> From: Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > 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.
I endorse base 17. Heptodecaphilia. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
