary is "101 / 10". You still cannot reduce it any further to get a whole answer. The two problems are equivalent - and just because you wrote it in a different base, doesn't mean the problem disappears.

No, a 3rd of 10 is always impossible to do regardless of what number base you're using. Ternary doesn't write 101 / 10 in my computer because it doesn't use binary-like code (multiple 1's and zeros for one single letter or number representation). But if you wanted to do a 3rd of 12 using 10 based math and a ternary computer, obviously you'd get a 4. So that's read as 1, 3 or 3, 1 or 2, 2 depending on what you are asking your code to do. You can do it like that, but because of my zero state implementation, you can represent "4" with a an invidual 1, 2 OR 3. That's the node switching system in effect. Understand that these prototype CPUs are not locked hardware. THey are fully open source and fully programmable FPGA-like 3-state microchips. You can do whatever you want with them because you are not trapped by design locks. Of course, traditional FPGA chips require binary code, but are still a good example of what my chips will be capable of as far as flexibility and programmability.

Yes, it takes 3 quarks to form a hadron. I don't see how that proves that base 3 is better then any other base. There is no connection.

Because they are fundamental. 2 will wobble too much and that would attract the attention of another quark. But you can't really break them down without experiencing the opposite effect. It's 3 parts to every fundamental building block.

No one's saying you're wrong, but you need to show people you're right. Otherwise people won't listen. Show me a mathematical proof that base 3 is supiror, and see if it stands up to critisism.

Look above in my earlier posts. I posted about a triangular wheeled vehicle design in 2 of those posts. The former of those 2 posts have links to youtube showing just how fundamental the number 3 (triangle) is.

Yes, the number 3 shows up in a lot of places. It doesn't appear a unusual ammount of times however, and it has nothing to do with proving that the base is better then any other base. I could argue that the number 'e' is far more natural, and exists in far more places then 3 does. Does it mean it's a better base? Of course not, it just means that it's more natural and shows up more.

A house has 4 walls. But a 3 sided, pyramid shaped house is the strongest structure you could build. Obviously you can take a look at egypt for that example. Craptastic mud bricks lasting thousands of years and still standing just as straight as before. I like all shapes and sizes of objects. Circles are great for wheels, but then you have to worry about extra friction and the replenishment of oil..

Actually, the reason is that it was easier to cut out a straight prop out of a piece of wood. There are 3 and 4 blade props, but they seem to have a mix of advantages and disadvantages, so its really a toss up.

No actually it's... actually easier to create a 3 bladed prop. The measurements are easier to duplicate because it's the same measurement. Of course we are talking about sharp triangles. But even when doing a 3 bladed prop the normal way, the tips of it are easier to make than a straight board. This has to do with the protractor you're using. Because in my example 45 degree angles will be easier on the 3 prop as you have a constant 45 degrees on every part of the blades, with the exception of the main shafts of the blades, which should not slow you down a bit.

As I said, the implementation would be difficult.

It's actually incredibly easy. It's hardER if you use ten-based, binary code, but still very easy.

We generally do math with computers in a very efficient way. They can add two bus's togeather (for example) in a single stroke.

And mine would do basically 3.

Again with the infinately better? Where did you get the value infinity from?

Look at the videos i posted earlier in this thread.

yes it does. Black holes do not exist. If most scientists agree that they do, they aren't being very scientific then are they?

No, if black holes don't exist, but most of them agree, it is still scienfic. The reproducable evidence seems to point to their existance very strongly. That being said, it's still a theory, and still may be disproven. However, it will not be disproven when one person sais "Black holes do not exist" without anything to back him up. So again, what do you have to back you up?

There is no "black hole fraud" conspiracy to me because I see that's it bullshit. Conspiracies require that people support bad stuff happening in some way. But if normal good people believe their are black holes? Doesn't make a damn difference.

Arn't you the same person who said "I could care less what the majority of scientists think, seeing as they cater to a global agenda to dissent from truth and hide the fact that black holes and the big bang theory is just a scam to scare the crap out of people so they can be controlled."?

I choose to side with the papers that I have verify for myself, and seem to have stonge evedence after being critisized. So, if you want me to beleive black holes do not exist, release proper critisism and let people review it. Then it's up to them to decide for themselves. Nobody will listen if you say "black holes don't exist, scientists are lieing, etc..." without any attemt to back yourself up.

Instead of 0110001 to write "1" it's just... 1.

Since instructions are variable length, I take it that it reads one bit at a time? That already gives a 64bit computer a 64x advantage.

What happens if you have 3 screens, each with 4 terminal emutators? What happends if you want to display different numbers on each, and then print out how many screens there are. In modern computers, that required interracting with the hardware. Saying to print "1" is just "1", it seems like you're ignoring the hardware all togeather.

In a modern computer, you might write to video memory once to display "1" (note that this is still done in 1 stroke, dispite the fact that you're proccesing 64-bits at a time, thus running just as fast as your instruction "1").

What you seem to be inplying is that you're instructions use Huffman coding to simplify the instructions down. To do that efficiently, you'll still need a bus to support the largest instruction. Which means your memory should be able to retrieve instructions of that size. The only thing that's happening now is that you saved space. However, addressing is now a lot more complicated (how would you calculate where the nth instruction is given that all instructions are diffrent lengths?).

If each instruction is prefixed with zeros, then you remove that problem. But now you've just reserver "000...00001" for printing "1" to the screen. That's an oddly specific instruction, don't you think?

If you need further explanation, help me to understand what YOU don't understand.

I don't understand how it provides and advantage over current computers. It doesn't seem you fully understand how they work, thus you're making your "my computer is so much better" based on assumptions on current computers that arn't ture.

AMD and Intel do not have open source products.

I never said that AMD or Intel have open soruce products. I said there are open source processors out there (AMD and Intel arn't the only people who do this stuff).

I'll say it again. Here is a open source 32-bit MIPS processor. Where do you see the problem of it "waiting to see if it's a 1 or a 0"?

Or even with this simple addr circuit. As you can see, it does not "wait" for any bits. So, to show us all, why don't you show us how you would modify this circuit to remove this "evil act"?

You said I was wrong, and that computers "wait for instructions", and that even my book agrees with you. It doesn't agree with you, and it can be verified by looking at the above standard circuitry.

It's easier to reverse engineer hardware than software.

This is indeed very difficult and expensive. You first need to take the case off without disturbing the wafers, and you need to do it in a cleanroom no-less, and then you need to try to read the gates off of the waferers, and make sense of it. We're dealing with transistors the size of 10's of hydrogen atoms. You would probably need to use an electron microscope. Even at that point, you would still need to decompile each and every peice beck into logic.

It's far easier to make these then to take these apart because (1) you have the compiler, and (2) you can optically imprint the transistors at very small sizes without worriying about working on a microscopic scale yourself.

No. My trinary computer uses 3 based math. So even when counting in 10's, it's still going to use 3 base math to add/subtract/etc, unless of course (as it's an 3-digit FPGA prototype) you want to program it to do only binary stuff. You can do whatever you want with my machine. But I'm more interested in the 3 bits + zero state. But yes you can literally use it solely as a 100% binary computer if you so desire.

It's just a notational difference. The programming languge will understand base 10, and of course do everything in whatever base the computer uses. It's just notational.

Intel's cpus suck ### and have horribly hard to use features. Documentation Shmockumentation. Their cpus suck.

Again, without a basis. I've used their CPU/GPU documentation (though I probably end up using AMD's a little more), and it seemed like pretty standard stuff. This of course is an opinion since it's not an objective point.

Dude you do not even know what youa re talking about. The computer rounds off a 3rd from 10. Just because you can tell the computer to do a 3rd of ten doesn't mean their isn't any draw backs from it. It rounds it off and depending on how you're using the code, could be less of a number, sometimes more of a number. Nonetheless it rounds it off because you cannot split 10 into a true 3rd. If you can't do it in the real world, you sure as hell can't do it on a coputer.

Sure you can. The value "10/3" is a perfectly valid representation of a number, and it IS exact. An inexact representation of the number would be "0.333". You can represent the exact representation in a computer with 2 integers. You can write it down with exact precision on a peice of paper with "10/3". You can even do computer math like this ("10/3 + 5/2 = 35/6") with exact precision. You're entire program can do this for all calculations, and it will never "round", even when printing out the answer. The programming language Scheme actually requires this for all complex rational numbers, for example. You can of course convert it to an inexact representation of a number at any time. You can even do this with irrational numbers, and use lazy evaluation to give you a decimal approximation to whatever accuracy you happen to need at the time (because the real world is always an approximation). Things like mathematica can even represent irrational numbers exactly using series, integrals, etc...

What's beautiful in calculus is we can do EXACT proofs using series that can represent irrational numbers, even though there no way to "write down" irrational numbers in decimal form. This is one way we can prove that "e^(pi*i) = -1".

Humans need to be able to write down and speak about quantities that they see. "10/3" is a perfectly valid way to specify a quantity. It's the idea of "cutting 10 breadsticks into thirds." You said you can to do exactly in practice - But you also can't cut one breadstick in half exactly in practice either, even though it results in "0.5". That's because we have the idea of "a half" and the implmentation. In the same way, we have the idea of "a third", and it's implementation in the real world. The idea of a third IS exact.

Ternary doesn't write 101 / 10 in my computer because it doesn't use binary-like code (multiple 1's and zeros for one single letter or number representation)

Arn't you the same person who said "I don't understand the question sir because, I'm LITERALLY using "regular" base 3"? 10 in base 3 IS 101, and 3 in base 3 IS 10. See, look:
1x3^2 + 0x3^1 + 1x3^0 = 10, 1^3^1 + 0x3^0 = 3, thus 101/10. This number happens to not use any 2's, but 7 does for example:
(21 in base 3) = 2x3^1 + 1x3^0 = 7.

How would you represent "10/3" in your different system then?

But if you wanted to do a 3rd of 12 using 10 based math and a ternary computer, obviously you'd get a 4. So that's read as 1, 3 or 3, 1 or 2, 2 depending on what you are asking your code to do.

So code does different things depending on how you want to add up the number using "1, 2 and 3"? What happens if you have 74 trillion? Do yu need to try to add up a bunch of 3's to get it? Seems a bit inefficent. Would you mind sheding your light on this?

Let's consider PE001. What would the program look like in this ternary computer? Show me axample of what the instructions look like, and what they mean.

Look above in my earlier posts. I posted about a triangular wheeled vehicle design in 2 of those posts. The former of those 2 posts have links to youtube showing just how fundamental the number 3 (triangle) is.

That still fails to show why the notation of using base 3 is better.

A house has 4 walls. But a 3 sided, pyramid shaped house is the strongest structure you could build. Obviously you can take a look at egypt for that example. Craptastic mud bricks lasting thousands of years and still standing just as straight as before. I like all shapes and sizes of objects. Circles are great for wheels, but then you have to worry about extra friction and the replenishment of oil..

You haven't addressed the point, you just used another example of what you think 3 is the answer too. Why is base 3 better? I don't care about music, or pyramids.

No actually it's... actually easier to create a 3 bladed prop. The measurements are easier to duplicate because it's the same measurement. Of course we are talking about sharp triangles. But even when doing a 3 bladed prop the normal way, the tips of it are easier to make than a straight board. This has to do with the protractor you're using. Because in my example 45 degree angles will be easier on the 3 prop as you have a constant 45 degrees on every part of the blades, with the exception of the main shafts of the blades, which should not slow you down a bit.

No, it was easier to care out 2 bladed props because of the size of wood availible. You needed to make them in one peice, because "gluing" or "nailing" them togeather is a bad idea. We've investigated what the advantages and disadvantages of other number of blades are. It turns out that it's better to use 3 or 4 blades for more powerfull engines (the force on each blade is reduced). Also, each blade creates a pulse of pressue. More blades mean that this pressure is dispursed. This has the drawback of being heavier however, and it actually end up being less efficient (due to more ressitance). With wood, you're stuck with two because of manufacturing, with metal maufacturing is easy, but 2 still offers what most people need most.

It's actually incredibly easy. It's hardER if you use ten-based, binary code, but still very easy.

Modern computers don't use base 10. They all use base 2, even though you can do base 10 math in any other base, because it's just a notational difference.

Ok, how would you represent a base 3 value? We currently use "voltage" and "no voltage". What's base 3? "full voltage", "half voltage" and "no volrage"? You'll need to put a voltage meter in each gate. Voltage meters arn't easy to shrink down to the size of 10's of hydrogran atoms. Also, voltage meters have a lag that would be significant to the calculation. You would need to overcome this, you would need to invent a new minature voltage meter with no lag, and have it to be efficient enough to not go over the 3/2 times improvement.

You're not the first person to try doing that, but nobody's been anywhere near solving that problem.

Look at the videos i posted earlier in this thread.

I did. That still begs the question of "how did you calculate that it's infinitly better"?

For example, I calculated 3/2 times better, because you have an extra bit of information over the other two we had. Used efficiently, it should be 3/2 times better, no taking into account any introduced drawbacks.

No, if black holes don't exist, but most of them agree, it is still scienfic. The reproducable evidence seems to point to their existance very strongly. That being said, it's still a theory, and still may be disproven. However, it will not be disproven when one person sais "Black holes do not exist" without anything to back him up. So again, what do you have to back you up?

I've already backed up. You consistently show you are unworthy of a debate. You lie constantly, forget important details of my posts, and pretend like I"m making it all up. Why don't YOU prove ME wrong then instead of just pretending like I'm going to back down JUST because you keep saying I'm making stuff up.

Black holes cannot exist. The space in a star surely will have powerful winds, gasses and other debris get sucked into the center. But they rush back out after slamming into each other. Honestly dude, most of the matter from an exploding/dying star is just taht... star matter. It's just mainly thinned out hydrogen surrounding it. There's really not enough energy present in an exploding star to create some kind of science fiction vortex. It's just decaying star matter falling apart. But i mean even our own average sized star doesn't have THAT much gravity to it. I mean if you're stuck in space between mars' and earths' orbit, you're not going to get sucked into the sun. But that's exactly what it would take to create something even remotely like a vaccum "hole". There'd have to already be some kind of energy field that is strong enough to suck everything in it. But as with everything in physics, there's an equal and opposite reaction. Say you could create a suction of massive size. So what? The matter will simply rush back out. It's the same as a vaccum cleaner. Once full, you must empty vaccum bag.

But you don't have that kind of "dark energy" in space because the required amount of energy is not there. You cannot "infinitely condense" matter. Stick to your outer limits and twilight zone shows, because that crap doesn't belong in a real discussion.

Saying to print "1" is just "1", it seems like you're ignoring the hardware all togeather.

I haven't begun to discuss how the hardware switching works. I simplify code by not using multiple bits to display one letter or number. It's mode set. I'm not going to give you my patent ideas. Sorry. Nice try.

It's just a notational difference. The programming languge will understand base 10, and of course do everything in whatever base the computer uses. It's just notational.

For the most part you're wrong. Intel and AMD cpus have hard coded base 10 math into them. You can use binary code to do other stuff, but the processors won't work so well. My prototype uses 3 based, but can literally be programmed at the fundamental hardware level to do 10 based math, or any other for that matter. Remember, they haven't open sourced anything. As controlled as this industry is, understand that 10 based math is generally a model when building computer components. You're thinking of binary code. I'm thinking of how the HARDWARE INTERPRETS CODE.

So code does different things depending on how you want to add up the number using "1, 2 and 3"? What happens if you have 74 trillion? Do yu need to try to add up a bunch of 3's to get it? Seems a bit inefficent. Would you mind sheding your light on this?

No, you're thinking in traditional computing sense. I'm thinking whole new ball game. Operating system with my technology will not work with linux out of the box, unless you wish to use it as a binary machine. But what the hell is the point of that when this would be so much more fun? I told you already. It's node switched. It's mode set. My way is actually a lot more linear, despite being competely versitile. But that's how computers are supposed to work lol. That doesn't make it non-interactive. You can play amazing and 2015-2020 year era video games on it and it works fine. It's just more mode set. But also just as much, BUT MORE, capable than a binary computer at the same time.

Again, i'm not comfortable with giving my patents out. I want freedom from binary and inefficient computers. You seem to want to rule over those who think differently from you. There is no way in hell I"m telling you my secrets.

If you can't figure it out for yourself, then stop asking me for the answers. I'd love to have a discussion, but you seem to think I'm obligated to answer your questions and I'm simply not. If you don't want to ponder, instead want to CONTINUE to annoy and poke fictitious holes in people's theories, then I'm not talking to you anymore. I don't have to say didly squat. I'm respectful, you are not. Leave it there.

How would you represent "10/3" in your different system then?

Depends on how you want to do it. It's modeset.

You haven't addressed the point, you just used another example of what you think 3 is the answer too. Why is base 3 better? I don't care about music, or pyramids.

It's not what I think. It's simple undeniable logic. 12 notes in a musical octave is a 100% fullproof fact. You can't have anymore or any less in an octave. It's natural math at work. 12 notes in an octave is proven by doing the damn math. Go ahead. Use 10 base math to do it. It will still show that 12 is the only number that it can amount to. It doesn't work any other way. Go ahead, see for yourself. I'm not here to talk about music though. You figure it out on your own. I've already been through music theory training. No thank you.

Pryamids work better than houses to withstand the elements and time because triangles are again, the strongest structure in nature. The wind is equally distributed around it (assuming that a pyramid shaped house has 3 sides instead of 4). And if the very fundamental fabric of our lives depends on 3 pointed fundamental particles, then obviously nature wants triangles. It's how we make 3d models (polygons). It's how we paint (Red, Blue, Green) and it's how we make music. It's undeniable that 3 plays a very important part in our lives. Actually, it's hte most important number. It's fundamental because it's the shape of FUNDAMENTAL PARTICLES. Everything is made up of triangles... literally, because it's FUNDAMENTAL WHEN IT RELIES ON FUNDAMENTAL PARTICLES BEING TRIANGULAR

No, it was easier to care out 2 bladed props because of the size of wood availible. You needed to make them in one peice, because "gluing" or "nailing" them togeather is a bad idea.

rofl nailing them together is a bad idea. Gluing triangles together seems to work very well however. THere's many methods of doing this. Try google. Also understand that we use steel now... wood propellers is a REALLY bad choice for commercial aircraft.

Modern computers don't use base 10. They all use base 2, even though you can do base 10 math in any other base, because it's just a notational difference.

That is code my friend. Not hardware. Most hardware specifically uses 10 base math to do it's functions. This is because they want you to experience those programming bugs. They want to control you. They literally sabatoge their own chips to make your programming life miserable.

What's base 3? "full voltage", "half voltage" and "no volrage"?

No voltage for 0 (as close as we can get that to be). 1 will be mathematically similar to zero according to the extra 2 states. Using a musical octave you can prove that that can work.

Low E is our starting note, so it's not counted, because it's where we already are. If it's 20 steps to your bedroom but you haven't begun walking there yet, you don't count the spot your foot is standing right this second. So we don't count low E. That's equivlent to a zero state in my machine. The next note will be G# - equivilent to a 1 in my CPU. To count to G#, we start at zero, then F, then F#, then G, and then G#! that's 4 spaces we traveled, as we do not count the zero state (E). The reason we go to G# (4 spaces up from zero, or E) is because that's half of a half octave. The next note is, you guessed it - A half octave which is noted as B, or equivilent to a 2 in my ternary machine. Play E and B on a piano or guitar, you will see how they resonate with each other. It's because the B is resonating with 50% higher pitch. It's the "center mass" of the octave in E (remember we do not count E or zero state as first position or 1) The next note we will play is another E, but one octave position higher than the starting note (zero point) of E. So it sound shigher pitched, but is the same note as the starting (zero) point. The reason for that is, if you play 4 notes up from B, (actually we count 3 notes per set, and the "4th" note is actually a "1" in the next set of 3, and from that you get 6. Double that and it's 12), it doesn't sound right. This is because in an octave, we don't start counting at 0, we start counting at the very next note up in the octave. As counting the lowest E, and then also counting the same note one octave higher, is redundant. They are the same note, just different octaval positions. That's why there is 12 notes in an octave, and not 13, because WE DO NOT COUNT THE KEY (low E) NOTE.

Voltages in my machine will actually be of a different scale. I'm not using anyone else's power measurement unit. I'm coming up with my own. But we could do, 3, 6, and 12 :D Where I'd place a decimal on it, I don't know. I'd rather use power units specifically designs for my computer, so I can just use whole numbers.

I did. That still begs the question of "how did you calculate that it's infinitly better"?

Because using anymore is redundant. You don't need it. It's a waste of energy. Not economical. The number 3 can open all the doors and programming potential you can imagine. You don't need other numbers...

I've already backed up

Up until that post your haven't.

You lie constantly

I try to source anything I say. For example, what about that open source mips proccessor? That's not a lie, and it's not a lie that it's not "waiting for bits" like you've said. Anyone is free to see for themselves. Same with that addr. It's not a lie.

Why don't YOU prove ME wrong

Science doesn't work on the argument "right until proven wrong". In fact, science very rarely uses the arugment "right" for that matter. "Right" is something that can only be used in math.

Also, how can I prove your wrong if you hide everything by saying your going to patent it. While not wanting to share because you are going to patent is a valid reason, you can't possibly expect someone to prove your idea is wrong if we don't know what your idea is. Asking me to disprove something that you refuse to tell me is trivially impossible.

instead of just pretending like I'm going to back down JUST because you keep saying I'm making stuff up

I'm not pretending that you don't have an idea. You could. I am critisizing your understanding of how computers currently work. Even if you don't understand them, it's still possible you have an idea.

Black holes cannot exist.

I'm not going to critisize it because I don't have enough expeirence in the field. But the black hole theory has already been critisized by a lot of perfessionals, and its still open to more critisism. I can listen to one anonymous guy's opinion online who doesn't want his work critisized, or I can acknowledge that many professionals, after years of critisism, agree that it's probably true. So I do beleive the fact that most prefessionals beleive that it is true. I'm not saying it is true, but I can work around the assumption that it's true, given that I state my assumption.

I'm not going to give you my patent ideas.

Then get the patent, then share your ideas. If a guy claims he found something spectacular, but he's not going to give the idea out until he get's a patent, that's fine. The odd's that you have something do seem rather low, given the assumptions you seem to make on the field, but I could very well be wrong. I am ready to be wrong, as always. That is science. Here's a better question, are you ready to be wrong?

For the most part you're wrong. Intel and AMD cpus have hard coded base 10 math into them. You can use binary code to do other stuff, but the processors won't work so well.

Again, you're making an assumption that can verified to be mostly untrue. Intel CPU's do have the ability to manipulate base 10 BCD. This isn't suited to computation, and all of the math is still carried out in binary. The proccessor is able to convert the base 10 ASCII BCD to binary, do math and convert back with an instruction. You would need to implement your own mechanism to add anything bigger then single BCD however, which is why it's not suited for computation. As can be seen here, there are only a few BCD instructions.

No, you're thinking in traditional computing sense. I'm thinking whole new ball game.

I asked you how you can represent a number in your computer. Your response somehow ended up invloving operating systems, videos games, and backwards compatibility. I'm not invalidating your argument, but I can point out that it takes away credability.

12 notes in a musical octave is a 100% fullproof fact.

No it's not. Since 623 BCE (ish), mathematitions have required exact proofs. Once something is proven mathematically, we already know it cannot be disproven. There is no vaugness in proofs, and they are direct. For example, review the proof of pythagorean theorem. It dieectly prooves the theorem.

Saying "3 shows up sometimes in music" is not a direct proof that base 3 is the universal base.

rofl nailing them together is a bad idea. Gluing triangles together seems to work very well however.

In 1903? Sure, maybe you could've, but it's easier to just use one peice. Which is why they did.

How would you represent "10/3" in your different system then?
Depends on how you want to do it. It's modeset.

Give us an example.

It's undeniable that 3 plays a very important part in our lives. Actually, it's hte most important number. It's fundamental because it's the shape of FUNDAMENTAL PARTICLES. Everything is made up of triangles... literally, because it's FUNDAMENTAL WHEN IT RELIES ON FUNDAMENTAL PARTICLES BEING TRIANGULAR

So you choose to use some of science, yet deny other parts of science? What about the four fundamental forces of nature. You beleive that hadrons are made of 3 quarks, because the number 3 is their, yet you refuce the four fundamental forces of nature, because there are 4 of them. Or what about the imprtant number e, pi, i, 0 and 1? Many beleive that those are the 5 most important numbers in mathematics. They all appear an incredable amount of times everywhere. It's almost impossible to find anything that does not involve these numbers. They appear in the most bazzare places, and even eulers identity all togeather astonishingly. This still doesn't mean that these 5 numbers will make a good base.

That is code my friend. Not hardware. Most hardware specifically uses 10 base math to do it's functions.

As can be seen from Intels documentation, there arn't very many instructions that deal with base 10 (and this is base 10 ascii BSD). Even then, disassemble some programs. You'll find that most of them do not use these instructions. Heck, learn assembly yourself, and you won't use these instructions much. There is no advantage to using base 10 ascii BSD over regular base 2. Again, it's merely a notational difference. Also, again, look at that open soruce MIPS proccessor. It doesn't have any base 10 instructions. That's just one open soruce proccessor though. There are plenty that you can look at as well.

This is because they want you to experience those programming bugs. They want to control you. They literally sabatoge their own chips to make your programming life miserable.

Look at that open source chip. Anyone is free to modify it. You're free to modify it. I'm free to modify it. Yet, they still stick with base 2. Why is that? It's because base 10 ascii BSD is very difficult to work with. And there are no other systems that would be easier with current technology. It's a pain in the butt to be programming in assembly and being forced to work with BCD for legacy support of some library. If you're working with base 2, then it's just a notational difference. The only thing you need to be carefull of is printing numbers such that the user sees base 10 (assuming the user wished to see base 10).

If people were intentionally making it bad by using base 2, people would have simply modified it so it wasn't bad. People don't modify it though, becasue we already know it's optimal.

Why would they want to make out programming lives misreable for no reason? In fact, we almost never need to worry about low level programming like that anyways, and when we do, the architecture is generally not too bad to work with (x86 and open soruce platforms alike are generally pretty well designed).

You still have yet to point out how that addr, or the MIPS processor can be imporved such that it's not evil.

just forget it. I know I"m right about the CPU. I just do'nt know how to go about it. And my ideas get screwed up. I was wrong about the musical half octave being an E5. It's a devils octave. It doesn't sound whole at all. Why that is, I don't even understand. And I've been thinking about it for months. It's embarassing and depressing. I can't get help because they just want to force feed more brain damaging medication.

I can no longer think rationally due to the medication (zyprexa) i took for years. I no longer take it anymore, but I'm severely brain damaged (not a vegetable, obviously). My memory is completely shot, and everything confuses the fuck out of me. As i'm writing this paragraph several times I assure you I was thinking about another post, another time possibly even another topic in another forum altogether. I literally feel like a brainwashed zombie every day of my life. I have memories of things that have never even happened before. And it takes me days sometimes to realize that the memory is not real...

3 really is a building block in the universe. Yes, it does depend on how you use it because it doesn't do everything such as spin a tire unless it's a Reuleaux Triangle. And it's not very economical. But measurements, and computing greatly are improved with the use of 3. My 3 based math system works, but I'm terrible at using it as proven by the faux music theory example. it doesn't work.

You have no idea what it is like for me to live this life. I get high off of on a certain factoid I discover, like how 3 is universal in the arts, but then my brain is so stupid I confuse the facts so much that I experience nothing but soul crushing failure every day of my life. It's seriously hard to deal with that and the fact that there are these fucking drug dealers after me even though I've never really done drugs or dealt them to anyone.

I give up for now. 3 base math is what nikola tesla used. And it took me awhile to realize how important it is. I have successfully applied it to parts of my theory of music, but it's still incomplete because I simply cannot concentrate hard enough on it.

This is what happens when society deems you undesirable. You get put on medication just because you had a hard enough life as it is and you were depressed about it, and the medication completely destroys your emotions and your capacity to reason and understand.

I was feeling pretty low for a few hours there seeing just how fucked up my brain is and how everyone has always constantly taunted and tortured me over it. But i'm strong. Strong like a triangle. I will keep fighting until I recover. What choice do I have.

of course further thought forces me to count backwards from musical note 12, with a 1. So 12 - 6 is 1 -6. 1-6 have the notes that go together. THe zero or "open" note is just another 1 that you don't count. I think we play the open zero note (one octave down from the first counted note [which is counted from fret 12 on a guitar going down]) because it's easier to pick it first. It gives it a nice edgy sound. But I think music theory likes 1-6 better than 6-lower-octave-1. They sound like they go together better. I'll keep trying.

So my triangle wheel hypothesis is correct, just didn't realize it. It does bounce up and down but on a track of triangles half the wheel's size, it doesn't bounce. Circular tires bounce up and down on FLAT track exactly like a triangle wheel does, only at the quantum level. The particels in a wheel literally look like a high resolution computer-3d-game wheel. Like i said everything is made of triangles.

So my triangle wheel hypothesis is correct

Again, a physisist would not say their correct about the physical world, because they take into account that they might be wrong.

When a triangle wheel turns, the force will be focused on one point for the 1/3 turn, thus making 3 critical points where most of the force is focused on. These 3 points will deteriorate very quickly.

Approximations of circles are uniform.

The particels in a wheel literally look like a high resolution computer-3d-game wheel.

Congradulations, you've invented integral calculus. Consider the Trapezoidal rule vs the Reimann sum. Yes, you can "form" any continueous function using trapezoids (which is the contant + a triangle). But equivallently you can "form" any continueous function using rectangles. Even better, you can use Simpson's rule.

A tire is an approximation of the circle. This can be considered the "most signifigant diget" in the design. Next down the list is that tire is made of polymers/monomers (which is kind of stringy). These adapt to the shape of the road. That would be the second most signifigant digit. The least signifigant digit are the atoms, which are appromimations of spheres. The electro-magnetic force between the atoms keeps the road from the tires. Here it should be noted that anything past this point isn't going to effect how a tire of any approximate shape roles, since the electromagnetic force is the thing on this scale seperating the road from the tire. Continueing anyways, the largest non-signifigant diget would be the electrons, which are leptons. We don't know if electrong even have a shape (its a set of observable properties) the next non-signifigant diget would be the nucleus. Then the hadrons that form the nucleus. As you know, hadrons are formed from quarks. Some of them happen to be made of 3 quarks (a baryon). It is unkown if these form a triangle, or if they share their properties to become one point of information. In any case, these do not effect how atomic matter interracts with eachother.

Yes, two peices of matter "touching" viberate on some scale unless absolute zero is truely reached.

Wrong actually. I know what a triangle will do, but brain damage made it hard for me to figure out how to make it work. I"m going to build a triangle wheeled toy train track system. All you need to do is use regular triangles to make the wheels, and then the track must have triangles half of the train's wheel's size for them to smoothly go across.

I've also proven my 3, 6, 12 theory. Although it doesn't always have to be in such a way, it's just the most mathematicaly in useful. So if you have a straight edged triangle reduction gear system (no teeth just contact gears), you can attach a 6 pointed cylinder to it, and have the 6 sided cylinder spin inside a 12 sided shaft. This will not be a perfect operation, but does work at the fundamental level.

You obviously have not read plato's theory on forms, but then again I just read PARTS of it for the first time. It's obvious the only shape something can be absolutely reduced to is a triangle. There is no other possibility for fundamental shapes.

I've also proven my 3, 6, 12 theory. Although it doesn't always have to be in such a way, it's just the most mathematicaly in useful

What's the theorum and whats the proof (you cannot patent theorums by the way)?

I take it that this is about the theorum that proves your "base 3 system" is "infinetly better then any other base."

you seem very willing to attempt to subliminally discredit every fundamental understanding that humans have had since at least ancient greece, as if I"m supposed to get used to denouncing scientists and philosophers (of course plato might as well have been a scientist in his day, due to his understanding of natural mechanics.), yet I'm supposed to believe you?

I can think for myself, thank you very much. I'm done with you, because you are fucking retarded. You're a parasite, and a zombie.

From http://www.eilberg.com/patentfaq.html

"Are there inventions that can never be patented?
Yes. Certain kinds of ideas do not qualify. For example, the discoverer of a mathematical theorem is not entitled to a patent for the theorem. A pure mathematical algorithm, unconnected with a real-world problem, is not considered patentable.

However, sometimes an invention that might seem inherently unpatentable might turn out to be patentable anyway, if it is properly characterized in a patent application. Thus, a theorem of mathematics, while not patentable in itself, may still be protected when claimed as part of an automated method for solving a practical problem. Part of the job of the patent attorney is to characterize an invention so as to maximize the chance of securing a meaningful patent."

However, a theorum that states that a particular base is better then the rest has applications that are outside of inventing a base 3 computer, which is why I dout that the theorum alone cannot be patented (it's use for a base 3 computer might be, but the problem with a base 3 computer is implementing the transistors, and not proving that the base itself is supirior). If you dont even want to specify the theorum, then you're just some guy that says "I've descovered something..." and never actually says that that something is formally.

This article has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.