……I am honestly not sure what this is in reference to? The comment complained that there are no bits in ternary, only trits. I didn’t attack him I just explained that I wanted to use the word bits there because I thought it would make it easier to conceptualize what this looks like implemented.
And that seems to be the problem with both comments: the point is not the numeric system the point is how such numeric systems were implemented on early computers. I don’t think there’s anything in either comment that adds value to that discussion.
Would love to understand why you feel differently about that.