Steve Sloan wrote:
Not if you routinely have to divide numbers into thirds or
sixths, something that's not too uncommon in the real world.
Thirds and sixths are pretty common in nature. 12 is evenly
divisible by 2, 3, 4, and 6, a much better list of factors
than the puny 2 and 5 you get with
On Dec 23, 2005, at 12:01 AM, Max Battcher wrote:
and all the more ridiculous for your religious ranting
and racism.
I didn't see either of those things in Robert's post.
Covert in post, overt in referenced website of poster.
Isn't it just as likely that it was merely _implicit_ in
How were numbers, such as 45, spoken in Italy, Germany, and Spain in
1200 AD?
I am curious, because of my fury that in the Middle Ages, Christian
Europe adopted an Indian/Arabic base 10 numerical system rather than
the better base 12 system. Base 12 fits the number of Christian
Apostles. It
Robert J. Chassell wrote:
I am curious, because of my fury that in the Middle Ages, Christian
Europe adopted an Indian/Arabic base 10 numerical system rather than
the better base 12 system. Base 12 fits the number of Christian
Apostles. It fits the number of eggs in dozen. In base 12, you can
On Dec 22, 2005, at 11:21 AM, Max Battcher wrote:
Robert J. Chassell wrote:
I am curious, because of my fury that in the Middle Ages, Christian
Europe adopted an Indian/Arabic base 10 numerical system rather than
the better base 12 system. Base 12 fits the number of Christian
Apostles. It
At 01:21 PM Thursday 12/22/2005, Max Battcher wrote:
Robert J. Chassell wrote:
I am curious, because of my fury that in the Middle Ages, Christian
Europe adopted an Indian/Arabic base 10 numerical system rather than
the better base 12 system. Base 12 fits the number of Christian
Apostles. It
Max Battcher wrote:
As a person who has had to work across radixes it is much
easier to deal with radixes that are powers of two (binary,
base 4, octal, hexadecimal) than any other arbitrary base.
There's a reason computers use binary or unary.
They make significantly more sense than base