On Saturday 05 June 2010 09:33:03 am Otto Stolz wrote: > In the decimal systems, you can easier divide by 2, 5, > and powers of 10, whilst in the hexadekadic system, > you can easier divide by many powers of two, and all > powers of 16.
And 4, and 8. Many repeating fractions also become more accurate with base 16. > For arbitrary divisors, the decimal system seems to be > easier, as you would use the same division algorithm, > in both systems, however with different tables (dubbed > “multiplication table” or, less formally, “times table”) > that comprise 100 vs. 256 entries. Hence, the the hexa- > dekadic multiplication table should be 2½ times as hard > to learn, and memorize, as the decimal one. Does anyone seriously memorise multiplication tables...? > This whole deliberation is, of course, purely academic. > In real life, you will have to use the decimal system > as everybody else does, lest you wont be misunderstood. Only when/if you deal with "everybody else". And then you need only convert, not use it for your calculations. > You may wonder, why I am using the term “hexadekadic”. > This is because, “hexadeka” is the Greek word for 16, > whilst the Latin word ist “sedecim”; there is no language > known that has “hexadecim”, or anything alike, for 16. I prefer "tonal", since "hexadecimal"/"hexadekadic" both imply a decimal base.
