Talk:Validate International Securities Identification Number: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
m (→Dup?) |
(→Dup?) |
||
Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
--[[User:TheWombat|TheWombat]] ([[User talk:TheWombat|talk]]) 00:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC) |
--[[User:TheWombat|TheWombat]] ([[User talk:TheWombat|talk]]) 00:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC) |
||
: Any of these sound like they would work. Another possibility might be to mark pages with something like Category: Checksums (very broad) or Category: Digit Checksums, or something like that. |
|||
: That said, note that in my previous reading I did not pick up that letters were being included in the checksum, using a "base 36" sort of mechanism. |
|||
: Anyways, I do not have any real strong opinions on this topic. I guess just proceed how you like and see if anyone else weighs in? --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] ([[User talk:Rdm|talk]]) 09:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 09:29, 27 February 2015
Dup?
Is this a duplicate of Luhn_test_of_credit_card_numbers?
If not, what is the task? --Rdm (talk) 07:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Rdm. I should have spotted the connection with Luhn. The difference is that ISINs can contain alphabetic characters, which must be translated to digits before a Luhn checksum is calculated. CUSIP, the North American stock codes, are shorter but otherwise use the same algorithm as ISINs. I couldn't see a Rosetta page for them.
There is another page on Rosetta for SEDOLs, which use the same letter-to-number technique, but thereafter use a different checksum algorithm, not Luhn.
So I think there is a point in having an ISIN page. What do you think?
--TheWombat (talk) 00:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Any of these sound like they would work. Another possibility might be to mark pages with something like Category: Checksums (very broad) or Category: Digit Checksums, or something like that.
- That said, note that in my previous reading I did not pick up that letters were being included in the checksum, using a "base 36" sort of mechanism.