2
$\begingroup$

I have been working the last 8 years in try to convert from base n to base m without artihmetical operations.

My hypothesis is that by the same way that is possible convert bases without division (see the tables bellow.) based in a literal conversion you can create an equivalence table that allow this direct translation.

  00011111  |  
       (2)  |                                                          

  00011111  | For convert in base 4 you take the follow number of digits.
               x
              2   = 4 | x=2 ( It is eaxctly)

[01][11][11]| You don't need a math operation for this operation because
              The follow symbol '3'(4) -> '11'(2)
   [1][3][3]|         

 [0011][111]| You don't need a math operation for this operation because
              The follow symbol '7'(8) -> '111'(2)
      [3][7]|         

As it is very know the number of groups that you have to use is:

Log (n) , where ( n can be represented as m^c , and c is and Integer) (m)

This operation:

'7'(8) -> '111'(2)   (Symbol(7)->111)

In my case, is a not math operations, because I have an state machine that is able to understand and reflect (bad joke) that symbol 7 means 111 in the default output (or default queue).

As you know when c is not an integer, we have a very complex problem therefore I was creating random table-states based on random rules (it means jumps of states using genetic algorithms) but It has been a real waste of time/energy.

Now I share my Idea, I believe that all bases must be represented as a sub-languages for other bases and they creates a cycle , It I couldn't demostrate it as a formal theorem. But my heart, my soul and my migth believes that it could be possible.

For example:

(3) 0  1  2  / 10  11  12 20 / 
_______ 
3^1 (grp)  3^2(grp)

(2) 0  1  / 10  11  / 
_______ 
2^1 (grp)  2^2(grp)

(4) 0  1 2 3 / 10 11 12 13 20 21 22 23 30 31 32 33 / 
_______ 
4^1 (grp)  4^2(grp)

Conversion table:  
GroupSize = Log(2)^4
Rule: (0/0  1/1 2/10  3/11 )
_______________________________________________________

Do you have any formalism to define a base as sub-language of other base for cases like this?

Post In Edition.

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ (I find it hard to see base conversion when $m^k=n$.) $\endgroup$
    – greybeard
    Dec 3 '19 at 8:15
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, I have the follow problems : The alphabets always are discret number but is normal that logs have a non integer result this is my big obstacle to create a unified m -> n base conversion. $\endgroup$ Dec 3 '19 at 13:50
  • $\begingroup$ My other hypothesis is that exists a least common power, this is the philosophical stone, because is the size of the dictionary. $\endgroup$ Dec 3 '19 at 13:55
  • $\begingroup$ My take: $log_m n \in \mathbb{N}$ trivial, $log_m n \in \mathbb{I}$ no finite grammar, no TM. $\endgroup$
    – greybeard
    Dec 3 '19 at 17:11
  • $\begingroup$ This is part of the hypothesis, Sometimes I belive that it is as easy as synchronize 2 planets in the same point, each planet (base) after several cicles could to be in the same point in the same time again. Its like a least common multiple (LCM) but the cycles are exponentials. $\endgroup$ Dec 3 '19 at 19:44

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.