Because binary numeration requires so many bits to
represent relatively small numbers compared to the economy of the decimal
system, analyzing the numerical states inside of digital electronic
circuitry can be a tedious task. Computer programmers who design sequences
of number codes instructing a computer what to do would have a very
difficult task if they were forced to work with nothing but long strings of
1's and 0's, the "native language" of any digital circuit. To make it easier
for human engineers, technicians, and programmers to "speak" this language
of the digital world, other systems of place-weighted numeration have been
made which are very easy to convert to and from binary.
One of those numeration systems is called octal, because it is a
place-weighted system with a base of eight. Valid ciphers include the
symbols 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. Each place weight differs from the one
next to it by a factor of eight.
Another system is called hexadecimal, because it is a
place-weighted system with a base of sixteen. Valid ciphers include the
normal decimal symbols 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, plus six
alphabetical characters A, B, C, D, E, and F, to make a total of sixteen. As
you might have guessed already, each place weight differs from the one
before it by a factor of sixteen.
Let's count again from zero to twenty using decimal, binary, octal, and
hexadecimal to contrast these systems of numeration:
Number |
Decimal |
Binary |
Octal |
Hexadecimal |
-------- |
------------ |
-------- |
--------- |
-------- |
Zero |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
One |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
Two |
2 |
10 |
2 |
2 |
Three |
3 |
11 |
3 |
3 |
Four |
4 |
100 |
4 |
4 |
Five |
5 |
101 |
5 |
5 |
Six |
6 |
110 |
6 |
6 |
Seven |
7 |
111 |
7 |
7 |
Eight |
8 |
1000 |
10 |
8 |
Nine |
9 |
1001 |
11 |
9 |
Ten |
10 |
1010 |
12 |
A |
Eleven |
11 |
1011 |
13 |
B |
Twelve |
12 |
1100 |
14 |
C |
Thirteen |
13 |
1101 |
15 |
D |
Fourteen |
14 |
1110 |
16 |
E |
Fifteen |
15 |
1111 |
17 |
F |
Sixteen |
16 |
10000 |
20 |
10 |
Seventeen |
17 |
10001 |
21 |
11 |
Eighteen |
18 |
10010 |
22 |
12 |
Nineteen |
19 |
10011 |
23 |
13 |
Twenty |
20 |
10100 |
24 |
14 |
Octal and hexadecimal numeration systems would be pointless if not for
their ability to be easily converted to and from binary notation. Their
primary purpose in being is to serve as a "shorthand" method of denoting a
number represented electronically in binary form. Because the bases of octal
(eight) and hexadecimal (sixteen) are even multiples of binary's base (two),
binary bits can be grouped together and directly converted to or from their
respective octal or hexadecimal digits. With octal, the binary bits are
grouped in three's (because 23 = 8), and with hexadecimal, the
binary bits are grouped in four's (because 24 = 16):
BINARY TO OCTAL CONVERSION |
Convert 10110111.12 to octal: |
|
implied zero implied zeros |
| || |
010 110 111 100 |
Convert each group of bits --- --- --- . --- |
to its octal equivalent: 2 6 7 4 |
|
Answer: 10110111.12 = 267.48
|
We had to group the bits in three's, from the binary point left, and from
the binary point right, adding (implied) zeros as necessary to make complete
3-bit groups. Each octal digit was translated from the 3-bit binary groups.
Binary-to-Hexadecimal conversion is much the same:
BINARY TO HEXADECIMAL CONVERSION |
Convert 10110111.12 to hexadecimal: |
|
implied zeros |
||| |
1011 0111 1000 |
Convert each group of bits ---- ---- . ---- |
to its hexadecimal equivalent: B 7 8 |
|
Answer: 10110111.12 = B7.816 |
Here we had to group the bits in four's, from the binary point left, and
from the binary point right, adding (implied) zeros as necessary to make
complete 4-bit groups:
Likewise, the conversion from either octal or hexadecimal to binary is
done by taking each octal or hexadecimal digit and converting it to its
equivalent binary (3 or 4 bit) group, then putting all the binary bit groups
together.
Incidentally, hexadecimal notation is more popular, because binary bit
groupings in digital equipment are commonly multiples of eight (8, 16, 32,
64, and 128 bit), which are also multiples of 4. Octal, being based on
binary bit groups of 3, doesn't work out evenly with those common bit group
sizings. |