Talk:Finger binary

Painful?
Is it just me, or is it painful to do this correctly? :) Superm401 - Talk


 * I agree. I independently came up with this system when I was trying to teach my daughter about binary numbers (didn't know it was an actual thing until I started searching online). The system I use reserves the thumb for holding down the fingers and represents only 4 bits per hand (which I think is kind of neat, because two hands is a byte). So index finger represents the lowest order bit and pinky the highest order. You can count to 15 on one hand and 255 on both hands. This is much easier. I find that my daughter and I can count pretty rapidly through all the numbers without any weird hand contortions.Jefu (talk) 01:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I can do it just fine, including the pinky and middle finger thing. Am I a robot now? --84.81.10.224 15:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * These days, there's just no way to tell online. Superm401 - Talk 02:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Order
I'm going to change the order on the second hand. It's makes more sense if both hands are either palms up or down, not one up and one down. If anyone has objections, feel free to change it back. It's easier on the hands anyway. Briham 04:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That seems to be what's illustrated at the link, so that's okay. If anyone knows a source that recommends the other way, we can mention both methods.  Superm401 - Talk 03:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * At the very least you should mention both directions. Disregarding the sources quoted try counting normally from 1-10 on your fingers as you would without thinking about it. I think you will find that the left hand opens up with the thumb, not the pinky. Source: somebody who has been bored enough to actually count 0-1023 this way. (Right hand gets crampy!) 86.48.66.130 (talk) 13:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Name
I've always had a fascination with finger binary. I would like to see a standardization of finger binary. Firstly, I normally call it Binary Sign Language. Atucovic 21:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

New sections
I've added the following: 'Fractions', 'X-Y Coordinates' and 'Buffering'. I've edited 'Visualizing Finger Binary' and 'Two Hands' to reflect a standard way of reading binary digits. Atucovic 04:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Original research?
Hm. Why does an article that is composed entirely of self-evident information get these disclaimers about original research and citations? When you are skeptical about whether 101 is really 5 in binary, the problem probably lies with you. 80.60.77.155 (talk) 19:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who can do binary and those who can't. 82.171.34.71 (talk) 21:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Images over 31
The images of hands need to revised so that numbers over 31 actually show both hands. I know, I know, it's shorthand. Atucovic (talk) 22:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It appears that the pictures used in the article are ones that happened to be already on the site. I agree that two-handed finger binary illustrations should include pictures of both hands, but I don't have a digital camera.  Somebody else will have to supply them.--Father Goose (talk) 00:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If the pictures are not available then a note should point that out. Atucovic@shaw.ca (talk) 18:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, the right-hand images are already present. Atucovic@shaw.ca (talk) 19:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Fractions explanation
There was an easy way to read binary fractions without doing the fractional arithmetic that will need to be restored. Atucovic (talk) 22:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There's no more arithmetic in the explanation now than there was before: your example was "add up the fingers (21) and slap the denominator on it (32)", but that was an incomplete explanation.


 * The explanation is still "add up the fingers", but it now mentions that you have to use a denominator of 32 for one hand or 1024 for two hands: i.e., "divide by 32 or 1024". It also now mentions simplification, since you rarely want to use "768/1024" when you can say "3/4".--Father Goose (talk) 00:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I stand corrected. Arithmetic is done in both techniques. Whereas in the previous technique the numerator is added and the denominator is selected as the right-most bit. The above technique requires addition and then base 10 division.  Please leave the succinct technique if there is going to be further explanation added. Atucovic@shaw.ca (talk) 18:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I've noted other fraction-storing methods as well.--Father Goose (talk) 07:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Geometry
I certainly would like to formalize the geometry of coordinates so I'm wondering whether it's more natural to represent X (left hand) and Y (right hand) as in written notation or to reverse it (Y,X) so the right hand represents the X coordinate. In (Y,X) as I face in the Y-direction, right hand (00001) would represent +1 in the X-direction, to my right as represented by my right hitchhiking thumb. Atucovic (talk) 22:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Curling and higher powers
The curling method does not really allow you to count to higher numbers, right? As I see it, once you use the right index finger for 1024, it's no longer available for 1. I suppose you could have a "curled up" and "curled down." There should be some sort of note to this effect. What do people do? IQAG1060 14:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I always thought the finger curling thing was for finger ternary. Anyways, I can't keep my fingers straight when doing finger binary (it's either down or curled) so it's useless for me. Althai 19:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I fold by thumb across my palm. Then touching thumb for set, not touching for clear. This loses bit per hand, but I find it much easier and faster than the pictured versions. Also "4" is less offensive. Each hand is a nibble -- Hex digit. Rte66 (talk) 19:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)rte66
 * For larger numbers I use quadnary which is 0-255 (1 Byte) single handed and 0-65535 (2 Bytes) two handed. Rte66 (talk) 19:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)rte66
 * My quadnary is not touching thumb 0; on top of thumb 1; level to thumb 2; below thumb 3. Counting is extremely fast, but I cannot convert to decimal in my head, converting to Hex is easy though; Rte66 (talk) 19:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)rte66


 * I'm considering switching the curling section to finger ternary. The curling method is not a full number system, as IQAG1060's comments above state. I'll probably do it this weekend. samwaltz 22:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ternary would be a different article. I'm deleting it. Mtijn 13:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have restored the section on curling fingers, although curling the fingers now realises a third possibility, making the representation "ternary", it is still used to count in, and represent, binary. --Deon Steyn 05:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Finger ternary needs its own page as "Ternary". Finger binary is a natural expression whereas finger ternary is not. Atucovic (talk) 22:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Editing Decisions
I'm lodging a protest before I take undo action: Father Goose has removed sections that are important to this topic. This topic is called "Finger Binary" and not "Finger Binary Counting" and therefore removing "X-Y Coordinates" and "Buffering" is a mistake. Binary is a number system that can represent scalars, vectors and other data, and buffering is a unique concept in computer science that can be represented by a finger binary game between two persons. Atucovic (talk) 22:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I removed them because coordinates and buffering can be done in any number system. They have no special relation to finger binary.--Father Goose (talk) 23:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * True but the paradigm is different with 'finger + binary' meaning not only scalars can be represented but also vectors, hexadecimal colors, words and so on. Let's leave relevant information in, build on that, 17 otherwise 4. Atucovic@shaw.ca (talk) 18:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * All of those things can be represented in any number system. I don't see how the representation of any of the types of data you have mentioned are specifically important to finger binary.  However, I have added two sentences describing what I believe is your general point about vectors: .--Father Goose (talk) 01:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Lol. I love it. Seriously, though, you are right when you say any number system can represent any of the types of data.  So, use finger-decimal to represent the score of 42-20 or the date of Dec. 31.  Chances are finger-binary is much more practical.  The degree of freedom in finger-binary is an order of magnitude better.  Atucovic (talk) 02:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Animation
I started this animation project four years ago and completed it last night. (docs) I'm not entirely satisfied with the results but I won't promise when I attempt the next iteration. You choose. &mdash; Xiong &#29066; talk * 19:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks pretty good. I'd recommend slowing it down by a factor of two... it's hard to keep track of the transitions above 16.  I'd suggest re-doing #15 -- your ring finger is in a different position from where it was on "14", which is confusing.  You also need to swap around a few: #24 is 26, #25 is 27, #26 is 24, and #27 is 25.  All the others appear to be correct.--Father Goose (talk) 03:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me; but it looks pretty bad -- a point well illustrated by its failure to communicate its substantive message. Assuming (as I was taught) that the power of the thumb is zero and increases with each digit, frame 24 shows (or is intended to show) 11010 (24); I believe all frames are strictly correct and in order. They are merely illegible.

You note correctly that I made an inexplicable change in orientation at 15; but I seem to have continued thus, more or less, from there to at least 23.

Timing an animation is always difficult. Your point is well taken that half-second frames are not easy to follow; but then to extend them to a full second each would drag the full running time, including the scant rests, to over half a minute -- clearly in excess of modern attention span trained at the glass teat.

I labored over a table version containing all frames in one still image, which permits leisured examination while the animation remains snappy. Alas, by the time the table is scaled to any reasonable dimensions bad studio and bad lab combine to produce nothing worth showing, even to discuss.

The plain fact (as I mentioned) is that this version is severely limited, both technically and artistically. My hand is cramped, particularly in the third finger. My purpose in uploading this is to stimulate comment and inform the next iteration, which will be done (if at all) from scratch.

Thank you for your comments. &mdash; Xiong &#29066; talk * 10:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * 11010 = 16+8+2 = 26. Really, it doesn't look that bad.  It needs the fixes I mentioned (and I'm not entirely keen on the "goldenrod" background), but having the subject animated in this way will be a real enhancement to the article.--Father Goose (talk) 21:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Now I look again and I agree with you about the out-of-sequence (and mislabeled) frames. Not sure when they got out of sequence but there it is. I still think this proves the point that the thing is substandard: Each time I look at it, I get a different notion of what it indicates. The figures simply aren't clear.

I have a new camera and am busy recruiting a more dextrous model. The next iteration *will* be better; trust me. &mdash; Xiong &#29066; talk * 12:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay. :-) --Father Goose (talk) 19:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Quaternary finger counting?
My brother and I started doing this some years back. Never found a real use for it, but it's fun, and you get to exercise the fingers. Good for computer breaks.

Anyways, we also found that we can easily count with two bits per finger, thus obtaining a quaternary system, and being able to count to 1 048 575 on two hands. Add in two positions for each wrist and elbow, and four for each shoulder, and you can count to 268 435 456. Plus, you look like a regular nutcase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.109.14.166 (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Quaternary finger counting is indeed not too difficult. A reasonable set of positions would be: 0 = flat against the palm; 1 = curled backwards to touch the palm at the fingertip; 2 = curved, but not touching the palm; 3 = straight up. But I am not sure if any reliable source has covered the ternary or quaternary versions. Double sharp (talk) 15:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

With palms oriented toward the counter's face??
Seriously, WTF? Am I correct in assuming that "the counter" means "the person who counts", and that it is the same person the hands belong to? In this case, if the hands are placed with the palm facing the counter's face, and if the left hand is on the left and the right hand on the right, then the order of the fingers does not match the table:

You would get instead:

which is completely counterintuitive, unless you cross your hands and put the right hand before (i.e. to the left of) the left.

More probably, the phrase "With palms oriented toward the counter's face" must be wrong. Teo8976 (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Fixed
It looks like something happened on 19 Jan 2015. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.125.19 (talk) 02:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and fixed the finger orders and the examples.

I added in a new table that shows how it works when you hold your hands either direction.

And I added a table about one handed left handed - which is useful for left handed people I guess. :)

68.13.125.19 (talk) 01:05, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

The Finger


Really?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.109.50 (talk) 21:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Quite. I've replaced it with File:Middle finger 3 (mirrored).JPG, but if anyone wants to sit down with a camera and take shots of all the numbers with the same hand and lighting, that would be great. --Lord Belbury (talk) 18:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Usage
So, who actually uses this? I look forward to reading that section. With its citations, of course. Morganfitzp (talk) 04:35, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I came here with the exact same question. Whilst it is a very cute and nerdy subject, I can’t see how it is worthy of an encyclopaedia entry. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I personally do, though my method is a little different than that outlined on the page. I'm little-endian... I start with my left hand and use pinkies as LSB and thumbs as MSB. That lets me keep a running tally on my left hand while still manipulating things with my right (dominant) hand. I learned it from my father as a child, and have no citations for it being in widespread use. Jbcampbel (talk) 17:24, 6 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I use it :P It is 102.4 times better than using that base-1 counting everyone else uses · · · Omnissiahs hierophant (talk) 14:54, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Should show "15"
I originally doubted that 15 could be done (pinky only down) since I couldn't do it, but then I saw this video 15 should definitely be shown - since it is difficult for some people (me) to do

with thumb and index finger raised on the left hand and no fingers raised on the right hand, this is (512 + 256)
That sentence doesn't correspond with the alignment shown in the table above though --Backinstadiums (talk) 11:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Hilarious, but surely not the place for it?
"... or from 0 to 1,048,575 (220 − 1) if the toes on both feet are used as well." Maybe I'm just not that dexterous, but I'd love to see some one pop off their shoes and show me them switching back and forth between 699,050 and 349,525. Stephen.G.McAteer (talk) 08:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I had the same thought. There’s no way you can press down an arbitrary combination of toes. Try pressing down every other toe, while raising the rest. It’s easy on fingers, but impossible on toes, for a normal person. This OR claim should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:2F01:9730:415A:4791:5EE2:715F (talk) 22:02, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Realistically you might add another two digits per foot, by moving the big toes independently. This would get you up to 4095. But does anyone actually do this? Even that seems like a definite "citation needed" situation to me. Musiconeologist (talk) 13:07, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Update: I've changed this to make it clear that using one's toes is not standard practice. Sadly it's not as funny any more, but there you go. (I think the fact that we could theoretically get up to 1048575 is still of interest, so I didn't delete it.) Musiconeologist (talk) 17:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

flexion as "1"
I use binary finger counting fairly often, but in the opposite direction. I started it many years ago, not for communication but just for myself, and soon discovered in practice what my studies of human anatomy had already taught me in theory: that the flexor muscles that bend the fingers are stronger than the extensors that straighten them. Furthermore, since I wasn't trying to show my counting to another person, I didn't have to extend my fingers all the way. In fact, for 1 I only needed to touch my fingertip to the palm or my thumbtip to the side of my index finger, and to lift it off for 0. And feeling the touch or its absence gave me a clear sensory indication of the value. I practiced this, usually just for fun or to see how high I could go without tiring the muscles out, till it became automatic and I could count quite fast without thinking about it.

Then a few years ago I had a summer gig counting pedestrian traffic at certain points in a university neighborhood. Each assignment specified a particular point on a block, e.g. the boundary between restaurant X and its neighbor bookstore Y. We had to stand on the opposite side of the street directly across from the specified point and count the pedestrians passing it in a specified period. We were provided with clickers to count on.

But at busy times of day, such as lunch time or class change, the sidewalks would be crowded, with maybe a dozen people passing in one or two seconds. Often a cluster of 5 or 10 people would pass the observation point together. Not that they were necessarily all walking as one group: there might be two or three groups that happened to be passing in the same few seconds. What made it worse, on the broad sidewalks two or three people near the edge would block my view of people on the inside, making the counting even more difficult. And my finger got tired from clicking, even if I could keep up with the traffic. So I resorted to my automatic binary finger counting, which helped a lot.

I still use it sometimes, or just practice it for its own sake.

--Thnidu (talk) 06:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

All hand positions demonstration
I plan to upload a bunch of images of either my hand or a drawn hand in all of the poses. Where should I put the images, and is this a bad idea? Notanonymous1 (talk) 13:39, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * People can maybe figure it out for themselves, that there are many ways of doing finger binary. Basically it's the human-hand-variant of various endianess. If you want to elaborate further upon this, maybe search for more references, rather than over-explaining it? The knowledge gained per word read (information entropy) of this article is already extremely low, and expanding upon the article with more examples will just lower this further. It might even be a better idea to remove text from the article for this reason. It is also dangerously close to original research, as it *almost* does not cite any sources at all. Pedantic wikipedians might even suggest this article should be deleted for these reasons. So, focusing on adding references is likely more important if you hold this subject dear! · · · Omnissiahs hierophant (talk) 00:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I think you're right. People who know binary and what each finger represents don't need to see every possible combination. What they might be unsure of is whether certain positions are actually possible (in particular, ones where the ring finger is extended but the middle finger and little finger aren't). If someone does want to illustrate all 32 positions for a hand, I think this needs to be in the form of an animation or video so it doesn't take up huge amounts of page space. Really the essential information is:
 * fingers can represent bits
 * there are 32 combinations per hand
 * there are various ways that 10 bits can represent numbers
 * people do in fact manage the necessary contortions (illustrate a couple of the tricky ones)
 * whether there is a risk of injury from over-practising the difficult positions (as can happen when practising a musical instrument incorrectly)
 * this is a recognised subject, not a group essay.
 * At the moment it feels a bit as though material has been added for reasons of enthusiasm and for the sake of adding it, rather than to add information. Musiconeologist (talk) 15:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)