• @marcos
    link
    English
    44 months ago

    Why not?

    Why not use a large prime as the base?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      84 months ago

      Honnest answer, 1/2 in DEC is 0.5 easy. 1/2 in base 13 is .6666666666… Easy but ugly. You want a base that has comon fractions easily represented by decimals. People like dozenal since many fractions are easily represented. 1/2 = 0.6, 1/3 = 0.4, 1/4 = 0.3

      I’m personally a fan of hexidecimal partly because I’m a programmer and partially because it can be halved several times

      • @unreasonabro
        link
        English
        14 months ago

        it’s almost like you’d have to use a different notation system to express a different base…

      • @bisby
        link
        English
        14 months ago

        Is 1/2 in base 13 not 0.65?

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          7
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          No, because the 5 in your answer is thinking in decimal. 0.05 is not the half of 0.1 in base 13.

    • @SmoothLiquidation
      link
      English
      34 months ago

      Ahh yes, let’s introduce floating point rounding errors for one half. Sounds fun.

    • @whotookkarl
      link
      English
      24 months ago

      Why use a fixed base? Or why not use an irrational number like e, the most efficient base

      • @marcos
        link
        English
        2
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        I still think some largish prime, like 37 hits the perfect spot of being usable enough for people to use, but still useless enough to stop almost everybody from learning any advanced math.

        But yeah, making integers non-representable is a serious trade-off that deserves consideration.