Any decimal number in the range 0 to 2^(n-1)can be represented in binary form

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter jackson6612
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Binary Form Range
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the representation of decimal numbers in binary form, specifically addressing the claim that any decimal number in the range 0 to 2^(n-1) can be represented as an n-bit binary number. Participants explore the validity of this claim and the correct range for n-bit representations.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the claim that the range is 0 to 2^(n-1), suggesting it should be 0 to (2^n)-1 instead.
  • Another participant supports the idea that for n=3, numbers from 0 to 4 can be represented in binary, but acknowledges that numbers up to 7 can also be represented, indicating a broader range.
  • A later reply argues that the original statement is not "wrong," suggesting that the smaller range might have been contextually relevant in certain mathematical proofs.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement regarding the correct range for n-bit binary representation, with some supporting the original claim and others advocating for a broader interpretation. The discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

There is a lack of consensus on the implications of the range definitions and their relevance in different contexts, as well as the potential limitations of the original claim.

jackson6612
Messages
334
Reaction score
1
I have read somewhere: Any decimal number in the range 0 to 2^(n-1) can be represented in binary form as an n-bit number.

I suspect it's wrong. Shouldn't it rather be 0 to [(2^n)-1]?

Please guide me. Thanks.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
You're right. n=3 table
0 000
1 001
2 010
3 011
4 100
5 101
6 110
7 111

7=23 - 1
 
Thanks a lot, Mathman.
 
jackson6612 said:
I have read somewhere: Any decimal number in the range 0 to 2^(n-1) can be represented in binary form as an n-bit number.

I suspect it's wrong. Shouldn't it rather be 0 to [(2^n)-1]?

It's not "wrong". For example if n = 3, then any decimal number in the range 0 to 2^2 = 4 CAN be expressed as an n-bit binary number.

Sure, there are some other numbers that can be expressed as well, like 5 6 and 7, but that doesn't make the statement false.

Often in math proofs, there is no value in stretching every condition to its ultimate limit just for the sake of it. Possibly, in the context where you read this, the smaller range was all that was relevant.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • · Replies 55 ·
2
Replies
55
Views
7K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K