If a irrational number be the basis of count

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the concept of using irrational numbers, specifically the constant e, as a basis for counting systems, contrasting it with the traditional base-10 system. Participants highlight the challenges of visualizing numbers in non-integer bases and discuss practical alternatives like base-8 and base-16, which are prevalent in computer programming. The conversation also touches on educational experiences with various bases, including negative bases like -2, and the complexities involved in arithmetic operations within these systems.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of number systems and bases, including base-10 and binary.
  • Familiarity with the mathematical constant e and its properties.
  • Basic knowledge of arithmetic operations in different bases.
  • Awareness of computer programming concepts related to number representation.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the properties and applications of the constant e in mathematics.
  • Explore arithmetic operations in negative bases, particularly base -2.
  • Learn about non-integer radix systems and their implications in computing.
  • Investigate the historical context and educational approaches to teaching number bases.
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, educators, computer scientists, and anyone interested in the theoretical aspects of number systems and their practical applications in programming and education.

Jhenrique
Messages
676
Reaction score
4
In the comum sense, the number 10 is the base of the decimal system and is the more intuitive basis for make counts (certainly because the human being have 10 fingers). But, in the math, the number 10 is an horrible basis when compared with the constant e. You already thought if an irrational number can be the basis of system of count, it make sense?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Jhenrique said:
In the comum sense, the number 10 is the base of the decimal system and is the more intuitive basis for make counts (certainly because the human being have 10 fingers). But, in the math, the number 10 is an horrible basis when compared with the constant e. You already thought if an irrational number can be the basis of system of count, it make sense?

Why is it horrible?

For arithmetic to work easily, the basis has to be an integer. It is hard to envision what a number would even look like with e or any non-integer.

Since computers became widespread, 8 or 16 might be practical alternatives to 10.
 
Have any of you folks ever converted everyday numbers to non-integer radixes?

I tried back in the late seventies, just out of curiosity but my math was not up to the challenge.
I wanted to see what would some of the physical constants, Planck, c, μ0 , ε0, look like in bases e pi etc.

Closest i ever came was a Basic program that converted Florida's lotto numbers into 49 bit binary numbers and printed them out as hex, decimal and octal. No visual patterns emerged.

Your links above are quite interesting.
For a non-integer radix β > 1, the value of

x=d n... d2d1 d0d-1d-2...d-m...
is

x= βndn + β2d2 + β1d1 + β0d0 β-1d-1mdm

Thanks !

old jim , who is distractable to a fault.
 
mathman said:
Why is it horrible?

For arithmetic to work easily, the basis has to be an integer. It is hard to envision what a number would even look like with e or any non-integer.

Since computers became widespread, 8 or 16 might be practical alternatives to 10.
Base-8 used to be used a lot, but not as much any more, as far as I can see. Base-2 (binary) and base-16 (hexadecimal) are heavily used in computer programming.
 
Many years ago, when one of my daughters was in grade school... Over dinner she asked me what was the most "interesting" base for a number system.

I answered ##-2##, because ##1+1=110## and you can get the rest of arithmetic from there.

What I didn't know was that the question was prompted by a school homework assignment: Choose a radix and demonstrate worked addition, subtraction, multiplication, and long division problems in that radix. She pulled it off, although the long division algorithm is not deterministic - when dividing ##A## by ##B##, having ##nB\le{A}## and ##(n+1)B\gt{A}## doesn't mean that subtracting ##nB## is the right next step.
 
This...this was in grade school? ...:bugeye:
 
Matterwave said:
This...this was in grade school? ...:bugeye:

Somewhere between fifth and eighth grade, don't remember exactly.
 
I remember learning about different bases when I was in grade school, maybe 4th or 5th grade. This was in the late '70s, around the tail end of the "new math" era. For some reason base 7 was often used in examples, if I recall correctly. We also learned about the commie metric system before Reagan abolished it. :-p
 
  • #10
Nugatory said:
Many years ago, when one of my daughters was in grade school... Over dinner she asked me what was the most "interesting" base for a number system.

I answered ##-2##, because ##1+1=110## and you can get the rest of arithmetic from there.

What I didn't know was that the question was prompted by a school homework assignment: Choose a radix and demonstrate worked addition, subtraction, multiplication, and long division problems in that radix. She pulled it off, although the long division algorithm is not deterministic - when dividing ##A## by ##B##, having ##nB\le{A}## and ##(n+1)B\gt{A}## doesn't mean that subtracting ##nB## is the right next step.

-2 is interesting, can you give more examples?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
11K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 53 ·
2
Replies
53
Views
4K