Re: What are the current Honeywell offerings was Re: Significant Bits

In , on 05/26/2010 at 11:33 PM, Clark Morris said: >What if any are the current Honeywell offerings? Didn't Honeywell sell all of the GE line to B.U.L.L.? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see We don't care

Re: Significant Bits

In <1464038870-1275413163-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-5445958...@bda026.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>, on 06/01/2010 at 05:26 PM, Ted MacNEIL said: >No, because the '1' and the '2' are in the same position, in decimal, >assuming that is what your representation is in that base. So you

Re: Significant Bits

In , on 05/31/2010 at 11:09 PM, Paul Gilmartin said: >You forgot 6502, A4, and (perhaps) ARM. No, I just saw no need either to go back that far or to mention the apple ][ again. But if you know of a good way to forget the 6502, I'd be interested. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg a

orders of magnitude (was: significant bits)

In ordinary parlance 'order of magnitude' is indeed implicitly decimal. Other order-of-magnitude schemes are, however, in common scientific use. In particular 'binary order of magnitude' is an entirely legitimate, much used notion. The non-negative powers of 2 are 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 12

Re: Significant Bits

On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 17:26:08 +, Ted MacNEIL wrote: >> So 100 and 200 have different orders of magnitude? > >No, because the '1' and the '2' are in the same position, in decimal, >assuming that is what your representation is in that base. > >Regardless of the base, which cannot be binary, the a

Re: Significant Bits

> So 100 and 200 have different orders of magnitude? No, because the '1' and the '2' are in the same position, in decimal, assuming that is what your representation is in that base. Regardless of the base, which cannot be binary, the above both have the same order of magnitude. The order of ma

Re: Significant Bits

On 31 May 2010 19:54, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote: > In > <713282747-1274797489-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-9532761...@bda026.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>, > on 05/25/2010 >   at 02:25 PM, Ted MacNEIL said: > >>It also gives you the order of magnitude. > > So 100 and 200 have differen

Re: Significant Bits

for such purpose. From: "Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)" To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Date: 05/31/2010 08:04 PM Subject: Re: Significant Bits In , on 05/25/2010 at 07:58 AM, "Chase, John" said: >So, continuing that thought, Bit0 is always the "most significant >

Re: Significant Bits

On Mon, 31 May 2010 19:53:44 -0400, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote: >In , on 05/25/2010 > at 01:10 PM, Paul Gilmartin said: > >>Apple is x86 > >Some are, some aren't. Neither Motorola nor POWER is x86. > You forgot 6502, A4, and (perhaps) ARM. -- gil --

Re: Significant Bits

In , on 05/25/2010 at 08:28 AM, Alexander M Brash1 said: >I think I'm having a brain drain this morning (or just need another >coffee). When IBM refers to things like "meaning of bit when set" in >SMF documentation, is bit 0 the most or least significant bit? Most. >The rightmost bit is bit

Re: Significant Bits

In <1434432532-1274814563-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-4325796...@bda026.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>, on 05/25/2010 at 07:09 PM, Ted MacNEIL said: >I thought they were still Motorola chips, which are also little >endian. Motorola had more than one product line. -- Shmuel (Sey

Re: Significant Bits

In <713282747-1274797489-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-9532761...@bda026.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>, on 05/25/2010 at 02:25 PM, Ted MacNEIL said: >It also gives you the order of magnitude. So 100 and 200 have different orders of magnitude? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg

Re: significant bits

In , on 05/25/2010 at 11:37 AM, Paul Gilmartin said: >Is there a Hebrew edition of the PoOp? Lo Tish'al, lo tsapeir. >Does the CPT Theorem apply? No, von Nagle. >"Zero-origin"? A self respecting language lets the programmer specify the index range. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, Sys

Re: Significant Bits

In , on 05/25/2010 at 01:10 PM, Paul Gilmartin said: >Apple is x86 Some are, some aren't. Neither Motorola nor POWER is x86. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see We don't care. We don't have to care, we'r

Re: Significant Bits

In , on 05/25/2010 at 07:58 AM, "Chase, John" said: >So, continuing that thought, Bit0 is always the "most significant >bit" I thought that Q was the most significant and P the next most significant. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see

What are the current Honeywell offerings was Re: Significant Bits

On 25 May 2010 07:27:41 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote: >>One of these days, for your sins, you will have to work in a (x86) >>little-endian world. >Byte (pair) reversal will be visited upon you. > >Not just x86 -- Solaris, Apple, DEC, HP, Honeywell, etc. have models that are >little-

Re: Significant Bits

ibm-m...@tpg.com.au (Shane Ginnane) writes: > One of these days, for your sins, you will have to work in a (x86) > little-endian world. Byte (pair) reversal will be visited upon you. long ago and far away ... when I was undergraduate in the 60s and adding tty/ascii terminal support to cp67 ... i

Re: Significant Bits

I think you mean Bill Engvall... ... Here's your sign >>> Donald Grinsell 5/26/2010 11:37 AM >>> Like when you port an application from x86 Linux to zLinux or vice versa. I spent way too many hours one day trying to figure that one out until the light finally went on and I earned my Jeff F

Re: Significant Bits

On Tue, 25 May 2010 23:06:27 +1000, Shane Ginnane wrote: >One of these days, for your sins, you will have to work in a (x86) little-endian world. >Byte (pair) reversal will be visited upon you. > >Shane ... > Like when you port an application from x86 Linux to zLinux or vice versa. I spent way

Re: Significant Bits

m42tom-ibmm...@yahoo.com (Tom Marchant) writes: > Apparently so. My comment (68000 and its successors) was in response to > Ted's statement that the Motorola processors were little endian. I was > referring to the Motorola designed 68000, 68010, 68020, 68030, 68040 and > 68060, not the IBM design

Re: Significant Bits

On Tue, 25 May 2010 16:38:32 -0400, David Andrews wrote: >On Tue, 2010-05-25 at 16:10 -0400, Tom Marchant wrote: >> The 68000 and its successors are big endian. >> They switched to PowerPC in 1994 and to i86 in 2006. > >Didn't PPC go both ways? (I vaguely remember a talk by David Barnes a >few ye

Re: Significant Bits

Paul Gilmartin wrote: > On Tue, 25 May 2010 16:38:32 -0400, David Andrews wrote: > > >On Tue, 2010-05-25 at 16:10 -0400, Tom Marchant wrote: > >> The 68000 and its successors are big endian. > >> They switched to PowerPC in 1994 and to i86 in 2006. > > > >Didn't PPC go both ways? (I vaguely remem

Re: Significant Bits

On Tue, 25 May 2010 16:38:32 -0400, David Andrews wrote: >On Tue, 2010-05-25 at 16:10 -0400, Tom Marchant wrote: >> The 68000 and its successors are big endian. >> They switched to PowerPC in 1994 and to i86 in 2006. > >Didn't PPC go both ways? (I vaguely remember a talk by David Barnes a >few ye

Re: Significant Bits

On Tue, 2010-05-25 at 16:10 -0400, Tom Marchant wrote: > The 68000 and its successors are big endian. > They switched to PowerPC in 1994 and to i86 in 2006. Didn't PPC go both ways? (I vaguely remember a talk by David Barnes a few years ago, where he mentioned the OS/2 PPC port making use of the

Re: Significant Bits

- One of these days, for your sins, you will have to work in a (x86) little-endian world. Byte (pair) reversal will be visited upon you. A pair of translates will solve that p

Re: Significant Bits

On Tue, 25 May 2010 19:09:36 +, Ted MacNEIL wrote: >Having never used an Apple, I don't know. >I thought they were still Motorola chips, which are also little endian. No. The 68000 and its successors are big endian. They switched to PowerPC in 1994 and to i86 in 2006. -- Tom Marchant --

Re: Significant Bits

>But you repeat yourself. Apple is x86 (or were you thinking of Apple ][?) Having never used an Apple, I don't know. I thought they were still Motorola chips, which are also little endian. - Too busy driving to stop for gas! --

Re: significant bits

Paul Gilmartin, in his fullblown just-arrived-visitor-from-Mars mode, writes: | What's "left"? What's "right"? I hold between my thumb | and forefinger a memory . . . Now it would certainly be possible to represent ascending storage addresses from left to right on a page. Someone

Re: Significant Bits

On Tue, 25 May 2010 14:27:12 +, Ted MacNEIL wrote: >>One of these days, for your sins, you will have to work in a (x86) >>little-endian world. >Byte (pair) reversal will be visited upon you. > >Not just x86 -- Solaris, Apple, DEC, HP, Honeywell, etc. have models that are >little-endian. > Bu

Re: Significant Bits

>Actually, your definition is circular. >Yes, the digit that changes least is by definition the most significant, but >there is no need for it to be on the left. >There is no reason I could not design a logically consistent numbering system >that put the most significant digits at the right. Tr

Re: significant bits

On 25 May 2010 09:37:34 -0700, paulgboul...@aim.com (Paul Gilmartin) wrote: >What's "left"? What's "right"? I hold between my thumb and forefinger a >memory >chip, and with my microscopic X-ray vision I observe that the bits are numbered >left-to-right. I rotate my hand 180 degrees. Now they'

Re: significant bits

On Tue, 25 May 2010 15:56:52 +, john gilmore wrote: > >In fact any such decision was originally an arbitrary one and everyone's >position is chiefly a matter of which tradition he or she was first exposed >to. I am a left-to-right, zero-origin person, and it has been clear to me, >for deca

Re: significant bits

: Re: significant bits The original Kirk-Spock Star Trek sequence included an episode in which the two protagonists, both were both black and white, one with a black left side and a white right white side and the other with a white left side a black right side, pursued each other, noisily, across

Re: significant bits

The original Kirk-Spock Star Trek sequence included an episode in which the two protagonists, both were both black and white, one with a black left side and a white right white side and the other with a white left side a black right side, pursued each other, noisily, across the universe and down

Re: Significant Bits

7:25 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: Significant Bits >So, continuing that thought, Bit0 is always the "most significant bit" It's not just in binary. The left-most digit in any base is the most significant because it changes th

Re: Significant Bits

On Tue, 25 May 2010 14:25:04 +, Ted MacNEIL wrote: >The left-most digit in any base is the most significant because >it changes the least as you count up. >It also gives you the order of magnitude. No, the order of magnitude is determined by the number of significant digits. Or, in the case

Re: Significant Bits

>One of these days, for your sins, you will have to work in a (x86) >little-endian world. Byte (pair) reversal will be visited upon you. Not just x86 -- Solaris, Apple, DEC, HP, Honeywell, etc. have models that are little-endian. - Too busy driving to stop for gas!

Re: Significant Bits

>So, continuing that thought, Bit0 is always the "most significant bit" It's not just in binary. The left-most digit in any base is the most significant because it changes the least as you count up. It also gives you the order of magnitude. - Too busy driving to stop for gas! --

Re: Significant Bits

6:06 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: Significant Bits One of these days, for your sins, you will have to work in a (x86) little-endian world. Byte (pair) reversal will be visited upon you. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / si

Re: Significant Bits

One of these days, for your sins, you will have to work in a (x86) little-endian world. Byte (pair) reversal will be visited upon you. Shane ... On Tue, May 25th, 2010 at 10:58 PM, "Chase, John" wrote: > So, continuing that thought, Bit0 is always the "most significant > bit" and: > > Bit7

Re: Significant Bits

> -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of McKown, John > > > -Original Message- > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Alexander M Brash1 > > > > Hi list, > > > > I think I'm having a brain drain this morning (or just need another > > cof

Re: Significant Bits

> -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List > [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Alexander M Brash1 > Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 7:28 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu > Subject: Significant Bits > > Hi list, > > I think I'm having

Re: Significant Bits

ist [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Alexander M Brash1 Sent: 25 May 2010 13:28 To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Significant Bits Hi list, I think I'm having a brain drain this morning (or just need another coffee). When IBM refers to things like "meaning of bit when set" in

Significant Bits

Hi list, I think I'm having a brain drain this morning (or just need another coffee). When IBM refers to things like "meaning of bit when set" in SMF documentation, is bit 0 the most or least significant bit? The rightmost bit is bit 0 right? I'm going to get that other coffee now. Thank you