If a irrational number be the basis of count

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion explores the concept of using irrational numbers as bases for counting systems, contrasting this with traditional integer bases like 10. Participants examine the implications of non-integer bases on arithmetic and representation, as well as share personal experiences related to different number systems.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Historical

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that while 10 is intuitive due to human anatomy, it is a poor mathematical choice compared to the constant e.
  • Others question why using e or other non-integer bases is considered "horrible," suggesting that integer bases facilitate easier arithmetic.
  • A participant shares their experience of attempting to convert physical constants into non-integer bases, noting the challenges faced.
  • There is mention of practical alternatives to base 10 in computing, such as base 2 (binary) and base 16 (hexadecimal), with some historical context on base 8.
  • A participant recounts a personal anecdote about discussing interesting bases with their child, highlighting base -2 as a unique example.
  • Some participants reflect on their own educational experiences with different bases, recalling specific examples from their school days.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the suitability of irrational numbers as bases for counting systems, with no consensus reached on the practicality or implications of such systems.

Contextual Notes

Some discussions touch on the limitations of non-integer bases in arithmetic operations and the challenges of visualizing numbers in these systems, but these points remain unresolved.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those exploring number theory, alternative counting systems, or the historical context of mathematical 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 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
11K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 53 ·
2
Replies
53
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
7K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
9K
Replies
25
Views
4K