10:2:2:14:15:3:9:0:12:0:0:11:5:11:8_19 mod 18

[a1call]

If I read that correctly, then the answer is no.
Correct?

[retina]

Originally Posted by a1call

If I read that correctly, then the answer is no.
Correct?

Well, you mentioned "decimal" digits, so the answer is yes, like I showed. But it appears as though instead you actually "radix" digits, in which case the answer is no.

Mixing terminology like that will get you in trouble.

[a1call]

Originally Posted by retina

Yes. Easy.

10:10:10₁₁ = 1330₁₀

Good find.
Is that a rare find?
in general, would you expect a less number of decimal digits most likely?

[a1call]

Originally Posted by retina

Well, you mentioned "decimal" digits, so the answer is yes, like I showed. But it appears as though instead you actually "radix" digits, in which case the answer is no.

Mixing terminology like that will get you in trouble.

I was answering SM without annoying Batalov hence parsing out the quote.
Your answer is/was on the money.

[retina]

Originally Posted by a1call

Is that a rare find?

What do you consider rare? If we project towards infinity then the proportion of "yes" to "no" tends towards zero.

Originally Posted by a1call

in general, would you expect a less number of decimal digits most likely?

What does "in general" mean here? For the range of numbers in your cash holdings reports? For the range of numbers measuring human adult heights (and in what units)? Something else?

[a1call]

Originally Posted by retina

What do you consider rare? If we project towards infinity then the proportion of "yes" to "no" tends towards zero.What does "in general" mean here? For the range of numbers in your cash holdings reports? For the range of numbers measuring human adult heights (and in what units)? Something else?

Well the basis of my question is:
* Would it be a valid form of a primitive lossless-compression to store a large integer in a Long variable in an appropriate higher base and use non-occurring short decimal-sequence as separators? Or, not, since you are as likely to end up with a bigger integer.

[science_man_88]

Originally Posted by a1call

Your answer is/was on the money.

I think it depends on what you mean by decimal digit (0-9) or is any decimal number allowed ?

any value with the first "digit" greater than the log of 10 using rational base 10/b allows a value in base b to have more decimal digits than it has in base b.

[retina]

Originally Posted by a1call

Well the basis of my question is:
* Would it be a valid form of a primitive lossless-compression to store a large integer in a Long variable in an appropriate higher base and use non-occurring short decimal-sequence as separators? Or, not, since you are as likely to end up with a bigger integer.

Maybe you would like to read up about arithmetic compression/encoding algorithms. I think your question is very much related.

[a1call]

Thank you for all the replies.