Ma Be (Marcus Berger) wrote in USMA 17255 >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?
As an old computer programmer I want to put in a theoretical word for octal numeration, which was used by the old Digital Equipment Corporation line of computers. Joseph B.Reid 17 Glebe Road West Toronto M5P 1C8 TEL. 416-486-6071
