On Monday, November 30, 2020 at 5:32:37 PM UTC+2, Bassam Karzeddin wrote:
> On Monday, January 21, 2019 at 11:04:40 AM UTC+3, Bassam Karzeddin wrote:
> > Let us give it a try and see how does that work very efficiently without zero
> >
> > Let us start by the binary system using only two digital numbers as (1 & 2)
> >
> > So, a comparison on our 10-base number system on LHS, and our new adopted BINARY system (without using zero) on the RHS
> >
> > 1 = 1
> > 2 = 2
> > 3 = 11
> > 4 = 12
> > 5 = 21
> > 6 = 22
> > 7 = 111
> > 8 = 112
> > 9 = 121
> > 10 = 122
> >
> > ....
> > .....
> >
> > .....
> >
> > 100 =? , (Guess what?)
> >
> > let the easy pattern be an easy exercise for school students, where every number can be expressed in a unique representation (exactly like ours) FOR SURE
> >
> > In other simpler words, it is now a too easy task to adopt many number systems and without adopting zero for surer
> >
> > And guess what would it be like the fraction number (1/3) in our new number system? wonder!
> >
> > Copyright(c), 2019
> > Bassam Karzeddin
> even zero was purely a fictional number which isn't a real number
> but for the greatest luck of zero to survive was that old promotive Roman number system
>
> But, didn't you ask your self why every finger in your own hands was given a single symbolic number except the last with two symbols?
>
> Didn't you see how mathematicians are truly suffering a lot with the unsolved problems with zero or many other problems with zero?
>
> Zero and infinity, with negatives and their imaginary baby's are the art of fart that is completely destroying the physics FOR SURE
> can't you still go washout the zero? wonders!
>
> Zero is the last spoiled tooth that must be completely dismantled from the entire mathematics and science as well
>
> Bassam Karzeddin
We don't need zero nor its unnecessary silly puzzles any more

BKK

On 7/29/2023 9:50 PM, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> On Monday, November 30, 2020 at 5:32:37 PM UTC+2, Bassam Karzeddin wrote:
>> On Monday, January 21, 2019 at 11:04:40 AM UTC+3, Bassam Karzeddin wrote:
>>> Let us give it a try and see how does that work very efficiently without zero
>>>
>>> Let us start by the binary system using only two digital numbers as (1 & 2)
>>>
>>> So, a comparison on our 10-base number system on LHS, and our new adopted BINARY system (without using zero) on the RHS
>>>
>>> 1 = 1
>>> 2 = 2
>>> 3 = 11
>>> 4 = 12
>>> 5 = 21
>>> 6 = 22
>>> 7 = 111
>>> 8 = 112
>>> 9 = 121
>>> 10 = 122
>>>
>>> ....
>>> .....
>>>
>>> .....
>>>
>>> 100 =? , (Guess what?)
>>>
>>> let the easy pattern be an easy exercise for school students, where every number can be expressed in a unique representation (exactly like ours) FOR SURE
>>>
>>> In other simpler words, it is now a too easy task to adopt many number systems and without adopting zero for surer
>>>
>>> And guess what would it be like the fraction number (1/3) in our new number system? wonder!
>>>
>>> Copyright(c), 2019
>>> Bassam Karzeddin
>> even zero was purely a fictional number which isn't a real number
>> but for the greatest luck of zero to survive was that old promotive Roman number system
>>
>> But, didn't you ask your self why every finger in your own hands was given a single symbolic number except the last with two symbols?
>>
>> Didn't you see how mathematicians are truly suffering a lot with the unsolved problems with zero or many other problems with zero?
>>
>> Zero and infinity, with negatives and their imaginary baby's are the art of fart that is completely destroying the physics FOR SURE
>> can't you still go washout the zero? wonders!
>>
>> Zero is the last spoiled tooth that must be completely dismantled from the entire mathematics and science as well
>>
>> Bassam Karzeddin
> We don't need zero nor its unnecessary silly puzzles any more

So, is 1-1 undefined in your system without zero?

On 7/29/2023 9:50 PM, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> On Monday, November 30, 2020 at 5:32:37 PM UTC+2, Bassam Karzeddin wrote:
>> On Monday, January 21, 2019 at 11:04:40 AM UTC+3, Bassam Karzeddin wrote:
>>> Let us give it a try and see how does that work very efficiently without zero
>>>
>>> Let us start by the binary system using only two digital numbers as (1 & 2)
>>>
>>> So, a comparison on our 10-base number system on LHS, and our new adopted BINARY system (without using zero) on the RHS
>>>
>>> 1 = 1
>>> 2 = 2
>>> 3 = 11
>>> 4 = 12
>>> 5 = 21
>>> 6 = 22
>>> 7 = 111
>>> 8 = 112
>>> 9 = 121
>>> 10 = 122
>>>
>>> ....
>>> .....
>>>
>>> .....
>>>
>>> 100 =? , (Guess what?)

[...]

Afaict, 100 = 211212

Right?

On 7/29/2023 9:50 PM, bassam karzeddin wrote:
[...]

Fwiw here is some quick code I made for it, decode only for now:

100 = 211212

Also, check this out:

42 = 666

That is too funny! I know 6 is our of your symbol range of only 1 and 2.
The fact that 666 = 42 in the code I created for your system is really
funny! I used a positional symbol table of "123456789" not a zero in
sight. What do you think?

:^)
________________________________
#include <iostream>
#include <cstddef>
#include <cstring>
#include <cmath>

std::size_t
ct_lookup(
char input,
const char* symbols
) {
const char* result = std::strchr(symbols, input);
if (!result) throw;

return (result - symbols) + 1;
}

std::size_t
ct_decode(
const char* input,
const char* symbols
) {
std::size_t n = std::strlen(input);
if (!n) return 0;

std::size_t result = 0;

for (std::size_t i = 0; i < n; ++i)
{
std::size_t power = (std::size_t)std::pow(2, n - i - 1);
std::size_t symbol = ct_lookup(input[i], symbols);

result = result + symbol * power;
}

return result;
}

int
main()
{ {
char symbols[] = "123456789";
char data[] = "211212";

std::size_t result = ct_decode(data, symbols);
std::cout << "\n" << result << " = " << data << std::endl;
}

return 0;
} ________________________________

output:
________________________________

100 = 211212
________________________________

On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 7:27:08 AM UTC+3, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 7/29/2023 9:50 PM, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> [...]
>
> Fwiw here is some quick code I made for it, decode only for now:
>
> 100 = 211212
>
> Also, check this out:
>
> 42 = 666
>
> That is too funny! I know 6 is our of your symbol range of only 1 and 2.
> The fact that 666 = 42 in the code I created for your system is really
> funny! I used a positional symbol table of "123456789" not a zero in
> sight. What do you think?
>
> :^)
> ________________________________
> #include <iostream>
> #include <cstddef>
> #include <cstring>
> #include <cmath>
>
>
> std::size_t
> ct_lookup(
> char input,
> const char* symbols
> ) {
> const char* result = std::strchr(symbols, input);
> if (!result) throw;
>
> return (result - symbols) + 1;
> }
>
>
> std::size_t
> ct_decode(
> const char* input,
> const char* symbols
> ) {
> std::size_t n = std::strlen(input);
> if (!n) return 0;
>
> std::size_t result = 0;
>
> for (std::size_t i = 0; i < n; ++i)
> {
> std::size_t power = (std::size_t)std::pow(2, n - i - 1);
> std::size_t symbol = ct_lookup(input[i], symbols);
>
> result = result + symbol * power;
> }
>
> return result;
> }
>
>
> int
> main()
> {
> {
> char symbols[] = "123456789";
> char data[] = "211212";
>
> std::size_t result = ct_decode(data, symbols);
> std::cout << "\n" << result << " = " << data << std::endl;
> }
>
> return 0;
> }
> ________________________________
>
>
> output:
> ________________________________
>
> 100 = 211212
> ________________________________
Bravo 👏

On 7/31/2023 2:19 AM, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 7:27:08 AM UTC+3, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 7/29/2023 9:50 PM, bassam karzeddin wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>> Fwiw here is some quick code I made for it, decode only for now:
>>
>> 100 = 211212
>>
>> Also, check this out:
>>
>> 42 = 666
>>
>> That is too funny! I know 6 is our of your symbol range of only 1 and 2.
>> The fact that 666 = 42 in the code I created for your system is really
>> funny! I used a positional symbol table of "123456789" not a zero in
>> sight. What do you think?
>>
>> :^)
>> ________________________________
[snip my test code]
>> ________________________________
>>
>>
>> output:
>> ________________________________
>>
>> 100 = 211212
>> ________________________________
> Bravo 👏

Thanks. Now, I should have some time today to create a ct_encode
function that outputs symbols from a number in base 10. The opposite of
ct_decode.

On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 1:44:01 AM UTC+3, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 7/31/2023 2:19 AM, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 7:27:08 AM UTC+3, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> >> On 7/29/2023 9:50 PM, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> Fwiw here is some quick code I made for it, decode only for now:
> >>
> >> 100 = 211212
> >>
> >> Also, check this out:
> >>
> >> 42 = 666
> >>
> >> That is too funny! I know 6 is our of your symbol range of only 1 and 2.
> >> The fact that 666 = 42 in the code I created for your system is really
> >> funny! I used a positional symbol table of "123456789" not a zero in
> >> sight. What do you think?
> >>
> >> :^)
> >> ________________________________
> [snip my test code]
> >> ________________________________
> >>
> >>
> >> output:
> >> ________________________________
> >>
> >> 100 = 211212
> >> ________________________________
> > Bravo 👏
> Thanks. Now, I should have some time today to create a ct_encode
> function that outputs symbols from a number in base 10. The opposite of
> ct_decode.

I think you can now easily & very successfully establish the zero-less number systems in any base you like as 10-base number system

Also for computer & programing the (01) number system is already well established by considering (0) symbol as equals to (2) in base 2

Where academic moderators & members on Stak Exchange site didn't like & have hidden immediately this old topic of mine illegally without being able to refute it

But it is probably many researchers are working on that direction secretly as their own works, since they think that public free publications achieved by talented amatures & non-mathematicians are free to steal them under the sun light

On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 5:14:34 AM UTC+3, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 1:44:01 AM UTC+3, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > On 7/31/2023 2:19 AM, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > > On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 7:27:08 AM UTC+3, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > >> On 7/29/2023 9:50 PM, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > >> [...]
> > >>
> > >> Fwiw here is some quick code I made for it, decode only for now:
> > >>
> > >> 100 = 211212
> > >>
> > >> Also, check this out:
> > >>
> > >> 42 = 666
> > >>
> > >> That is too funny! I know 6 is our of your symbol range of only 1 and 2.
> > >> The fact that 666 = 42 in the code I created for your system is really
> > >> funny! I used a positional symbol table of "123456789" not a zero in
> > >> sight. What do you think?
> > >>
> > >> :^)
> > >> ________________________________
> > [snip my test code]
> > >> ________________________________
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> output:
> > >> ________________________________
> > >>
> > >> 100 = 211212
> > >> ________________________________
> > > Bravo 👏
> > Thanks. Now, I should have some time today to create a ct_encode
> > function that outputs symbols from a number in base 10. The opposite of
> > ct_decode.
> I think you can now easily & very successfully establish the zero-less number systems in any base you like as 10-base number system
>
> Also for computer & programing the (01) number system is already well established by considering (0) symbol as equals to (2) in base 2
>
> Where academic moderators & members on Stak Exchange site didn't like & have hidden immediately this old topic of mine illegally without being able to refute it
>
> But it is probably many researchers are working on that direction secretly as their own works, since they think that public free publications achieved by talented amatures & non-mathematicians are free to steal them under the sun light
And what is the whole theme of this topic?

Everybody knows how was zero considered as the greatest discovery in the history of mathematics, just because it was far better than that old premive number system of Roman!

But even though, we do well-understand now that zero wasn't even a discovery but an old illusional & misleading number fictional & human mind invented number that added so many unnecessary puzzles to mathematics, where we can easily go without it & without all those famous historical puzzles that were associated with it even more successfully
In short, zero fictional human mind invented number is infact No number in truer untold & untought mathematics, where it was the essence of creating the modern fiction as infinity 😀
Dropping those two fictions from mathematics as zero & infinity ♾️, would eventually normalize the whole mathematical knowledge to be quite mere & away from any human illegal desires & orientation

Bassam Karzeddin

Without zero you need infinite symbols for every quantity.
Without zero you have no base.

On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 6:06:56 AM UTC+3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> Without zero you need infinite symbols for every quantity.
> Without zero you have no base.
Mathematics minus zero equals to Mathematics
There is no loss at all by losing zero from Mathematics or anything else

BKK

On 7/31/2023 6:43 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

> Thanks. Now, I should have some time today to create a ct_encode
> function that outputs symbols from a number in base 10. The opposite of
> ct_decode.

This is just a weird variant of binary which can be converted into
ordinary binary by changing all "1" symbols to "0", then all "2" to "1",
treating the result as a binary number and adding 11...11 binary to it
(all 1's, but the number of 1s digits is equal to the number of digits
in the original number).

This brings up a flaw in the system; the numbers are always of a fixed
length. With binary (or decimal), you can always tack on leading zeroes,
for example filling out a form where you have to enter a number into a
fixed number of boxes, one digit per box, or (more importantly)
representing an integer internally on a 64 bit computer. Modern 64 bit
computers may represent decimal 100 as "0000...110100" (where ... are as
many 0's as needed to make 64 digits total) but this system cannot do so
since there is no 0 value symbol to fill out a 64 bit integer. Also it
cannot represent 0 itself at all except as a null string, 0 characters
long. (this is actually a variant of the "no leading zeroes" problem)

On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 8:24:36 PM UTC-7, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 6:06:56 AM UTC+3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Without zero you need infinite symbols for every quantity.
> > Without zero you have no base.
> Mathematics minus zero equals to Mathematics
> There is no loss at all by losing zero from Mathematics or anything else
>
> BKK

For representation you need a zero base system.