Re: A89: Difference between "AMS 2.0x" and "HW 2.00" designation on ti


[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: A89: Difference between "AMS 2.0x" and "HW 2.00" designation on ticalc.org?




Uh...  Were you bored today? :)

Kaus wrote:
> 
> well, close.  there are 16 to be mathematically complete.
> if each of the following are binary possibilities: where 1 is yes and 0 is
> no
> HW1Compatible  (bit 3)
> HW2Compatible  (bit 2)
> AMS1Compatible (bit 1)
> AMS2Compatible (bit 0)
> 
> And so:
> 1111
> 1110
> 1101
> 1100
> 1011
> 1010
> 1001
> 1000
> 0111
> 0110
> 0101
> 0100
> 0011
> 0010
> 0001
> 0000
> or 2^4=16 possible states.  althought some of these are unlikely, such as:
> 
> not compatible with anything (0000)
> not compatible with any AMS, but works on both hardware versions (1100)
> not compatible with any HW versions, but works on both AMSs (0011)
> not compatible with any HW versions, but works on AMS1.0x (0001)
> not compatible with any HW versions, but works on AMS2.0x (0010)
> not compatible with any AMS, but works on HW1 (0100)
> not compatible with any AMS, but works on HW2 (1000)
> 
> others can happen too though:
> 
> only works on HW1, AMS1.0x (0101)
> only works on HW2, AMS2.0x (1010)
> only works on HW1, AMS2.0x (0110)
> only works on HW2, AMS1.0x (1001)
> 
> so you see, the answer of 16 is a possible number of states, but since 7 of
> them are invalid, not accurate of the problem.  so how do we arrive at the
> correct answer, 9?
> well, we combine the two low order bits and the two high order bits. since
> at all times, one of the bottom two bits has to be one, and one of the upper
> two bits has to be one, we can provide new rangenames:
> HW:  0=HW1, 1=HW2, 2=both
> AMS: 0=AMS1.0x, 1=AMS2.0x, 2=both
> since each range has is a trinary unit, and we have two ranges, we simply:
> 3^2=9
> and that is the correct number of possible combinations for our problem.
> 
> hehehe
> 
> --kaus
> 
> PS This was fun.  dont worry bryan, it wasnt meant to be a nitpicking
> "YOU'RE WRONG!" message.  I was just rambling. :)
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Bryan Rabeler <rabelerb@pilot.msu.edu>
> To: <assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org>
> Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2000 5:15 PM
> Subject: Re: A89: Difference between "AMS 2.0x" and "HW 2.00" designation on
> ticalc.org?
> 
> >
> > So we have 5 possibilities for libraries?
> >
> > 1.) Libraries that will work on any HW or AMS version   (1111)
> > 2.) Libraries that will work on any HW version but only AMS 1.0x  (1101)
> > 3.) Libraries that will work on any HW version but only AMS 2.0x  (1110)
> > 4.) Libraries that will work on any AMS version but only HW1  (0111)
> > 5.) Libraries that will work on any AMS version but only HW2  (1011)
> >
> > That seems crazy to me..
> >
> > --
> > Bryan Rabeler
> > rabelerb@pilot.msu.edu
> > http://www.msu.edu/~rabelerb/
> >
> > "I have also received > 20 mails from people outside our staff asking us
> to
> > kick you off the site. This is not something we'll do" - Magnus Hagander,
> 22
> > November 1998
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Scott Dial" <wrath@calc.org>
> > To: <assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org>
> > Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2000 1:09 AM
> > Subject: Re: A89: Difference between "AMS 2.0x" and "HW 2.00" designation
> on
> > ticalc.org?
> >
> >
> > >
> > > AMS2.0x libraries are subject the division of hardware versions...
> > > right? So there are hw1 and hw2 and within those categories is AMS1.0x
> > > and AMS2.0x
> > >
> > > Bryan Rabeler wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On this page, http://www.ticalc.org/pub/89/asm/libs/, ticalc.org has
> > both
> > > > "[HW 2.00]" and "[AMS v2.0x]" next to various libraries.  Does
> > ticalc.org
> > > > really mean to say the same thing here, or should I take this
> literally?
> > > >
> > > > Meaning, are there some libraries that will only work on HW2
> regardless
> > of
> > > > the AMS version, and some will only work on AMS 2.0x regardless of the
> > > > hardware version?  That idea seems pretty bizarre, but maybe that is
> > true??
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Bryan Rabeler
> > > > rabelerb@pilot.msu.edu
> > > > http://www.msu.edu/~rabelerb/
> > > >
> > > > "Let me remind people that we're not in the business of censorship" -
> > Chris
> > > > Dornfeld, 4 November 1998
> > >
> > > --
> > > Scott "_Wrath_" Dial
> > > wrath@calc.org
> > > ICQ#3608935
> > > TimeCity AI Guy II - www.timecity.org
> > > Member of TCPA - tcpa.calc.org
> > > __________________________________________
> > > NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
> > > Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at
> > > http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
> > >
> > >
> >
> >


Follow-Ups: References: