Talk:Ones' Complement: Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
The Interior (talk | contribs) m moved Talk:One's complement mathematics to Talk:Ones' complement mathematics: Change name per discussion at signed number representations |
Rating article for WikiProject Mathematics. Quality: Start / Priority: Low / Field: basics (script assisted) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{maths rating|class |
{{maths rating|class=Start|priority=Low|field=basics}} |
||
The entire discussion on binary number systems seems muddled and in need of some organizing and better descriptions of things not 2's complement. This article is intended as a start on that effort. If it passes initial muster I'll continue with cleaning and organizing a couple of closely related pages. |
The entire discussion on binary number systems seems muddled and in need of some organizing and better descriptions of things not 2's complement. This article is intended as a start on that effort. If it passes initial muster I'll continue with cleaning and organizing a couple of closely related pages. |
||
Revision as of 20:56, 10 February 2011
Mathematics Redirect‑class Low‑priority | ||||||||||
|
The entire discussion on binary number systems seems muddled and in need of some organizing and better descriptions of things not 2's complement. This article is intended as a start on that effort. If it passes initial muster I'll continue with cleaning and organizing a couple of closely related pages.
KentOlsen (talk) 22:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- One thing that will help it pass initial muster is a quality source that describes the concept. See WP:Reliable Sources for a long and confusing description of what we consider a good source. If you've got that, keep crackin. (p.S. I'm moving this page to conform with the naming guidelines - WP:MOS) The Interior(Talk) 00:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Here's my 2c's worth:
- Yes, definitely needs reliable sources - Wikipedia is not the place to write unsourced essays.
- According to signed number representations and a lengthy discussion on its talk page, the correct term is "ones' complement", not "one's complement".
- The Basics section seems to be plain wrong; surely the whole point of ones' complement is that it replaces subtraction with additon i.e. you do not need to subtract 19, because you add the ones' complement representation of -19 instead.
- At the moment, I think that the ones' complement section in the signed number representations article is clearer, more concise and more accurate than this essay. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Here's my 2c's worth: