On Sun, 6 Jan 2002 00:33:48 Bill Potts wrote: >You've lost me there, Marcus. > >A base-20 system in which the radix value is integrally divisible by 3? > ? Gee... You're absolutely right, Bill. ... >Or, perhaps, you meant to say base-30. > Yes, I guess in the back of my mind that's what I must have thought. In that case, the division factors would be, 2,3,5,6,10,15.
>(Those brain farts must really be catching.) >... Indeed... Darn... Deeply sorry. However, the point I was making is still valid in principle, i.e. that if you want versatility just increase the size of the base to whatever value and you'd get it. But in doing so one would also increase complexity, hence in the end it would be like giving a certain medicine to cure one disease while at the same time causing another! (and in this case the other "disease" would be much more serious!) I still must insist that we were meant to count in 10's. So, let's *please* forget about discussing this base-12 system stuff, it won't lead anywhere. It's supposed "advantages" are far outweighed by the complexities it would introduce (plus the nightmare that would cause to reeducate the entire world population! Forget it!!!...). It would be a win-lose situation more slanted towards the lose side. Marcus Is your boss reading your email? ....Probably Keep your messages private by using Lycos Mail. Sign up today at http://mail.lycos.com
