>From: "Adrian Jadic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >It took man a lot of time to develop mathematics well beyond counting eggs >and fruits in the market to realize that the 12 base system is limited and >that the 10-base is better.
The base 12 system is not limited in any way from a mathematical point of view. As a matter of fact, it's more versatile than the base 10 system. A group of 12 items divides neatly by 2, 3, 4 and 6. 10 devides only by 2 and 5. The limiting factor here is us, humans. We have "only" 10 fingers. It was easy for the ancient Indians to count on their fingers, then make a mark in the sand and continue counting on the fingers. In a sense the decimal counting system is just a biological coincidence. It's not dificult to adapt our current decimal counting system to duodecimal. We need to add two symbols (digits) to represent 10 and 11 in base 10. Let's say A=10 and B=11. So you count 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,10,11,12,13 and so on. 5+5=A. 6+6=10. 12-B=3. All we need is two extra fingers on our hands. You can also represent greater precision for a number by introducing a duodecimal point. 0.6 is a half. 0.3 a quarter. 0.4 a third. 0.1 is one twelfth. 0.9-0.6=0.3 three quarters minus a half is a quarter. 0.8+0.4=1 two thirds plus one third is one. Try doing the last one in decimal. Duodecimal system would definitely simplify the clock. But it would complicate everything else. What would you call the two new symbols? I guess they would have to be called ten and eleven, and 10 would be called twelve. 11 onetwel. 12 twotwel. 13 threetwel ... 19 ninetwel. 1A tentwel. 1B eleventwel. 20 twenty. You get the point. And of course the changeover to euro would be just a minor inconvenience compared to the changeover from the decimal to the duodecimal system. Adam _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
