if we write the bit count for numbers in increasing order:
dec biny #-->

__0 0000 0 000
__1 0001 1 001
__2 0010 1 001
__3 0011 2 010
__4 0100 1 001
__5 0101 2 010
__6 0110 2 010
__7 0111 3 011
__8 1000 1 001
__9 1001 2 010
_10 1010 2 010
_11 1011 3 011
_12 1100 2 010
_13 1101 3 011
_14 1110 3 011
_15 1111 4 100
...we can note the least significant bit of the bit count follow a self similar pattern...

01 ; start
01 ; generator
0110
01101001
0110100110010110

...it is fractal. :-D
Posted on 2004-11-21 02:17:37 by bitRAKE
am i wrong, or should 2 be 010 in stead of 000? (on line __3, __5, __6, etc).
Posted on 2004-11-21 05:28:52 by lifewire
yes, thanks for the correction.

0 ; start
01 ; generator

0
01
0110
01101001
...
Posted on 2004-11-21 11:42:38 by bitRAKE
okay. interesting though :)
Posted on 2004-11-21 12:36:40 by lifewire
For *very* interesting read about numbers, see Stephen Wolfram's "A New Kind of Science" chapter 4 ;)
http://www.wolframscience.com/nksonline/toc.html
Posted on 2004-11-21 12:56:56 by omega_red
Yes, NKS is very intriguing - I have the book and have wrote some programs to reproduce the graphics.

I was looking for an easy aperiodic way to generate a checksum - just to ignore data that has been tampered with. RE'ing the data will be very hard if a correct checksum cannot be generated. 8)
Posted on 2004-11-21 16:24:33 by bitRAKE
Check the calculator in my site which can handle binary numbers.

01 A 1
:arrow: 10 B 2
11 C 3
100 D 4
Posted on 2004-11-21 16:40:43 by Char_Amuro