tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-238803642358645202.post5960652294351392567..comments2024-03-25T01:10:40.730-07:00Comments on Amistad Hispano-Soviética: Intervención de Raymundo Navarro Fernández, dirigente de la CTC (Cuba) en el plenario de la OITUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-238803642358645202.post-72724246289257694992023-09-22T01:23:30.104-07:002023-09-22T01:23:30.104-07:00If left-padding was implied, why does the sentence...If left-padding was implied, why does the sentence,<br /><br />“If the bit-length of the number to be encoded is not a multiple of 5 bits, then zero-extend the number to make its bit-length a multiple of 5”<br /><br />have to exist at all? What does it add to the discussion regarding implementation?<br />togel sgphttps://www.scarve.net/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-238803642358645202.post-48030635527711841052023-09-22T01:23:05.643-07:002023-09-22T01:23:05.643-07:00You gave me the number: 11000010110000101100001011...You gave me the number: 1100001011000010110000101100001<br />It is 31 digits long. Its decimal representation is 1633771873. I feel no ambiguity in understanding what number it represents -- and yet it is not a multiple of 5-bits. Why do I need to pad four extra zeros to the left (35 bits now), to make it a multiple of 5? Why is Crockford-32 telling me I should zero-pad?<br /><br />As such, I am still left with this question about the Crockford 32 specification:<br />slot gacorhttps://www.eurobasketwomen2011.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-238803642358645202.post-64235393272522924672023-09-22T01:22:41.391-07:002023-09-22T01:22:41.391-07:00Respectfully, I am not understanding you point her...Respectfully, I am not understanding you point here.<br /><br />It seems you are agreeing that padding to the left does not change the number (and very importantly here, we are talking about bit representations of integers in an unsigned schema, since nowhere have we opened the can of worms that is 1's-complement or 2's complement for negative numbers).<br /><br />I completely agree with your statement, "Padding the shortest binary representation of a number to the left [with zeros] introduces no ambiguities" as that was exactly my point, but I take it further and say, "zero padding to the left introduces no ambiguities, but there were no ambiguities to be introduced in the first place".<br />slot gacorhttps://www.examscert.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-238803642358645202.post-82468482986247511752023-09-22T01:22:10.651-07:002023-09-22T01:22:10.651-07:00And that kind of padding is completely different f...And that kind of padding is completely different from base64's padding with "=" symbols, which aims to let you concatenate different blocks of base64-encoded data. It doesn't make sense to concatenate numbers, that's why Crockford32 goes as far as using "=" for a completely different purpose. If it was an alternative to base64, it would have been wise to at least keep the option of base64-style padding open!<br /><br />slot gacorhttps://bahianoticias.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-238803642358645202.post-40778073015442128012023-09-22T01:21:53.140-07:002023-09-22T01:21:53.140-07:00Of course padding is only necessary if you start f...Of course padding is only necessary if you start from a binary representation of the number and want to transform it into a base 32 representation. You don't need it if you compute the base 32 representation from scratch:<br /><br />1100001011000010110000101100001 (base 2)<br />= 1GP2RB1 (base 32)<br />= 00001 10000 10110 00010 11000 01011 00001 (base 2)<br /><br />where you see that zero-extension to a multiple of 5 bits has happened naturally. I'm guessing that's why you find this mention of padding unnecessary: it's just that it was written with binary representation as a starting point.<br />slot onlinehttps://www.nenroll-nenroll.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-238803642358645202.post-91585810215554188222023-09-22T01:21:21.539-07:002023-09-22T01:21:21.539-07:00Sorry for the strong words, I saw it on Hacker New...Sorry for the strong words, I saw it on Hacker News where the title was "Why most Crockford32 Implementations are Wrong". The hubris of this statement made me overlook the more tentative wording of the post.<br /><br />"Left-based zero padding, DOES NOT CHANGE THE VALUE OF THE NMUBER at all."<br /><br />And it's exactly the reason why it's chosen! Padding the shortest binary representation of a number to the left introduces no ambiguities, since the first digit is always a 1 (for non-zero numbers), whereas padding to the right would make decoding ambiguous ("10000" could correspond to 1 or 10 or 100...).<br />slot gacorhttps://www.fpmonline.net/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-238803642358645202.post-23651615584418138852023-09-22T01:20:53.067-07:002023-09-22T01:20:53.067-07:00If we right-pad, we get
crockford32NumberEncoding(...If we right-pad, we get<br />crockford32NumberEncoding(0110000101100001011000010110000100000000) --> "C5GP2R80"<br />and "C5GP2R80" != "1GP2RB1"<br /><br />I don't know what Douglas Crockford meant the specification to REALLY be. I would love him to find this page and answer. Most people interpreted it as a base32-radix encoding with a single number. Me too.<br />slot gacorhttps://mpmn-digital.com/noreply@blogger.com