Designing a Character Encoding for a Ternary Computer

When designing a character encoding system for a ternary computer, it's important to consider the fundamental differences between ternary and binary systems. While UTF-8 has become the de facto standard for representing Unicode characters in binary, the hypothetical need for an equivalent for a ternary computer is a different beast altogether.

Why Not UTF-8?

The design of UTF-8 is deeply rooted in binary operations and the constraints of eight-bit bytes. It solves the problem of representing a string of Unicode codepoints as a sequence of binary octets, which is a widely adopted standard. UTF-7, based on seven-bit characters, is highly frowned upon, while UTF-9 and UTF-18, based on nine and eighteen-bit characters, exist purely as April Fool’s pranks.

Binary octets are the smallest unit of data that most current computing storage and networking devices can agree on. It's easy to write blocks of binary octets to files or send them over a network. For a ternary computer to interoperate with the vast majority of deployed computing machinery, it should simply consume UTF-8 as it would other binary data arriving via a network or interchangeable media.

Interoperability with Heterogeneous Ternary Networks

In a hypothetical world where heterogeneous ternary computers need to interoperate, the basic unit of storage or network transmission must be clearly defined. Designing this unit such that problems like endianness don't exist is crucial. For example, if 13 trits (a unit of ternary data) are sufficient for storing all Unicode codepoints, a ternary computer could directly use UTF-8 without needing an equivalent encoding system. However, if a fixed-length encoding of 5 ternary triples or fixed 27 trits per Unicode codepoint is more feasible, that would also be a reasonable approach.

Run-Length Encoding for Ternary Systems

For a ternary encoding system, run-length encoding could be a viable and efficient method. Run-length encoding (RLE) is a simple form of data compression that works by storing the length of contiguous runs of data. For a ternary computer, RLE encoded data could be more compactly represented. For instance, if a sequence of data is mostly repetitive, it can be encoded by storing the data value and the count of its repetitions, which can reduce the overall storage and transmission requirements.

In the case where 13 trits are sufficient for representing Unicode codepoints, the encoding system should reserve the most significant trits to indicate standalone lead and follow units. A leading 0 could indicate a standalone 13-trit unit, a 1 a lead 13-trit unit, and a 2 a follow 13-trit unit. Reserving additional trits in the lead unit to indicate sequence length, such as using the second trit to indicate the sequence length, can further optimize the encoding for longer sequences.

For example, if an encoded sequence needs to be longer than four 13-trit units, additional trits could be reserved to indicate longer sequences. This approach ensures that the encoding remains efficient and consistent with the principles of run-length encoding, even in the context of a ternary computer.

Conclusion

While UTF-8 is a powerful tool for binary systems, the design of an equivalent character encoding for a ternary computer requires a different approach. Run-length encoding and careful design of the basic unit of storage and transmission can lead to a more efficient and practical solution. The goal should be to enable a ternary computer to interoperate seamlessly with existing binary systems, making UTF-8 a natural fit. Regardless of the specific encoding mechanism, the focus should be on simplicity, efficiency, and interoperability.