taunugget
taunugget t1_j9vdphu wrote
Reply to comment by nullrecord in ELI5: Why do we only use 1 and 0 for binary? Could we create a trinary system introducing an extra '2'? by No-Mammoth-1638
That's a good point, lots of transceivers do encode/decode signals with multiple levels. I was only thinking about the processing and storage of data. Even a qam-64 symbol needs to be converted to binary to do anything useful with it.
taunugget t1_j9vavfy wrote
Reply to comment by nullrecord in ELI5: Why do we only use 1 and 0 for binary? Could we create a trinary system introducing an extra '2'? by No-Mammoth-1638
You can get more storage/bandwidth by just adding more binary bits. To achieve the same result with a ternary system would require way more cost and effort.
taunugget t1_j9v6pvu wrote
Reply to ELI5: Why do we only use 1 and 0 for binary? Could we create a trinary system introducing an extra '2'? by No-Mammoth-1638
There isn't really any advantage to adding a third symbol when you can just use more binary digits instead. With two binary digits you can have 4 values, and with 32 digits you can have billions. Sticking with binary allows us to build electronics that are fast, cheap, and reliable.
taunugget t1_j9very4 wrote
Reply to comment by nullrecord in ELI5: Why do we only use 1 and 0 for binary? Could we create a trinary system introducing an extra '2'? by No-Mammoth-1638
Very cool!