What about a base26? :):):):) LOL Pat -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Carrera [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 2008/05/22 01:38 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [social] I am not receiving anything from this list
I don't know about hexadecimal but some cultures have used a base eight counting system. You count using the spaces between your fingers rather than the fingers themselves. We could start a culture that has a base 1024 counting system. I can show you how to count to 1024 using your fingers (does you guys all remember your binary algebra?). Daniel. Pat McBride wrote: > Didn't the ancients in the Middle East base their number system on > hexadecimal, or something like that. In the Bible, it says that Noah built > the ark using cubits as a length. And as Bill Cosby once said "What's a > cubit?" > > Pat > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ian Lynch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 2008/05/21 01:45 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [social] I am not receiving anything from this list > > > On Tue, 2008-05-20 at 23:23 -0400, Gregory J. Neumann wrote: >> Robert Derman wrote: >>> Rod Engelsman wrote: >>>> Hey Greg! > >> Well, that's what democracy is about. > > There is an argument that politicians lead the people and represent them > so that the people don't have to have a referendum on every issue and > that although accountable to them there is more stability and better > informed government if occasionally politicians do unpopular things on > particular issues. Depends on the view of democracy. If it was simply > about immediate voting majorities, minorities would always be suppressed > and democracies tend not to do that either. > >> Except that in this case, the >> public was actually showing a fair amount of common sense, instead of >> letting the scientific community ram a non-rational system dressed up to >> look like one down their throats. > > Again that depends on your circumstances. If it cost you money to change > you will probably take that view. If you are a student working towards > an exam dealing with several incompatible systems of units you probably > wouldn't. > >> The meter > > Metre. A meter is what I have on the wall to measure my electricity > usage :-) > >> is directly descended from a bad estimate of the distance from >> Paris to the north pole (that no westerner had yet visited, and would >> not for more than a century) imposed during a reign of terror by a group >> of fanatics whose real purpose was to totally destroy the "Old Order" in >> favor of a "Rational New Order". Why this makes SI a "better" system is >> beyond me. > > Because it gives an international standard that is transparent open and > is interoperable (heard this before somewhere? :-) ) > > We have a decimal counting system because we have 10 fingers. If we > actually had a number system based on base 12 - and the basis for > counting in 12s is to use your thumb to count the finger joints in your > hand - then a duodecimal system with 01,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B would then > make feet and inches work well but everyone would have to learn to think > with two new number symbols and the arithmetic that goes with them. > There is a mathematical argument that 12 is better because it divides by > 2,3,4,6 whereas 10 only divides by just 2 and 5. Since the number > systems are built on 10 and 10 symbols, it is just as strong an argument > to base units on multiples of 10. So your US currency is a decimal > currency system. In the UK we changed from 12 pennies in a shilling and > 240 pennies in a pound to decimal currency because for most people its > simpler to have the symbolic number system compatible with the system of > arithmetic. Try dividing £3 12s and 6d between 4 people compared to > £3.63. > >> Why I should discard a system of measure that divides into >> fractional parts far more evenly than SI for my everyday usage is still >> not very clear to me. > > Dividing it fractional parts is only one part of the equation. It would > be cut and dried if the number system was duodecimal but it isn't so > there is as much argument that its easier to use decimals to represent > fractional parts as it is fractions. Its just a matter of when I say 1/4 > you visualise what that looks like easier than if I say 25% or 0.25. > >> I do think SI's integration of linear, volume, weight/mass and >> temperature is a great idea, but I don't see why a decimal system based >> on a weird estimate should have to be part of that. > > The actual basis of the metre is not really important. Let's face it a > yard was based on the distance from the king's nose to the tip of his > fingers. Hardly any more scientific. The thing is to define a basic unit > that becomes familiar. How that is then subdivided etc has two > considerations, the number system to be used and how appropriate the > number system is for arithmetic operations. Either change the number > system to fit neat integer operation or change derived units to fit the > number system. Decimal systems do the latter. > > Computers use hexadecimal because it relates well to the natural binary > number system used in digital electronics but getting the public to > think in binary or hexadecimal is rather more tricky than changing to a > system of units that naturally works with decimal. > >> Guess I'm just an USian after all! ;-) >> >> -Greg >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.24.0/1459 - Release Date: 08/05/21 17:34 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
