Talk:Ones' Complement

Mathematics Redirect‑class Low‑priority

	Mathematics portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics
Redirect	This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-priority on the project's priority scale.

The entire discussion on binary number systems seems muddled and in need of some organizing and better descriptions of things not 2's complement. This article is intended as a start on that effort. If it passes initial muster I'll continue with cleaning and organizing a couple of closely related pages.

KentOlsen (talk) 22:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that will help it pass initial muster is a quality source that describes the concept. See WP:Reliable Sources for a long and confusing description of what we consider a good source. If you've got that, keep crackin. (p.S. I'm moving this page to conform with the naming guidelines - WP:MOS) The Interior (Talk) 00:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my 2c's worth:

Yes, definitely needs reliable sources - Wikipedia is not the place to write unsourced essays.
According to signed number representations and a lengthy discussion on its talk page, the correct term is "ones' complement", not "one's complement".
The Basics section seems to be plain wrong; surely the whole point of ones' complement is that it replaces subtraction with additon i.e. you do not need to subtract 19, because you add the ones' complement representation of -19 instead.

At the moment, I think that the ones' complement section in the signed number representations article is clearer, more concise and more accurate than this essay. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

709 representation.

The statement on the 709 and its derivatives is not exactly true. They used 1's complement in 36 and 72 bit quantities, but 2's complement in 15 bits. Coders had to be aware of this fact in using the AXC instruction on negative quantities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.142.69 (talk) 13:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Traductions

I'm a newbie with wikipedia; but there are others traductions of this page linked between themselves, but not with the english one. Who could resolve it? Mtorrecilla (talk) 11:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this supposed to be ones' complement (with the apostrophe AFTER the "s")?

Both Knuth's TAOCP volume 2 and the ISO C standards have it that way, with TAOCP giving the rationale behind it (and why the rule is different for two's complement).