SCIENCE?!? Base 2/16/10/x

Started by 7H3, Jan 20, 2015, 05:07 AM

previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

7H3

This is really more of a mathematical discussion than scientific, but could be closely related.

Personally I often wonder what would be different if we counted base 7/5/9/... instead of base 10

for example instead of this:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

we counted:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

it would throw off what we know about how we count, but would it affect mathematical equations?

8*8=64 standard
base 2 and 16 are easily found online as we use these as standards in memory allocation...
but base 8 would be 100 which would still be 80 in standard counting

what do you guys think? is there a number that would be more effective or useful than base 10 for mathematics or counting?
"It's hip to be square." - Eurogamer<br />"Shut up its art!" -Legend

DD_Bwest

i predict a post by legend that i wont understand

Legend

Jan 20, 2015, 05:35 AM Last Edit: Jan 20, 2015, 05:57 AM by Legend
Our number system only affects arithmetic. Everything beyond that is just using variables so it really doesn't matter as far as the actual math is concerned.

The reason why we do base 10 is because we have 10 fingers. In lots of cultures that didn't wear shoes, they traditionally used base 20 systems. Then in south and central America base 60 was really common as well.



So, how did this base system develop? Ancient people counted by dots or other simple shapes. 17 dots meant 17 things. Counting to really big numbers took a lot of work, so they started using new symbols that represented a group of dots. Then they made new symbols to represent groups of that symbol, and so on. Ancient Egyptians counted like this. Say A equals 1, B=10, and C=100.

So the number 256 was shown as CCBBBBBAAAAAA, in any order. Then to make it even simpler, we invented names for every group, aka digits. So the example above became 2C 6A 5B, again in any order.

The real revolution came with positional number systems, where C, B, and A were represented by position instead. So the last number automatically was A, the second from last was B, and the third was C. Thus it became 256, as we are used to today in writing.

When speaking however, we still use the old classifications as well. Thus 37,546 is thirty seven thousand five hundred forty six instead of three seven five four six.





Also because these number systems were derived from need instead of Math, they often do not have regular bases. Take time for example. 60 seconds in a minute. 60 minutes in an hour. 24 hours in a day. 7 days in a week. And 52 weeks in a year. That's a hectic base!


Source: I made my own number system for VizionEck, so as part of that I did a lot of research. As you can tell, I really like this subject too!

Edt:

i predict a post by legend that i wont understand


Haha I think I kept it simple this time :)

the-pi-guy

1, 2, 10, 11, 12, 20, 21, 22,
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
11/2=2 in base 3. 

kitler53

one day in band class we were having a ton of trouble playing a song because it was in a F minor clef (or something like that):



our conductor stopped us and asked the question,.. which is the harder clef to play a song in?  F minor or C?



most people said F minor is so much harder because you have to keep all those flats accounted for.  our conductor said wrong,.. both are equally hard you're just more familiar with C.  We're going to spend the rest of the day just playing the F minor scale until you learn it.  at the concert we nailed the song like it was nothing.


Featured Artist: Vanessa Hudgens

Xevross


-snip-

Interesting read! CBA with a number system like that one you mentioned, personally.

darkknightkryta


This is really more of a mathematical discussion than scientific, but could be closely related.

Personally I often wonder what would be different if we counted base 7/5/9/... instead of base 10

for example instead of this:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

we counted:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

it would throw off what we know about how we count, but would it affect mathematical equations?

8*8=64 standard
base 2 and 16 are easily found online as we use these as standards in memory allocation...
but base 8 would be 100 which would still be 80 in standard counting

what do you guys think? is there a number that would be more effective or useful than base 10 for mathematics or counting?

Base 2 is probably the best when it comes to doing calculations.  It's just so dang fast.

the-pi-guy

There's an equation for finding nth digit of Pi without solving for the previous digits in base 16.
So base 16 is best. 

Legend


There's an equation for finding nth digit of Pi without solving for the previous digits in base 16.
So base 16 is best. 


Link!?

the-pi-guy


Legend


the-pi-guy


Legend


Is it?


Yeah I think so. Base 16 feels random in relationship to Pi.