RE: Hexadecimal digits?

[Jill Ramonsky]

Look, for one thing I mentioned natural sort of an EXAMPLE of how I think the digits ten to fifteen should be treated identically to the digits zero to nine, not the raison d'etre. But could anyone else who wishes to post on this subject (natural sort) please CONSIDER whether you've actually understood the subject before posting either strawman arguments or just plain nonsense. The following are FACTS. As in, mathematical facts. As in, I can prove them, and so can you, and we will all reach identical conclusions provided that each step follows logically from the previous ones. Note these then:

(1) A digit is a digit is a digit. There is no difference between a radix-8 five, a radix-10 five and a radix-16 five. In all cases, the digit is 5. This is the same digit which you find in radix-6, radix-93 or radix-7654321. Anyone who suggests there is ANY rationale for having a separate set of digits for each radix is just plain wrong, and, I would suggest, not a mathematician.

(2) The natural sort algorithm works identically in all radices. There is nothing special about radix ten. Furthermore, the same sort order is guaranteed in all radices. An implementation of a natural sort algorithm does NOT need to "know" the radix. It does not need to guess. It does not need to assume. It does not need to infer. It does not even need to care. All it needs are the functions IsDigit(codepoint) and GetDigitValue(codepoint). The return value of the latter is only required to be defined if the return value of the former is true. That's ALL it needs.

(3) Nobody in their right mind would even consider that mixed radices need to sort in numerical order. Such a thing is absurd. Jim Allen (below) said "If you want a natural sort using a mixed alpha and numeric string which may use multiple bases...". Well note the word "if" in that sentence, because it is very pertinent. *I DON'T*. In fact, NOBODY on this list has proposed that multiple radices should be intermixable. SO WHAT if one thousand nine hundred and eleven (777 hex) is greater than nine hundred and ninety nine? That does NOT mean that "File777" should sort before "File999".  In fact, Nobody, and I stress this because it's starting to annoy me, *NOBODY* on this thread has supported the use of mixed bases. Certainly not I. Therefore, anyone who argues against it, is arguing against something which nobody has proposed. And that seems about as good a definition of "waste of time" as I can think of.. It is most certainly not an argument against anything I've said, as I am in complete agreement with the notion that it's a totally dumb and stupid idea. It's a strawman argument, and it's sidetracking away from the original issue of whether or not there should exist Unicode characters for which IsDigit() returns true and for which GetDigitValue() returns values in the range ten to fifteen.

And finally, please note, Mr Allen, my name is Jill, not Jim. I think you'll find that in fact _your_ name is Jim, though I can see why that might be confusing. :-)

Jill


PS. This thread has been and interesting experience. If I do write a letter of support, do I really have to go to such extremes to point out what I'm NOT supporting? It would seem so.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Allan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 7:02 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Hexadecimal digits?
>
>
> Jim Ramonsky posted:
>
> > I am not the one who has not thought it through. There _is_ no
> > difference between decimal 7 and hex 7. They are the same
> digit. File777
> > sorts before File999 in _ALL_ radices.
>
> Exactly.
>
> So mixed hex and mixed decimal will not sort or compare
> properly using a
> natural sort *string* comparison even with creation of clones of the
> alpha characters with numeric values.
>
> Why then use a natural sort at all?
>
> If you want a natural sort using a mixed alpha and numeric
> string which
> may use multiple bases, a reasonable procedure might be