Ted MacNEIL wrote:
>Careful. In Canada the first four digits identify the issuer.
Ooh, do tell - did some Googling but didn't find this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Insurance_Number talks about the first
digit being significant, however.
This still proves the point I believe you were ma
Careful. In Canada the first four digits identify the issuer.
-
-teD
-
Original Message
From: Gerhard Postpischil
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 23:57
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Reply To: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
Subject: Re: Packed decimal (again!)
On 2/18/2014 2:08 PM, Phil Smith
On 2/18/2014 3:23 PM, Phil Smith wrote:
Gerhard: you wrote:
Keeping the number in unsigned packed form can speed verification
How is x'123F' faster to verify than x'123C'?
Unsigned packed would be x'0123'. It's faster than verifying a binary
value when you're dealing with digits, eliminating
At 14:29 -0500 on 02/18/2014, Gerhard Postpischil wrote about Re:
Packed decimal (again!):
You're wrong about math use with credit card numbers. The leading
three/four digit identify the bank, and the last digit is a checksum
calculated from the remaining 8/9 digits.
The first digits
Hello Phil,
I would like to give you some personal opinions on this ... see below
Am 18.02.2014 20:08, schrieb Phil Smith:
A while ago, there was a somewhat contentious thread about packed decimal: whether it had to
include the sign nybble or could just be all "significant" nybbles, and like
Thanks, Gerhard and Peter.
By "prefix analysis" I meant IIN/BIN routing and the like; and yes, of course
there's Luhn calculation, but if you have a stored PAN, it seems unlikely that
you're going to be calculating the Luhn again-you presumably did that when you
got it, no? But I suppose some p
;ve been far more concerned about the
actual decimal values far more than the choice of sign nibble.
I leave the database question to others more knowledgeable than I.
HTH
Peter
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Phil
On 2/18/2014 2:08 PM, Phil Smith wrote:
The same applies in spades to credit card numbers, which you're even
less likely to be doing math on, though I suppose there's a bit more
prefix analysis or IINs and the like, so maybe x'04000123456789123'
for CCN 4000123456789123 might be a bit easier to p
A while ago, there was a somewhat contentious thread about packed decimal:
whether it had to include the sign nybble or could just be all "significant"
nybbles, and like that. I don't intend to revisit what the formal definition of
"packed decimal" is or should be, but rather would like to under
