Converting numbers (binary and so on)

  • Thread starter Thread starter soonsoon88
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Numbers
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
4 replies · 8K views
soonsoon88
Messages
53
Reaction score
0
Anyone can help me to solve the problem?

how to convert 0.65 (decimal numbers) to binary,octal and hexadecimal numbers?
thx..=)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
soonsoon88 said:
Anyone can help me to solve the problem?

how to convert 0.65 (decimal numbers) to binary,octal and hexadecimal numbers?
thx..=)

I would first convert 0.65 into a proper fraction of the lowest common denominator in base 10, convert the numerator and denominator to the new base, then do long division.

0.65 = 65/100 = 13/20 ----> 1101/101002 = 15/248 = D/1416

Of course, you have to know how to do long division in the different bases.
 
eugenius said:
Here is a website that does it for you. http://www.easysurf.cc/cnver17.htm#b10tob2

Once you are done reading that, for Octal and Hex its exactly the same process except you multiply and divide by 8 and 16 instead of by 2.

After you've converted 0.65 to binary, there's a shortcut to convert it to octal and hex. Just group the bits into 3s (for octal) and 4s (for hex). For example, 0.101 would be 0.5 in octal and 0.A in hex.

By the way, you can also check your binary answer with the decimal/binary converter I wrote: http://www.exploringbinary.com/binary-converter/ . It is arbitrary precision, which means you can convert very large and very small numbers.
 
OmCheeto said:
I would first convert 0.65 into a proper fraction of the lowest common denominator in base 10, convert the numerator and denominator to the new base, then do long division.

0.65 = 65/100 = 13/20 ----> 1101/101002 = 15/248 = D/1416

Of course, you have to know how to do long division in the different bases.

That would be the best way to do it in a computer, but I'd say the "repeated multiplication by new base" method works best for humans!