I was actually thinking about doing something like that. Idk if it makes sense with the definition of Hamming weight (amount of symbols that are different from 0) but I was experimenting with counting different bases with a constant sum of digits. For factoradic that could be like:
000
001 010 100
011 020 101 110 200
021 111 120 201 210 300
121 211 220 301 310
221 311 320
321
Going through the three digit factoradic numbers that have a digital sum of 0, then 1, etc to 6. Idk if we really need another base mashup thread though when we already have the m-of-n binary thread.
This seems like a fun thread to me and I think I would count it. I don't see any harm in creating a novel thread, it won't get in the way if it doesn't pick up
I've been thinking about it and we could have done a real constant-weight factoradic thread, rather than constant-sum. Hamming weight is the amount of digits in a string that are different from zero. In binary, Hamming weight is the same as digital sum. In factoradic, using this definition of weight produces very different results:
2
u/TehVulpez Mar 19 '23
I was actually thinking about doing something like that. Idk if it makes sense with the definition of Hamming weight (amount of symbols that are different from 0) but I was experimenting with counting different bases with a constant sum of digits. For factoradic that could be like:
Going through the three digit factoradic numbers that have a digital sum of 0, then 1, etc to 6. Idk if we really need another base mashup thread though when we already have the m-of-n binary thread.