Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Beyond Binary Computing?

Posted by michael on from the base-three-for-fun-and-profit dept.

daksis writes "Non base two computing is nothing new. But it is an idea that, for various reasons, never really caught on. Embedded.com is running an op/ed piece that asks if hardware and software engineers are ready to move to ternary or quaternary logic. A move to multi-valued logic provides more computational capability without the standard increase in die size or transistor count. Is the need to make do with the current fabrication technology enough to drive the move to multi-valued logic? Or will Moore's law continue without the need for doing more with less silica based real estate?"

3 of 412 comments (clear)

  1. Sounds like a good idea. by digital+bath · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Looks like systems working with more than ones and zeros would just need a way to encode these different values with different strengths of signals (as opposed to off=0, on=1). Something like no voltage=0, 1/3 voltage = 1, 2/3 voldage = 2 and 3/3 voldage=4. Seems like a very good way to wrap more information in the same signal/clock, but how would the logic work? How would and/or/xor work?

    My mind is too used to binary :) But I'd be willing to learn..

    Sounds like a good idea.

    --
    find / -name "*.sig" | xargs rm
  2. Balanced Ternary, and Ternary circuits by Sparr0 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    One of the best parts of Ternary (Trinary, base 3) is that you can use BALANCED Ternary, in which the digits are not 0, 1, and 2, but are -1, 0, and 1. This allows you to represent any integer without a sign bit. Letting N represent -1 digit you can represent -17 in balanced ternary as 101N (1*(3^0),0*(3^1),1*(3^2),N*(3^3)).

    You can check out http://www.trinary.cc/Tutorial/Tutorial.htm for many examples of ternary circuits using ternary logic gates.

  3. Re:Trinary Computing by DataPath · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The reason for doing work in trinary computing is that it is closest to the theoretically optimal computing base. The reasoning was something like this:

    Representations of numbers in a particular base have two defining characteristics - the number of values that can occupy a digit (m), and the number of digits it takes to represent that value (n).

    (Here's where the theory takes a leap, at least to me) The most efficient base (or simplest) base for performing computations is the one at which the m*n product is minimized. As an example, we'll take THE ANSWER, 42(base10).
    THE ANSWER in base 16 has a result of 16*2=32
    THE ANSWER in base 10 has a result of 10*2=20
    THE ANSWER in base 8 has a result of 8*2=16

    Here are the interesting cases, though:
    THE ANSWER in base 2 has a result of 2*6=12
    THE ANSWER in base 3 has a result of 3*3=9
    THE ANSWER in base 4 has a result of 4*3=12

    IIRC, according to the article I was reading, the most effective base is actually "e" (euler's constant).

    --
    Inconceivable!