On Sat, 05 Jan 2002 01:11:36 Adam Baranski wrote: >>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. >... I'm sorry, but after watching this discussion and the above reply I felt I had to add my 2-cents worth, too.
This issue of limitation or not, or versatility or not is really not that determinant. If the availability of division factors is so important, heck, let's use 20-base system then since it would be far more "versatile". Notice that this particular base would be divisible by 3 different *pure prime* numbers (2,3,5) plus the 4, and 10, for a total of 5, hence much more flexible. So, where would this end??? The fact of the matter is that while on one side one could gain on "versatility" on the other one would add *complexity* to the counting system. And as I've mentioned some time ago, there are studies I've heard that demonstrate that our brain is a lot more efficient when it deals with a maximum of 10 "objects". Therefore, all in all, the base 10 is the best "compromise" when it comes to a counting system. Therefore, let's please leave it at that, shall we? Now back to metrication... ;-) Marcus Is your boss reading your email? ....Probably Keep your messages private by using Lycos Mail. Sign up today at http://mail.lycos.com
