I wrote
> However, a base 12 counting system would have been much better ...
and "Bryon Daly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asked
Why base 12? Why not base 16, and then we'd at least benefit from
easy conversion to/from binary?
Because base 12 can be divided by both 2 and 3 (and by 4 and 6) but
base 16 can be divided only by 2 (and by 4 and 8). For
non-programming purposes, 12 is a much better base than 16. People
frequently divide things in half, thirds, and quarters. Hence the
value of base 12.
Base 10 is worse. You have to move to 100s to get a `quarter', such
as 25 cents -- indeed, base 10 is even more limited than base 16.
It would be much nicer for a `quarter' to be 0.3, which it is in base
12, and a `third' to be 0.4; they are nice round numbers (albeit round
number fractions).
(It goes without saying that some children would be confused that a
third is 0.4 and a quarter is 0.3; understanding and remembering the
difference would be one of rites of schooldom.)
For programmers, base 16 is excellent; but programmers are both recent
in history and a small minority of people.
Also, if you look at the tips of your fingers and those knuckles
closest to the tips, you will see 12 of them on one hand -- so it is
easy to count on your fingers. While programmers never count on their
fingers, over the past millennia, many other people have. (Indeed, I
have heard it claimed that societies in which children are first
taught to count on their fingers end up having more technically
competent adults who do not count on their fingers. I don't whether
this is true.)
--
Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises
http://www.rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8
http://www.teak.cc [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
