Converting 1100110.11 to base10

This is a discussion on Converting 1100110.11 to base10 within the General Discussions forums, part of the Community Boards category; how to solve this .....1100110.11 to base10? help meee...

  1. #1
    Registered User hakimstm1b's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    30

    Question Converting 1100110.11 to base10

    how to solve this .....1100110.11 to base10?

    help meee

  2. #2
    Registered User \007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    179
    Learn how to do it yourself.

    Decimal and Binary Conversion Tool

    Can use this to help you too.

  3. #3
    Registered User hakimstm1b's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    30
    thank

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Ontario Canada
    Posts
    9,547
    Quote Originally Posted by hakimstm1b View Post
    how to solve this .....1100110.11 to base10?

    help meee
    1100110.11 already is base 10. There are no decimal points in binary.

  5. #5
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    1,831
    Sure there are. The digits to the right of the period represent 1/2 + 1/4 = 0.375

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Ontario Canada
    Posts
    9,547
    Quote Originally Posted by nonoob View Post
    Sure there are. The digits to the right of the period represent 1/2 + 1/4 = 0.375
    Really... when's the last time you saw a CPU register with a fraction of a bit in it?

    Think carefully now... We're talking about binary *representations* of fractions, not actual fractions. One of the big reasons why the original XT and 386 machines didn't have floating point math chips was the difficulty in representing .375 as a binary number. In fact it was all done in software back then, entire accounting packages were written to work on pennies for this exact reason.

  7. #7
    and the Hat of Guessing tabstop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    14,185
    Quote Originally Posted by CommonTater View Post
    We're talking about binary *representations* of fractions, not actual fractions.
    I am curious as to what you think the difference is. Or to put it another way: why isn't .375 not an actual fraction, but also a *representation* of a fraction?

    (And naturally, .375 is easy in binary. 0.2, now, that's something else.)

  8. #8
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,262
    Quote Originally Posted by CommonTater View Post
    Really... when's the last time you saw a CPU register with a fraction of a bit in it?
    When's the last time you saw a CPU register supporting base 2340932412334 numbers? That doesn't mean they don't exist.

  9. #9
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Long Beach, CA
    Posts
    5,288
    Quote Originally Posted by CommonTater View Post
    1100110.11 already is base 10. There are no decimal points in binary.
    No, but there are binary points, which serve the same purpose of separating the whole number portion from the fractional portion of a real number. The binary point is usually represented with a . just like the decimal point in base 10. And yes, that number could be in base 10. Presumably it's not though, since the OP asked that we help convert it to base 10.

    Quote Originally Posted by CommonTater View Post
    Really... when's the last time you saw a CPU register with a fraction of a bit in it?

    Think carefully now... We're talking about binary *representations* of fractions, not actual fractions. One of the big reasons why the original XT and 386 machines didn't have floating point math chips was the difficulty in representing .375 as a binary number. In fact it was all done in software back then, entire accounting packages were written to work on pennies for this exact reason.
    Fractions of a bit don't exist, but bits representing fractional parts of numbers do. Hardware components that handle floating point numbers have been around since the XT and 386 days, in the form of a math coprocessor, like the 8087, 80387, et al. I would suspect it had more to do with fitting it all on a single chip die easily and cheaply enough rather than because "it's too difficult to implement". Nowadays, it's all on the CPU.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Ontario Canada
    Posts
    9,547
    Quote Originally Posted by EVOEx View Post
    When's the last time you saw a CPU register supporting base 2340932412334 numbers? That doesn't mean they don't exist.
    Actually it does.... Inside the computer it's all just On and Off... 1 and 0... There really is (for now) no other way to do this. The computer itself is a binary machine...

    Yes we can use software to produce a base 58 numbering system if we like... but inside the machine it's all 1s and 0s... The CPU register (memory, storage, etc) does not know about the *translations* we apply to it's contents... it only executes the code needed to enact it.

    When you see the number 14 on your screen, the computer will see it internally as a binary number... The characters on the screen are merely a software enacted translation of a binary number.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Ontario Canada
    Posts
    9,547
    Quote Originally Posted by anduril462 View Post
    Fractions of a bit don't exist, but bits representing fractional parts of numbers do.
    And, now, lets ask... how is that stored? ... well shucks, it's a binary whole number too.

    In fact the early math processors used to have 7 bytes for an integer value and another byte saying where to put the decimal place when displaying it... Both of these numbers are whole numbers...

    Also think about the problems of rounding and imprecision on floating point units... 8.0 ends up being 7.999999999 ... because someplace there's a 1 bit ambiguity in the calculations... Why is that ambiguity there? Well, because there are no fractions of a bit.

  12. #12
    and the Hat of Guessing tabstop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    14,185
    Quote Originally Posted by CommonTater View Post
    And, now, lets ask... how is that stored? ... well shucks, it's a binary whole number too.

    In fact the early math processors used to have 7 bytes for an integer value and another byte saying where to put the decimal place when displaying it... Both of these numbers are whole numbers...

    Also think about the problems of rounding and imprecision on floating point units... 8.0 ends up being 7.999999999 ... because someplace there's a 1 bit ambiguity in the calculations... Why is that ambiguity there? Well, because there are no fractions of a bit.
    I don't think anybody is disagreeing here, much. It is true that when you represent something inside a computer, you will have to choose some representation of that number (whether it's two's complement (for ints), or IEEE floats (for floats), etc.). But that representation inside the computer doesn't have anything to do with the fact that the number "11011.011_(2)" exists. Of course "11011.011_(2)" exists, and has the value of 27 and three-eighths in decimal (or 27.375), or 033.3 in octal, or 0x1B.6 in hex, and "1000.10101..._(3)" in ternary. The numbers exist.

  13. #13
    Gawking at stupidity
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Oregon, USA
    Posts
    3,159
    Quote Originally Posted by CommonTater View Post
    Actually it does.... Inside the computer it's all just On and Off... 1 and 0... There really is (for now) no other way to do this. The computer itself is a binary machine...

    Yes we can use software to produce a base 58 numbering system if we like... but inside the machine it's all 1s and 0s... The CPU register (memory, storage, etc) does not know about the *translations* we apply to it's contents... it only executes the code needed to enact it.

    When you see the number 14 on your screen, the computer will see it internally as a binary number... The characters on the screen are merely a software enacted translation of a binary number.
    Why are you so stuck on this being tied to a computer? The OP just asked how to convert a binary number to decimal, nothing about the necessity for it to be stored in a computer (modern day or otherwise). Non-base10 number representations can exist in places other than a computer.
    If you understand what you're doing, you're not learning anything.

  14. #14
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Long Beach, CA
    Posts
    5,288
    Quote Originally Posted by CommonTater View Post
    And, now, lets ask... how is that stored? ... well shucks, it's a binary whole number too.

    In fact the early math processors used to have 7 bytes for an integer value and another byte saying where to put the decimal place when displaying it... Both of these numbers are whole numbers...
    It's a sequence of bits that aren't necessarily "whole numbers". In IEEE 754, you have a sign bit (not really a whole number, more a "flag"), an exponent (admittedly, a signed integer) and a significand, which is only the fractional part of a scientific notation type number. It can be interpreted as a whole number if you want, but it's no more a whole number that .5, which has a 5 in it, which you could see as a "whole number" if you ignore the decimal point. There's no bit in there to store the . but it's as good as in there.

    Also think about the problems of rounding and imprecision on floating point units... 8.0 ends up being 7.999999999 ... because someplace there's a 1 bit ambiguity in the calculations... Why is that ambiguity there? Well, because there are no fractions of a bit.
    Actually, that ambiguity is there because you only have a limited number of bits to represent a number, not because "there's no fraction of a bit". You have the same problems with decimal numbers, or any base, if you restrict how many digits you can use. 1/3 doesn't have a finite representation in base 2 or base 10, but it does in base 3.

  15. #15
    ATH0 quzah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    14,826
    Quote Originally Posted by nonoob View Post
    Sure there are.
    No there aren't. That's why you can't use shift operators on a float.


    Quzah.
    Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.

Page 1 of 7 1234567 LastLast
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. Converting decimals to individuals
    By clag in forum C Programming
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 10-03-2009, 03:08 PM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-20-2009, 07:39 AM
  3. Converting Sign Magnitude Integer Binary Files
    By Arthur Dent in forum C Programming
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 09-13-2004, 10:07 AM
  4. Converting from Screen to World Coordinates
    By DavidP in forum Game Programming
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 05-11-2004, 12:51 PM
  5. converting string to float
    By twhubs in forum C Programming
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-16-2001, 09:02 AM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21