5 ms·
The point is that most of the time when digits are mentioned, it’s only a coincidental fact about one inelegant representation of the number — and often people
by codeflo 3y ago
The point is that most of the time when digits are mentioned, it’s only a coincidental fact about one inelegant representation of the number — and often people are insufficiently aware of that.
- bee_rider 3y agoBase-10 isn’t inelegant, is it? I mean there are good arguments for 12 being better but it isn’t like 10 is prime or anything. Happened across a neat comment yesterday that presents a defense of ten. Not 100% convinced but it is interesting to see pushback. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39000882 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39000882
- dr_dshiv 3y ago1+2+3+4=10 And you can swear by that, if you know what I mean. * * * * * * * * * *
- spenczar5 3y agoRational fractions will terminate only if the denominator’s prime factors are the base’s factors. So for example, 1/2 = 0.5 and 1/5 = 0.2, but 1/3 = 0.333… and 1/7 = 0.142857…. 1/4 = 0.25 works because the prime factors of 4 are 2 and 2… but 1/6 fails because 6 is infected by 3. Now, base 12 has 2 prime factors (2 and 3) so it much any better than 10 really. But may I introduce base 30 (235)? Or perhaps base 210 will strike your fancy?
- kelnos 3y agoIt's only a coincidence if you ignore the fact that "digit" first and foremost refers to the things sticking out of your hands, and so was repurposed to talk about numbers because we have 10 digits on our hands.
- codeflo 3y agoThat's the word's origin, not its current mathematical meaning. Also, number systems that are not base IIIIIIIIII have been used historically. That humans can only compute in a base that matches the number of fingers we have is a relatively recent myth.