pna - there seems to be too much info here that did not likely come from any episode that needs to be fleshed out (notably the second, uncited, paragraph). Additionally, I moved this page to "Binary language" as that is the term used, as described in "11001001". --Alan del Beccio 17:56, 22 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- I think data may have said something about the first half of the paragraph, but I think the rest of it is non canon. --TOSrules 19:15, 22 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Dead link[]
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case! If the dead link is fixed, please also remove this comment.
- http://www.binaryguide.com/decimal-binary-translator-convert.php
- In Binary language on Sun May 07 20:56:15 2006, 404 Not Found
- In Binary language on Tue May 30 19:29:08 2006, 404 Not Found
--HighwindBot 17:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Dead link[]
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case! If the dead link is fixed, please also remove this comment.
- http://www.binaryguide.com/text-binary-translator-convert.php
- In Binary language on Sun May 07 20:56:15 2006, 404 Not Found
- In Binary language on Tue May 30 19:29:08 2006, 404 Not Found
--HighwindBot 17:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Real world infos[]
Since an electric current can only be on or off, the science to create a working trinary code computer is probably not possible using modern electrical technology. Scientists today have theorized that quantum mechanics might provide solutions for trinary, or even quadratic, alternatives to binary code. This would be known as quantum computing.
Sorry Mike, but from the point of information theory and even electronics this is plain ... nonsense. Non-binary systems (continuous (aka "analogue") and multistate-discrete as well) have been known for long and mostly been abandoned (particularly for computing, not necessarily for storage or transmission) because of the troubles exceeding the benefits. I can't help removing this.
However, references to trinary code, and the possible obsolescence of binary, have been made in modern Trek productions.
This somehow implies that trinary is generally superior to binary, which it isn't - but may be in the STU, so I leave it there.
There is another problem with "Binary language consists of ones and zeros in groups of eight or sixteen characters." which isn't clearly attributed. Is this from "Future's End"? It reads rather related to the widespread (real world) belief that a byte is always made of eight bits (it isn't :)) and is (in Trek) even contradicted by the images in the article. If no one objects I will take care of this too.Canonball 22:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- This line is spoken by Data in "11001001", and is one of those lines that is so delightfully quaint in retrospect, given that your average computer these days is a 32-bit system. I think, though, that the generally accepted definition of "byte" has been "eight bits" for a while now, even though this hasn't always been the case. But that's beside the point -- for that matter, was the word "byte" ever uttered in any Trek incarnation? Gregly 18:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)