- 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:
...
I'd say that this stuff gets pretty fuzzy. One could argue
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 your
- 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?
No, you're right. To first order, any base would work
Trent Shipley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote,
I think that internal combustion gasoline and diesel engines would
have been much more attractive in the 1930's and 1940's. They
were more efficient and had better power to weight ratios.
Gasoline internal combustion engines just
On Saturday 2004-03-06 18:16, Robert J. Chassell wrote:
Trent Shipley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote,
Given the technology of the times, what do you think would have been
the power to weight ratio of a Stirling engine whose fluid was, say
compressed hydrogen at 3000 lbs/sq-in (3000 psi, ~200 bar, or
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
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Erik Reuter wrote:
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 01:40:47PM -0600, Julia Thompson wrote:
Describe how to count up to 1023 on 10 fingers. :)
132 to you!
Hay Erick,
198, 2, 198, 2, 198, 2
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 09:26:00PM -0600, Julia Thompson wrote:
Erik Reuter wrote:
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 01:40:47PM -0600, Julia Thompson wrote:
Describe how to count up to 1023 on 10 fingers. :)
132 to you!
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jan Coffey wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Describe how to count up to 1023 on 10 fingers. :)
My wife and I (both CS) use this method exclusivly. I think I
have
even
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
tests
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.
Contrast this with
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 ones.
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 must be worth
something,
I wrote
However, a base 12 counting system would have been much better ...
and Bryon Daly [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked
Why base 12? Why not base 16, and then we'd at least benefit from
easy conversion to/from binary?
Because base 12 can be divided by both 2 and 3 (and by 4 and 6) but
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 comfortable
Also, if you look at the tips of your fingers and those knuckles
closest to the tips, you will see 12 of them on one hand -- so it is
Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises
http://www.rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8
of the five fingers of
the right hand. This gives a way of finger counting up to 60 rather than to
10. Anyone convinced?
Nerd From Hell
-Original Message-
From: Nick Lidster [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 7:15 AM
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: Re: Stirling engine
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 anyone pushing for
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
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 make a
number
Nick Lidster wrote:
Also, if you look at the tips of your fingers and those knuckles
closest to the tips, you will see 12 of them on one hand -- so it is
Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises
http://www.rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID:
- Original Message -
From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 1:40 PM
Subject: Re: Stirling engine queries
Describe how to count up to 1023 on 10 fingers. :)
I'm not sure that regestered with me. :-)
Dan M
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. Perhaps
... 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
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
Julia, et al,
Describe how to count up to 1023 on 10 fingers. :)
That's easy to describe, but a whole lot more difficult to use :-).
I remember seeing Doug Engelbart (inventor of the computer mouse, etc)
http://tinyurl.com/9km7 using a one-handed chorded keyboard
http://tinyurl.com/3ajld that
- 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
knuckels of one hand, 'cause i only
--- Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snippage
Also, if you look at the tips of your fingers and
those knuckles closest to the tips, you will see 12
of them on one hand -- so it is easy to count on your
fingers. While programmers never count on their
fingers, over the past millennia,
- 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. Depending how you count, you can
argue that 12 has more
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 01:40:47PM -0600, Julia Thompson wrote:
Describe how to count up to 1023 on 10 fingers. :)
132 to you!
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
-
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 9:23 PM
Subject: Re: Stirling engine queries
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 01:40:47PM -0600, Julia Thompson wrote:
Describe how to count up to 1023 on 10 fingers. :)
132 to you
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Describe how to count up to 1023 on 10 fingers. :)
My wife and I (both CS) use this method exclusivly. I think I have
even posted this here before.
Anyway, one day we went to the grocer on our way for a long road
trip.
On 5 Mar 2004, at 1:03 am, Nick Lidster wrote:
I can do it to 1024.. but to 1023 i have no idea
Your fingers must have had a fencepost accident :)
--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
It is our belief, however,
Nick,
I can do it to 1024.. but to 1023 i have no idea
Zero counts, but for nothing.
I stand on the threshold of tommorow, atop the stairway of yesterday,
holding the key to today, staring through the door into the future.
Bully for you. As for me, I generally stumble up the stairway of my lost
Jan,
Anyway, one day we went to the grocer on our way for a long road
trip...
Great story. It reminded me of the Gangs Kill Sign Language Users
urban legend that http://tinyurl.com/2a8vf. So be careful: you and
your wife could end up dead, or worse -- an urban legend!
I like to use this now
- Original Message -
From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 10:01 PM
Subject: Re: Stirling engine queries
On 5 Mar 2004, at 1:03 am, Nick Lidster wrote:
I can do it to 1024.. but to 1023 i have no idea
Subject: Re: Stirling engine queries
Nick,
I can do it to 1024.. but to 1023 i have no idea
Zero counts, but for nothing.
I stand on the threshold of tommorow, atop the stairway of yesterday,
holding the key to today, staring through the door into the future.
Bully for you. As for me
Jan Coffey wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Describe how to count up to 1023 on 10 fingers. :)
My wife and I (both CS) use this method exclusivly. I think I have
even posted this here before.
Anyway, one day we went to the grocer on our way
Erik Reuter wrote:
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 01:40:47PM -0600, Julia Thompson wrote:
Describe how to count up to 1023 on 10 fingers. :)
132 to you!
Erik! I didn't know you cared!
Julia
___
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 09:26:00PM -0600, Julia Thompson wrote:
Erik Reuter wrote:
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 01:40:47PM -0600, Julia Thompson wrote:
Describe how to count up to 1023 on 10 fingers. :)
132 to you!
Erik! I didn't know you cared!
Wouldn't that be 9 (thumbs in) or 18
Dave Land wrote:
Julia, et al,
Describe how to count up to 1023 on 10 fingers. :)
That's easy to describe, but a whole lot more difficult to use :-).
I remember seeing Doug Engelbart (inventor of the computer mouse, etc)
http://tinyurl.com/9km7 using a one-handed chorded keyboard
- Original Message -
From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 9:26 PM
Subject: Re: Stirling engine queries
Erik Reuter wrote:
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 01:40:47PM -0600, Julia Thompson wrote:
Describe how
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 advantage? I don't
Could Stirling engines have been developed for airship or hybrid car
use in the 1910 - 1920 period, or was the technology of the time too
primitive?
Could such engines have been developed 20 years later?
I ask this because one of my interests is of `inventions after their
time', that is
From: Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
However, a base 12 counting system would have been much better; but
base 10 became the standard and the cost of shifting is too high.
Why base 12? Why not base 16, and then we'd at least benefit from
easy conversion to/from binary?
(Sorry, nothing to
On Wednesday 2004-03-03 09:58, Robert J. Chassell wrote:
Could Stirling engines have been developed for airship or hybrid car
use in the 1910 - 1920 period, or was the technology of the time too
primitive?
Could such engines have been developed 20 years later?
I think that internal
Robert J. Chassell wrote:
However, a base 12 counting system would have been much better;
No, it wouldn't
Alberto Monteiro
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
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
something,
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 more factors than 10.
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, a little better. Depending how you
50 matches
Mail list logo
