Jump to content

Talk:Two-out-of-five code

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Meno25 (talk | contribs) at 08:37, 4 July 2015 (Assessment: Telecommunications: class=Start (assisted)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
WikiProject iconTelecommunications Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Telecommunications 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.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

––

What do the -- mean in the code table? They are explained nowhere. --87.179.117.33 (talk) 05:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's maybe a bit hard to follow, but those are the IBM 707x sign flags. They're stored using a 2-out-of-3 code, and when copied to a digit register, two bits are forced to zero, as shown. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 13:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

two out of six

Didn't Multi-frequency, strictly speaking, use a two out of six code to allow control codes like KP and ST? --AJim (talk) 05:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Telephone Industry (electromechanical)

When I started working at Bell Canada in 1973 (I had just come from an electronics program at Conestoga College) I was surprised to see so much electromechanical technology still in use. Both the 5xB cross-bar switch as well as the number-4 toll tandem switch employed a punched card machine (called a trouble recorder) for reporting problems to the technicians on duty. That code was the 2-of-5 code. Any card containing fields with three or zero punches was immediately discarded as junk. Neilrieck (talk) 11:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was a huge aspect of TX operations. However WP decided it wasn't important enough, so that article went. Children. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]