It‘s a fringe idea put forward by a German cryptocurrency (of course), and loosely based on some old result by Knuth.
So no, some people really clamor for all of us to switch to ternary logic.
So no, some people really clamor for all of us to switch to ternary logic.
“100 in decimal has three digits, so its radix economy is 10×3 = 30; its binary representation has seven digits (1100100 2) so it has radix economy 2×7 = 14 in base 2; in base 3 its representation has five digits (10201 3) with a radix economy of 3×5 = 15; in base 36 (2S 36) its radix economy is 36×2 = 72.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radix_economy
The idea being that there’s a tradeoff between the cost of each digit vs the number of digits you need. However we use base 2 because the cost of base 3 is more than 50% higher than using base 2.
> For computation, radix R = 3 would be more economical than R = 2 because the “optimal” radix would be R = e = 2.718, according to a demonstration presented in [1].
Where [1] is "S.L. Hurst, “Multiple-Valued Logic - Its Status and Its Future“, IEEE Trans. on Computers, VOL. C-33, No 12, December 1984." I can't find that one for free anywhere, but there's your lead.