How can we use a base e system to count and represent numbers?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jamie.j1989
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Counting Units
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on representing numbers using base e, as proposed by mathematician Adrian Banner from Princeton. Participants explore the isomorphic relationship between the group of positive integer powers of e under multiplication and the group of positive integers under addition. A method for converting numbers to base e is outlined, involving division by e and tracking shifts of the radix point. The example of converting the number 4 into base e yields the representation 11.02001..., illustrating the complexity and naturalness of this counting system.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of exponential functions, specifically e^x
  • Familiarity with logarithmic functions, particularly natural logarithms (ln)
  • Knowledge of number systems and base conversions
  • Basic arithmetic operations and their properties
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the mathematical properties of the number e and its applications
  • Learn about non-integer representation systems, including radix systems
  • Explore algorithms for converting numbers between different bases
  • Study the implications of using logarithmic functions in biological and chemical contexts
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, educators, students in advanced mathematics, and anyone interested in alternative number systems and their applications in science.

jamie.j1989
Messages
76
Reaction score
0
I once heard a mathematician (Adrian Banner of Princeton I believe), say the most natural way to count would be in units of ##e^1##, I've been thinking about this recently and can't think of how this would work, and how it would be more natural. Does anyone have any ideas on where to start?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
The group of positive integer powers of e under multiplication is clearly isomorphic to the group of positive integers under addition. As bonus, the natural logarithms of all of these "natural numbers" are themselves natural numbers. What could be more natural?
 
In biology or chemistry there are a lot of laws that are described by ##\ln##-functions, so in this sense counting in unit of ##e## is more "natural" ...
 
What would 2+2=4 look like in such a system?
 
jamie.j1989 said:
I once heard a mathematician (Adrian Banner of Princeton I believe), say the most natural way to count would be in units of ##e^1##, I've been thinking about this recently and can't think of how this would work, and how it would be more natural. Does anyone have any ideas on where to start?
Suppose that the number system we already use is really in units of e in some other number system. What property or calculation would change? I don't think anything would change.
 
mathman said:
What would 2+2=4 look like in such a system?
2 + 2 = 11.020011200001...
 
  • Like
Likes micromass
mathman said:
What would 2+2=4 look like in such a system?
This is the type of calculation I don't understand, it seems a bit messy?

I aslo don't know how to write the number 2 in units of e without using the number 2?
 
jamie.j1989 said:
This is the type of calculation I don't understand, it seems a bit messy?
Dr Claude is writing down the place value expansion of the number 4 using a radix of e. The system is described here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-integer_representation

The algorithm to convert a number to a base e representation is tedious but straightforward.

Edit: This will yield a base e expansion. Some tweaks would be required to produce the canonical base e expansion.

Divide your number by e. If the result is greater than e, keep dividing by e until you have a number between 1 and e. Keep track of how many times you divided. This is the number of places you will need to move the radix point to the right. For small numbers you will multiply by e instead and keep track of the number of places to move the radix point to the left.

In this case, 4 divided by e is 1.41930... That result is between 1 and e. So there will eventually be a one place shift of the radix point.
Write down the integer part of this number (a digit which will be either 1 or 2).

In this case, we write down "1".
Subtract the integer part and multiply the remainder by e.

In this case, we multiply .41930... by e giving 1.13978...
Repeat, writing down the integer part of the number (a digit which will be 0, 1 or 2), subtracting and multiplying the remainder by e.

As per Dr. Claude, the resulting digit string is 1102001...​

When you have as many digits as you please, insert a radix point and shift it the appropriate number of digits. The default position is to the right of the first digit.

In this case, one division by e to start means a one place right shift. 11.02001...
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
11K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 90 ·
4
Replies
90
Views
8K
  • · Replies 105 ·
4
Replies
105
Views
12K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K