Professional Documents
Culture Documents
concepts and
their
applications Jesstern Rays
http://jesstern.com
Introduction
The aim of this report is to identify the applications of
some of the Mathematical concepts discussed in
Computing Mathematics.
Number systems
We explore numerous number systems from different
parts of the world and then focus our attention on
binary and hexadecimal codes.
万
Binary
There are as many ways to represent numbers as there are languages in the world. The
most commonly used number system since the late 15th century is the one we use today
derived from the Indian and Arabian number systems. The most important characteristic
of the modern numeral system is that there are only 10 symbols to represent all numbers.
1234567890
Computers, despite their complex hardware, operate on a very rudimentary level, that is,
in only two states - 'ON' or 'OFF'. The 10 symbol (or base-10) number system we use is far
too complicated for computers to process, but can we represent all numbers with just two
states?
0111000100
Binary numbers are numbers represented only by two states - '1' or '0'. For computers to
be useful we will not only need to represent all real numbers in binary, but also text,
images, sound and video. It turns out that binary can indeed do all that.
In a digital world, there are
only two states.
or
00000000
8 bits
represents 28 = 256 characters
Examples of uses of binary in everyday life
Before we explore how binary numbers are used
in computers, let's look at how they are used to
represent everyday things.
When 5V of current is
passed through the
Base, the Collector
gate will open (i.e.
'ON').
256 = 1,777,216 3
Number of colours that can be represented by this system
?
Riddle
Some real numbers are
completely irrational while
others are absolutely
rational. Integers
are naturally rational and
natural numbers are
positive integers.
Real numbers
Rational
numbers
Integers Irrational
numbers
Natural
numbers
2. Steven Strogatz
Group Think, New York Times Opinionator
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/02/group-think/