David Hobby wrote:
>
> Alberto Monteiro wrote:
> >
> > Robert J. Chassell wrote:
> > >
> > > However, a base 12 counting system would have been much better;
> > >
> > No, it wouldn't
> >
> > Alberto Monteiro
>
> Well, a little better. Depending how you count, you can
> argue that 12 "has more factors" than 10. This must be worth
> something, since I don't hear anyone pushing for prime bases such
> as 11. Agreed, it's not a big deal. It might be more to make a
> number base feel "comfortable" than a great aid in calculations.
Base 10 has a minor advantage in divisibility tests that I don't think
you get with any other possible base between 5 and 17. And unlike 5 and
17, it's not prime.
Julia
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
