> > However, a base 12 counting system would have been much > > better; but base 10 became the standard and the cost of > > shifting is too high.
Bryon Daly wrote:
> Why base 12? Why not base 16, and then we'd at least benefit > from easy conversion to/from binary?
Because it's easily divisible by 2, 3, 4, and 6. Now that we're using a lot of binary in computing, we know how useful base 16 can be, but they didn't back when numbering systems were first invented. Until about 50-60 years ago, no one knew binary would turn out to be as useful as it is, and even now, only computer hardware experts really use it very often. ______________________________________________________________________ Steve Sloan ......... Huntsville, Alabama =========> [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brin-L list pages .............................. http://www.brin-l.org Science Fiction-themed online store ..... http://www.sloan3d.com/store Chmeee's 3D Objects .................... http://www.sloan3d.com/chmeee 3D and Drawing Galleries .................. http://www.sloansteady.com Software ................ Science Fiction, Science, and Computer Links Science fiction scans ......................... http://www.sloan3d.com
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
