- Original Message -
From: "David Hobby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 2:22 PM
Subject: Re: Bases, was Re: Stirling engine queries
> > Am I wrong in thinking this?
> >
>
> I understand, but what I was saying is that it doesn't really make all
> that much a difference. There are just too many cases where you would
> still be using fractions and decimals, so a different base doesn't
> simplify things in the long run.
> Base 12 might be helpful when doing math in you
- Original Message -
From: "David Hobby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 11:49 PM
Subject: Re: Bases, was Re: Stirling engine queries
> Robert Seeberger wrote:
> ...
> > >
Alberto Monteiro wrote:
>
> David Hobby wrote:
> >
> >>> However, a base 12 counting system would have been much better;
> >>
> >> No, it wouldn't
> >
> > Well, a little better.
> >
> A little worse.
>
> > Depending how you count, you can
> > argue that 12 "has more factors" than 10. This
David Hobby wrote:
> At the end of it, half of them say things like "a cubic
> meter is a liter, which weighs a gram".
While we're already talking about changing our number systems,
maybe we should change metric to make that true, because those
definitions make a *lot* more sense than the real one
Julia Thompson wrote:
>
> David Hobby wrote:
...
> > So base 12 is not bad, it gives nice tests for 2,4,8,...
> > for 3,9,..., for 11 since 12 = 11 + 1 and it gives a poor test for
> > 13 since 12^2 = 11*13 + 1. The situation for 5 and for 7 seems to
> > be even worse.
> > Contras
Robert Seeberger wrote:
...
> > I'd say that this stuff gets pretty fuzzy. One could argue
> > that 5 is more important than 11 and 13. On the other hand, one
> > could say that ending tests are better than sum of digits tests,
> > and conclude that 12 is superior since it replaces sum of digits
Alberto Monteiro wrote:
> Alberto Monteiro who spends his time in the traffic looking at
> the numbers of the cars and dividing them by 11.
I spend my time making words from the three letters on the plates we have
here. Keeps me amused for a while. Bonus points for naughty words. Did I say
I hate
"Robert J. Chassell" wrote:
>
> Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>
> Base 10 has a minor advantage in divisibility tests that I don't
> think you get with any other possible base between 5 and 17. And
> unlike 5 and 17, it's not prime.
>
> What are the tests and the advantag
- Original Message -
From: "David Hobby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 7:38 AM
Subject: Re: Bases, was Re: Stirling engine queries
>
> > > Well, a little better.
- Original Message -
From: "Robert J. Chassell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 6:38 PM
Subject: Re: Bases, was Re: Stirling engine queries
> ... but can someone please count to 12 using the tips and top
>
Alberto Monteiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
The problem with base 12 is that it has _2_ twice and _3_ once
when you factor it, so that the "practical man" rules to check if
a number is divisible by another would get a higher degree of
confusion.
Ah, I see your point. However, I d
... but can someone please count to 12 using the tips and top
knuckels of one hand, 'cause i only get 10.
I count 12:
Looking at my left hand, palm towards my eyes, with my fingers curled
over, I see the four tips of my fingers and four of the knuckles
closest to my finger tips and four
Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
Base 10 has a minor advantage in divisibility tests that I don't
think you get with any other possible base between 5 and 17. And
unlike 5 and 17, it's not prime.
What are the tests and the advantage? I don't know anything about
this. Perhap
David Hobby wrote:
>
> > > Well, a little better. Depending how you count, you can
> > > argue that 12 "has more factors" than 10. This must be worth
> > > something, since I don't hear anyone pushing for prime bases such
> > > as 11. Agreed, it's not a big deal. It might be more to ma
From: David Hobby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
There are two kinds of divisibility tests. They aren't
usually given names, but let's call them "ending tests" and
"sum of digits tests". Working base 10, there are ending
tests for 2,4,8,... and 5,25,... as well as for their products.
(Let's ignore c
David Hobby wrote:
>
>>> However, a base 12 counting system would have been much better;
>>
>> No, it wouldn't
>
> Well, a little better.
>
A little worse.
> Depending how you count, you can
> argue that 12 "has more factors" than 10. This must be worth
> something, since I don't hear any
> > Well, a little better. Depending how you count, you can
> > argue that 12 "has more factors" than 10. This must be worth
> > something, since I don't hear anyone pushing for prime bases such
> > as 11. Agreed, it's not a big deal. It might be more to make a
> > number base feel "co
> From: Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> David Hobby wrote:
> >
> > Alberto Monteiro wrote:
> > >
> > > Robert J. Chassell wrote:
> > > >
> > > > However, a base 12 counting system would have been much better;
> > > >
> > > No, it wouldn't
> > >
> > > Alberto Monteiro
> >
> > Well,
David Hobby wrote:
>
> Alberto Monteiro wrote:
> >
> > Robert J. Chassell wrote:
> > >
> > > However, a base 12 counting system would have been much better;
> > >
> > No, it wouldn't
> >
> > Alberto Monteiro
>
> Well, a little better. Depending how you count, you can
> argue that 12 "has
Alberto Monteiro wrote:
>
> Robert J. Chassell wrote:
> >
> > However, a base 12 counting system would have been much better;
> >
> No, it wouldn't
>
> Alberto Monteiro
Well, a little better. Depending how you count, you can
argue that 12 "has more factors" than 10. This must be worth
21 matches
Mail list logo
