Thread: asm bin equivs

Originally Posted by MeTh0Dz

I don't see how I could be any more clear.

There is nothing unclear about what you're saying... it's just a pointless remark. The fact that he suggested binary representation and then went on to show hexadecimal in his example only shows that he doesn't care what form you give him the answer. You're pointing out something completely irrelevant and trying to claim that it would lead people to giving bad information. The fact is that any which way his point might lead someone to answer... the answer is still going to be correct, just in a different form.

It's been completely apparent since your first post that you're just nitpicking. However, instead of actually nitpicking a genuine flaw, you're just nitpicking a choice of words that ultimately have no relevance to the content of the question asked.

I mean after reading two responses that answered his question correctly... do you honestly believe anyone was mislead by the question?

That's not even CLOSE to the same thing.

A more accurate example is me saying.

"Give me the binary representation of 5".

And you responding with.

"0x5"

As opposed to.

"0b00000101"

I never said anyone was confused, I was just saying for the sake of the OP and furture reference that his post wasn't as explicit as it could have been.

Clear?

Originally Posted by MeTh0Dz

Clear?

No, not at all... because that's not what he was asking and that is apparent to everyone including yourself. If he himself used hexadecimal in his own examples, as you so intelligently identified... why do you think he would care what representation the solution is in?

Zacs7 example was spot on... if someone were to ask you to solve:

Code:

0x7 + 3

It wouldn't matter if you answered 10 or 0xA because the question implies that the form of the solution is allowed to be ambiguous.

Originally Posted by MeTh0Dz

I never said anyone was confused

Yes, you did... you said "The post is misleading" and then directly reiterated the point two more times. This implies that you believe the question could lead someone to misunderstand the question and lead them to answer the question incorrectly. This is a forum, kid... everything you write is being recorded.

Then perhaps you could have told the OP that "0x03" is not in binary. Which they probably already know... but stop and think what it represents first (and does a good job of doing so!)

In comparison, if there was a question:

"Give me the address of 5 from this memory diagram"
If you answered "0x59" that's perfectly correct, as is 001011001, as is 0o131, so on. You've said before, any number can be respresented in the infinite bases.

Originally Posted by MeTh0Dz

Also, if he is using multiple bases you could assume that, or you could just assume that he misworded things. Or you could assume the former and then point out that his wording wasn't explicit.

Yeah let's assume that a guy who claims knowledge of both assembly and hex editors doesn't know that 0xC5 isn't binary.

I think you've dug this hole deep enough and I believe if Yarin is satisfied with the solution provided by CodePlug then this discussion should be closed.

Sigh, abandon ship. Let it sink to the bottom, we'll go party on "hex island".

Originally Posted by MeTh0Dz

Your post is misleading.
You are talking about the hexadecimal representations.

This is just an argument of semantics. In practice, it's common to refer to things such as opcodes as 'binary' - it's not a matter of base representation but of the particular format of the data (ie: raw machine code).

Again, your point may be *semantically* correct, but it is *practically* moot. Everyone here knows what the OP meant. There is no ambiguity. At any rate, the original question has been answered. Can we move on now, please?