MHB Converting Decimal to Hexadecimal for Compass Corrections

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dbugger2020
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the challenges of converting decimal values to hexadecimal for compass corrections in a program rewrite. The user encounters inconsistent hexadecimal outputs for the same decimal input when calculating corrections A, B, and C, suggesting a systematic issue with the conversion method. They detail their approach of converting decimal to binary first and then to hexadecimal, highlighting the process of determining binary fractions for the decimal part. The user arrives at a repeating binary fraction and translates it into hexadecimal, ultimately concluding that 1.78 in decimal equates to 1.C6318C6318C6318... in hexadecimal. Assistance is sought to resolve the discrepancies in the conversion results.
Dbugger2020
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
I am re-writing a program that calculates compass corrections and I seemingly cannot get the conversions from Decimal to Hexidecimal correct.

The original program is written in quick basic (but i of course cannot locate the bas (source) file.
For the first correction, let's call it "A". if I enter 1.78 as my decimal, the hex return is 00 05 10. but, if i enter 1.78 as the decimal for "B", i get, 10 00 FE. For "C", i get, 20 00 FE

So obviously, the leading bits of the return (00,10,20) are the place holders for each correction 00 being A, 10 being B, and 20 being C.

Any conversion method I've tried after that place holder yields incorrect results or at least results that do not correspond.

Any help is most definitely appreciated
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
I would convert to binary first, then to base 16. Since 16 is 2 to the fourth power that second conversion is easy. First 10^0, 16^0, and 2^0 are all one so the integer part of 1.78 is still 1. 0.78= 0.5+ 0.28 so the first bit after the "decimal" point is 1. 0.28= 0.25+ 0.03 so the next bit is also 1.

So far we have 1.11 (base 2) which is 1.75 (base 10). 1/8= 0.125, 1/16= 0.0625, and 1/32= 0.03125 are all larger than 0.03 so the next three bits are 0. 1/64= 0.015625 is less than 0.03 so the next bit is 1. So far we have 1.110001 (base 2) which is 1.765625 (base 10). 0.03- 0.015625= 0.014375. 1/128= 0.00390625 which is smaller so the next bit is 1. 0.014375- 0.00390625= 0.00246875. 1/256= 0.001953125 which is smaller so the next bit is 1. 0.00246875- 0.001953125= 0.000515625. 1/512= 0.001953125 which is larger so the next bit is 0. I think that is sufficient to recognize that the "repetition" (which has to happen since 1.78 is a rational number) is 1.1100011000...= 1.1100 0110 0011 0001 1000 1100...

I wrote it in 4 bit groups because 16= 2^4 so we can directly convert each group into a hexadecimal "digit". 1100= 2^3+ 2^2= 8+ 4= 12= C (hexadecimal), 0110= 4+ 2= 6. 0011= 2+ 1= 3. 0001= 1, and 1000= 8. In 1.78 (decimal) is 1.C6318C6318C6318... (hexadecimal).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Back
Top