Is "ten" independent of the chosen number base?

Well, there's no end of ways. How about "XIV"?In summary, the conversation discusses the confusion surrounding the use of different number bases and the corresponding naming conventions. It explores the idea of using base ten as a middle-man for all calculations due to its familiarity and convenience. However, it is cautioned to be cautious when using the term "ten" as it can cause confusion in different bases. Ultimately, it is important to use the number names and bases that are familiar to the individual and to be mindful of potential confusion when converting between bases.
  • #1
etotheipi
This topic is quite confusing. For instance, if I write ##14_6##, do I pronounce this as "ten", even though we'd probably just say "one-four, base six"? That is to say that we'd treat "ten" as a number of things that we could count out (i.e. corresponding to a certain number of sticks).

Another point, if we again consider the number ##14_6##, then this would correspond to one lot of six sticks and 4 lots of single sticks, where we've defined one, two, three, ..., nine to be known numbers of things. This is often written as

##14_6 = 1 \times 6 + 4 \times 1##

but isn't this construction preemptively implying that we are using base ten? Another example might be

##B3_{16} = 11 \times 16 + 3 \times 1##

Do we only write it like this since we've memorised a certain amount of computations in base ten (e.g. times tables) so it is convenient to use base ten as a middle-man for all calculations?

Is it perhaps because our language system is built around base ten, i.e. twenty two ##\equiv## 22, thirty six ##\equiv## 36, etc.?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #2
etotheipi said:
This topic is quite confusing. For instance, if I write ##14_6##, do I pronounce this as "ten", even though we'd probably just say "one-four, base six"?
I can't speak for you but if I were working in base 6 I would NEVER call that "ten"!

That is to say that we'd treat "ten" as a number of things that we could count out (i.e. corresponding to a certain number of sticks).

Another point, if we again consider the number ##14_6##, then this would correspond to one lot of six sticks and 4 lots of single sticks, where we've defined one, two, three, ..., nine to be known numbers of things. This is often written as

##14_6 = 1 \times 6 + 4 \times 1##

but isn't this construction preemptively implying that we are using base ten?
I don't see where this is "implying that we are using base ten". "6" and "4" are symbols representing, say, ******and ****. They do not have any thing, directly to do with base 10!

Another example might be

##B3_{16} = 11 \times 16 + 3 \times 1##

Do we only write it like this since we've memorised a certain amount of computations in base ten (e.g. times tables) so it is convenient to use base ten as a middle-man for all calculations?
If that is how you have learned them, yes, fine. But if you have learned that "B" means "***********" and 3 means "***" there is no reason at all to refer to base 10.

Is it perhaps because our language system is built around base ten, i.e. twenty two ##\equiv## 22, thirty six ##\equiv## 36, etc.?
I would not say it has anything to do with language, rather that it has to do with the fact that, as you say, you are used to using base 10.
 
  • Like
Likes etotheipi
  • #3
I'd be very cautious about saying "ten" when talking about ##14_6 ,\, 10_2 ,\, 10_8 ,\, 12_8 ,\, 0xA ## or anything except ##10_{10} ## Anything else can cause confusion.
We have enough confusion with people using kilo- and mega- prefixes to mean different values.
When I worked a lot with hexadecimal, I think everyone stuck pretty much to "Oh Dee Oh Aye" sort of speak. If you're working in hex, why refer to the decimal values at all? And when you do need to convert, you'd better be pretty sure everyone knows which is which.

We use the number names that we are familiar with. If you like you can invent your own. I guess some people might have done so if they worked a lot in a different base, but I can't recall any. The digit by digit naming that we use for bases other than ten, seems pretty efficient to me.
I notice that it is becoming quite common in adverts for prices to be said in such a way, eg. "only four nine nine". Their motivation is probably more psychology than efficiency, avoiding "hundred" and "ninety", which sound big and avoiding the unit, which might remind people it's money.

etotheipi said:
Do we only write it like this since we've memorised a certain amount of computations in base ten (e.g. times tables) so it is convenient to use base ten as a middle-man for all calculations?
Surely that's true, if not obvious. Why would you use anything other than the number base you're familiar with?
 
  • Informative
Likes etotheipi
  • #4
HallsofIvy said:
I can't speak for you but if I were working in base 6 I would NEVER call that "ten"!

Agreed; I don't think I would either, but at the end of the day ##14_6## still refers to **********, which we denote as ten.

HallsofIvy said:
I don't see where this is "implying that we are using base ten". "6" and "4" are symbols representing, say, ******and ****. They do not have any thing, directly to do with base 10!

Like in the example ##B3_{16}##, if we wrote ##16 \times 11 + 3 \times 1## this would not make sense in, for instance, base three.

Merlin3189 said:
I'd be very cautious about saying "ten" when talking about ##14_6 ,\, 10_2 ,\, 10_8 ,\, 12_8 ,\, 0xA ## or anything except ##10_{10} ## Anything else can cause confusion.
We have enough confusion with people using kilo- and mega- prefixes to mean different values.
When I worked a lot with hexadecimal, I think everyone stuck pretty much to "Oh Dee Oh Aye" sort of speak. If you're working in hex, why refer to the decimal values at all? And when you do need to convert, you'd better be pretty sure everyone knows which is which.

I think that's a smart way to go, no point adding extra confusion!
 
  • #5
etotheipi said:
Agreed; I don't think I would either, but at the end of the day it ##14_6## still refers to **********, which we denote as ten.
That's one way to denote it. Another is "##14_6##" and another is "##13_7##". Yet another is "X".

Like in the example ##B3_{16}##, if we wrote ##16 \times 11 + 3 \times 1## this would not make sense in, for instance, base three.
"B" would not make sense in base three!
I think that's a smart way to go, no point adding extra confusion!
[/QUOTE]
 
  • Like
Likes etotheipi
  • #6
Merlin3189 said:
I guess some people might have done so if they worked a lot in a different base, but I can't recall any.
Base 20, sort of. For example, in Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, he speaks of 87 as "four score and seven." Numbering in French follows a similar pattern, with the same number being written as quatre vingt et sept, or four twenties and seven.

We also have words in English that are based on a different base: twelve; e.g., dozen and gross (a dozen dozen).
 
  • Like
Likes sysprog, Merlin3189 and etotheipi
  • #7
It might be a little bit like the concept of vectors. A vector doesn't depend on the basis you use to describe it, and you can only assign numbers to it once you have chosen a basis. A vector is fundamentally just a geometric object.

For numbers, we have to distinguish between the actual concept of a number (i.e. an amount of stuff, a distance on a number line etc.) and its representation.

Like when we say ##35_{10}##, we really mean three lots of ********** and 5 lots of *.

That said, it's still really tricky to try and get away from thinking of representations of numbers as atomic objects, since that's what one becomes so used to. Even descriptions of place value fall victim to circular logic, since if we say that

##352 = 3 \times 100 + 5 \times 10 + 3 \times 1##, we're stuck with the problem of e.g. what is 100? If we break this down with place value, we get the exact same thing. To get out of the loop, we need to associate the ##100## with the concept of an amount of stuff!
 
  • #8
All column values are multiples of the previous one:
Th H T U are ##10^0 \, 10^1 \, 10^2 \, 10^3## (only the other way round.) So You only need to know up to ten.
6352 = 6x10x10x10 + 3x10x10 +5x10 + 2x1 the 100, 1000, etc are just shorthand for the row of 10's

Same is true in any number base
0x3456 = 3 x 0x1000 + 4x 0x100 + 5 x 0x10 + 6x1 = 3 x 0x10 x 0x10 x 0x10 + 4 x 0x10 x 0x10 +5 x 0x10 + 6 x 1
(or 3x16x16x16 + 4x16x16 + 5x16 + 6x1 )

================
Edit: NB the 3,4,5 and 6 in the penultimate line are all base 16 digits, not base 10.
I should have written 0x3, 0x4, 0x5 and 0x6 to be consistent.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes etotheipi
  • #9
Merlin3189 said:
All column values are multiples of the previous one:
Th H T U are ##10^0 \, 10^1 \, 10^2 \, 10^3## (only the other way round.) So You only need to know up to ten.
6352 = 6x10x10x10 + 3x10x10 +5x10 + 2x1 the 100, 1000, etc are just shorthand for the row of 10's

Same is true in any number base
0x3456 = 3 x 0x1000 + 4x 0x100 + 5 x 0x10 + 6x1 = 3 x 0x10 x 0x10 x 0x10 + 4 x 0x10 x 0x10 +5 x 0x10 + 6 x 1
(or 3x16x16x16 + 4x16x16 + 5x16 + 6x1 )

I guess if we construct a "side length" consisting of 10 sticks in base ##n##, then 100 corresponds to the number of sticks in a square, 1000 in a cube, 10000 in a 4D hypercube...

You're right though, we only need consider the powers of ##n##, and treat these as our "basis numbers". If we also accept that the algorithms for addition/multiplication etc. aren't specific to any particular base, that also helps to separate the concepts of numbers and representations in different systems.
 
  • #10
etotheipi said:
That said, it's still really tricky to try and get away from thinking of representations of numbers as atomic objects, since that's what one becomes so used to.
As you said, it depends on what you're used to. Because I've been involved in computer programming for many years, I'm very comfortable working in binary (base-2) and hexadecimal (base-16) and even octal (base-8). I'm perfectly fine working with 1610 or 1016 (usually written as 0x10) or 208. They're all just different representations of the same underlying number. Just as vectors can have different representations in different bases, so can numbers.
 
  • Like
Likes etotheipi and Klystron
  • #11
A gentle joke (that I didn't originate): there are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those who don't . . .
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Likes Dale, etotheipi and FactChecker
  • #12
etotheipi said:
This topic is quite confusing. For instance, if I write ##14_6##, do I pronounce this as "ten", even though we'd probably just say "one-four, base six"? That is to say that we'd treat "ten" as a number of things that we could count out (i.e. corresponding to a certain number of sticks).

Another point, if we again consider the number ##14_6##, then this would correspond to one lot of six sticks and 4 lots of single sticks, where we've defined one, two, three, ..., nine to be known numbers of things. This is often written as

##14_6 = 1 \times 6 + 4 \times 1##

but isn't this construction preemptively implying that we are using base ten? Another example might be

##B3_{16} = 11 \times 16 + 3 \times 1##

Do we only write it like this since we've memorised a certain amount of computations in base ten (e.g. times tables) so it is convenient to use base ten as a middle-man for all calculations?

Is it perhaps because our language system is built around base ten, i.e. twenty two ##\equiv## 22, thirty six ##\equiv## 36, etc.?
I am mystified by this question (usually I am fascinated by your questions). We have 10 fingers and 10 toes: by custom and maximal use we have agreed that our default system is base 10. If we use another we need to specify. Good system, works fine, why discuss it?

Am I missing some nuance here??
 
  • Like
Likes etotheipi and sysprog
  • #13
hutchphd said:
I am mystified by this question (usually I am fascinated by your questions). We have 10 fingers and 10 toes: by custom and maximal use we have agreed that our default system is base 10. If we use another we need to specify. Good system, works fine, why discuss it?

Am I missing some nuance here??

No you're quite right, my confusion was just about the separation of the concepts of numbers (e.g. ten/**********) that exist independently of base, and then their representation in different bases.

We might say 43 = 4 x 10 + 3 x 1, but that begs the question what is 10? Well

10 = 1 x 10 + 0 x 1

and we could keep going down this rabbit hole forever. The only resolution is to relate the 1 in the first digit of 10 to “one lot of ten *’s”, which would be a physical number.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #14
etotheipi said:
No you're quite right, my confusion was just about the separation of the concepts of numbers (e.g. ten/**********) that exist independently of base, and then their representation in different bases.
The nomenclature I was taught in school was "number" for the thing that is independent of presentation and "numeral" for the representation thereof.

If one steps into the world of computers and computer languages then "numeric literal" is a term for the syntactic element that represents a number as a sequence of characters within a program. e.g. 10, 0x0a, #2#1010 or 1e+1

Or one could consider an arbitrary coding system in which numbers are represented as binary strings. That opens up fertile ground for discussion. Do we use a fixed width representation or variable width? If variable width, can we optimize the coding scheme for average code size? This leads toward Huffman coding or, perhaps, Lempel Ziv Welch. What if our transmission channel is noisy? That way leads to the work of Shannon.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Klystron, hutchphd and etotheipi
  • #15
etotheipi said:
We might say 43 = 4 x 10 + 3 x 1, but that begs the question what is 10? Well

10 = 1 x 10 + 0 x 1

and we could keep going down this rabbit hole forever.
No, not at all.
Any numbering system newer than Roman numerals has a base. The decimal (base-10) system is so prevalent, we almost never explicitly show the base.

In any numbering system with base B, there are B digits: 0, 1, 2, ..., B-1. A number 10B is ##1 X B^1 + 0 X B^0##.

I found an interesting wiki article about a variety of numbering systems used by different cultures around the world - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numeral_(linguistics). Not everyone uses a decimal system.
 
  • Like
Likes Klystron, etotheipi and jbriggs444
  • #16
Mark44 said:
In any numbering system with base B, there are B digits: 0, 1, 2, ..., B-1. A number 10B is ##1 X B^1 + 0 X B^0##.

The thing is, how can one write down ‘B’ without implicitly using another base?

I can’t write base-10, since this could imply base-two, base-three, base-fourteen depending on which base the 10 is written in!

Perhaps I let B = sixteen, since these names are independent of the numeral,

this might give ##N = a \times (\text{sixteen})^{2} + b \times (\text{sixteen})^{1} + c \times (\text{sixteen})^{0}##. But I can’t write down the sixteen without referring to a different base.

Unless I use the natural correspondence between the English naming system to provide ##16_{10} \equiv## sixteen? My thinking is that we “memorise” how a certain number (name) translates to a base ten numeral.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #17
etotheipi said:
The thing is, how can one write down ‘B’ without implicitly using another base?
Conventionally we ground the recursion immediately and write down the base implicitly using decimal.

A writer would not write ##10_{10_{10_{10}}}##. There is no point in adding notational complexity. And certainly no point in driving that notation into infinite regress.

In the Ada programming language:
Ada LRM said:
The base and the exponent, if any, are in decimal notation.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes sysprog and etotheipi
  • #18
etotheipi said:
The thing is, how can one write down ‘B’ without implicitly using another base?
B is ##10_B##
If B = 2, or binary, we have ##2_{10} = 10_2##.
If B = 8, or octal, we have ##8_{10} = 10_8##.
If B = 64, ##64_{10} = 10_{64}##.

etotheipi said:
I can’t write base-10, since this could imply base-two, base-three, base-fourteen depending on which base the 10 is written in!
No! Base-10 (or decimal) implies that each digit is a successively higher power of 10, as you move from right to left. The decimal numeral 243 means ##2 X 10^2 + 4 X 10^1 + 3 X 10^0##
I don't know why this is so difficult for you.

One thing that you might be confused on is that whatever the base is (I'm calling it B), the digits in that base never include B. They always go up to one less than B.

In binary, there are two digits: 0 and 1.
In octal, there are eight digits, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7.
In decimal, there are ten digits: 0 through 9.
In hex, there are sixteen digists: 0 through 9, A, B, C, D, E, and F.
And so on.
etotheipi said:
Perhaps I let B = sixteen, since these names are independent of the numeral,

this might give ##N = a \times (\text{sixteen})^{2} + b \times (\text{sixteen})^{1} + c \times (\text{sixteen})^{0}##. But I can’t write down the sixteen without referring to a different base.
Of course you can!
##16_{10} = 10_{16}##, which is usually written as 0x10. The prefix "0x" implies that we're using base-16 or hexadecimal.
etotheipi said:
Unless I use the natural correspondence between the English naming system to provide ##16_{10} \equiv## sixteen? My thinking is that we “memorise” how a certain number (name) translates to a base 10 numeral.
You can always convert a numeral in one base to its representation in any other base. I won't go into the details, but you can find algorithms for doing this using a web search.
 
  • Like
Likes sysprog and etotheipi
  • #19
Mark44 said:
No! Base-10 (or decimal) implies that each digit is a successively higher power of 10, as you move from right to left. The decimal numeral 243 means ##2 X 10^2 + 4 X 10^1 + 3 X 10^0##
I don't know why this is so difficult for you.

I meant that in writing base-10, we've explicitly assumed that the 10 is written in base ten. If I grew up with 8 fingers so used the octal numbering system, I'd interpret 10 to mean ********, and not **********.
 
  • #20
etotheipi said:
I meant that in writing base-10, we've explicitly assumed that the 10 is written in base ten. If I grew up with 8 fingers so used the octal numbering system, I'd interpret 10 to mean ********, and not **********.
Well, of course.
 
  • #21
etotheipi said:
I meant that in writing base-10, we've explicitly assumed that the 10 is written in base ten. If I grew up with 8 fingers so used the octal numbering system, I'd interpret 10 to mean ********, and not **********.
As a rule, we do not identify the language we are using before we start speaking. It is an impossibility. Instead we just begin speaking.

Even if we preface our remarks with "I will be giving this presentation in English" we do not also state that "This is not the dialect of Klingon-1432 in which the syllables 'I will be giving this presentation in English' encode an intention to eat the firstborn male child of all who are present". It is both inefficient and unnecessary to make such a disclaimer.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Likes Klystron, sysprog, Merlin3189 and 2 others
  • #22
I think this is perhaps like defining a unit vector.

##\vec{e_{1}} = 1\vec{e_{1}} + 0\vec{e_{2}} = \begin{bmatrix} 1 \\ 0 \end{bmatrix}##

We could keep going but will just end up with the same thing .

Except now our "components" are the digits and the unit vectors are the powers of the base.

I find I can do the necessary manipulations/conversions etc. fine, but just struggle to really understand the underlying logic without any circular reasoning / relying on intuition.
 
  • #23
jbriggs444 said:
"The base and the exponent, if any, are in decimal notation."

Actually, so long as this is a universally agreed convention, I think this clears up most of the confusion. But the base numbers/powers of 10 must be thought of as abstract numbers and not representations.

Also, a given algebraic base ##b## is does not depend on a specific number base until we decide to substitute in a value.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #24
etotheipi said:
Actually, so long as this is a universally agreed convention, I think this clears up most of the confusion. But the base numbers/powers of 10 must be thought of as abstract numbers and not representations.

Also, a given algebraic base ##b## is does not depend on a specific number base until we decide to substitute in a value.
When you write ##b## do you mean to refer to a numeral or to a number? The usual interpretation is that symbols have values that are numbers, not values that are names of numbers.

[Insert Niklaus Wirth joke about "call by name" or "call by value"]
 
  • #25
jbriggs444 said:
When you write ##b## do you mean to refer to a numeral or to a number? The usual interpretation is that symbols have values that are numbers, not values that are names of numbers.

[Insert Niklaus Wirth joke about "call by name" or "call by value"]

Yes, sorry I meant that ##b## refers to a number, but if we were to "solve for it" we would obtain a representation in some base depending on the bases of the numbers we put in for the calculation.

On the bright side, I think I finally got over the mental block that was causing the confusion, and it seems completely obvious. It was that the actual symbol for ten, in base ten, is ##10## - and like you say we terminate the recursion here. I was getting stuck thinking that we'd need to keep breaking down ##10## into a more fundamental representation, though we actually just mean "one ten", and there is nothing more fundamental to it. I.e. we could relabel ##10 \equiv t## and treat ##t## as the symbol for **********.
 
  • #26
etotheipi said:
Actually, so long as this is a universally agreed convention, I think this clears up most of the confusion. But the base numbers/powers of 10 must be thought of as abstract numbers and not representations.
Absolutely not. I think you should speculate a bit less and study a lot more. You will discover that all number bases (except possibly unary) are representations, and place value is a human artifice.

Peano Axioms
 
  • Like
Likes sysprog and etotheipi
  • #27
etotheipi said:
Yes, sorry I meant that ##b## refers to a number, but if we were to "solve for it" we would obtain a representation in some base depending on the bases of the numbers we put in for the calculation.
It is not clear what you mean here. If b is a number then when we "solve for it" we will obtain a number.

How we might choose to present that number as a character string is not terribly relevant.
 
  • Like
Likes etotheipi and pbuk
  • #28
jbriggs444 said:
It is not clear what you mean here. If b is a number then when we "solve for it" we will obtain a number.

How we might choose to present that number as a character string is not terribly relevant.

You're right, I'm doing a terrible job of explaining this!

I meant that if we say ##N = w b^3 + x b^2 + y b^1 + z b^0##, then if we want to represent - for instance - the base 6 number system, we need to let ##b = 6_{10}##. It isn't too relevant though, as you say.
 
  • #29
Yes, OK, I think I found the problem and I think @Mark44 made a mention of it earlier.

It is easy to understand how ##34_{six} = 6 \times 3 + 4 \times 1## because we have a symbol which means ##6##.

But in base ten, it is not so easy to see because we have no special symbol for ten, only ##10## (whose recursive sort of nature has already been mentioned). It helps if we introduce the symbol ##A##, because then ##34_{ten} = 3 \times A + 4 \times 1##, since this avoids the recursion. Essentially, ##A## becomes our base, and we have no circular referencing.

The alternative which I posted earlier would be to substitute ##A## for ##10 \equiv \text{one-ten, zero-one}##, but this seems quite weird.

And I do apologise if I'm boring anyone, I feel bad because this topic must be completely trivial for someone in-the-know, but it's pretty tricky to pick up!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #30
etotheipi said:
And I do apologise if I'm boring anyone, I feel bad because this topic must be completely trivial for someone in-the-know, but it's pretty tricky to pick up!
It's not that this is a trivial topic, it's not even a topic at all. In mathematics the symbols we use in the everyday world to represent numbers when we communicate things to each other simply don't exist. So worrying about any perceived difficulties in interpreting these symbols is a problem of language and convention, not science.
 
  • #31
I believe there is nothing profound (nor very interesting ,...sorry!) here, other than the notion that we need to have agreed, a priori, about the symbols we will use to count. Of necessity they must be at least as many as our "base". If they are greater in number (i.e hex symbols in decimal) no ambiguity results, but the manipulations are a bit strange and the representations are not unique. If I write a number
2C1A
there is no doubt that this is equivalent to what normal humans would write as
321 (did I do that right?200+120+1 yes),
but wouldn't it be better to limit ourselves for uniqueness' sake...
 
  • #32
hutchphd said:
I believe there is nothing profound (nor very interesting ,...sorry!)

No you're completely justified, this whole thing is inherently an unbelievably dry subject matter! In hindsight I don't know why I voluntarily got myself into this mess... sorry everyone!

hutchphd said:
If I write a number
2C1A
there is no doubt that this is equivalent to what normal humans would write as
321 (did I do that right?200+120+1 yes),
but wouldn't it be better to limit ourselves for uniqueness' sake...

Makes sense, I see what you mean :wink:.
 
  • Like
Likes hutchphd
  • #33
Don't stop asking! But occasionally you may face a little "flak"...it is what friends are for after all...
 
  • Love
Likes etotheipi
  • #34
dec 25 = oct 31 wherefore christmas = halloween (joke not originated by me)
 
  • Like
Likes etotheipi
  • #35
I think it seems like a good idea to label the number bases in text form, since this is unambiguous.

Even if we clicked onto a website which read 'As a convention, all number bases are expressed in base 10', somewhere or another they'd need to say that this is base-ten, or base-||||||||||, or base A, or base S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(0))))))))))). I know special agreed symbols also exist for the common bases (d, h, b etc.), as well as the computer science conventions (like 0x, etc.).

Or at least something like “any unsubscripted number is implied to be base-TEN”.

And also, the notion of ##\text{ten}^{2}## is independent of the number base, since it just means we count ten, and then count ten of these, and put all of the sticks in a huge pile. The basis numbers (i.e. ##10_{\text{ten}}, 10_{\text{ten}}^{2}##) can't be decomposed any further since they're just representations of the abstract concept of "ten-ness", which we use as the basis of the number system.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
<h2>1. Is "ten" always equal to ten regardless of the number base used?</h2><p>Yes, "ten" is always equal to ten no matter what number base is used. In base 10, "ten" is represented as 10, while in base 2 it is represented as 1010. However, the value of "ten" remains the same in both cases.</p><h2>2. Can "ten" be represented in number bases other than 10 and 2?</h2><p>Yes, "ten" can be represented in any number base. In base 3, it is represented as 101, in base 16 it is represented as A, and so on. The symbol used to represent "ten" may vary, but its value remains the same.</p><h2>3. Is "ten" considered a special number in different number bases?</h2><p>No, "ten" is not considered a special number in different number bases. It is simply a representation of the value 10, just like any other number in a particular base.</p><h2>4. How does the concept of "ten" change in non-positional number systems?</h2><p>In non-positional number systems, the concept of "ten" may not exist as it is based on the number of digits and their positions. For example, in Roman numerals, "ten" is represented as X, but its value is not based on its position but on the symbol itself.</p><h2>5. Can the value of "ten" change if the chosen number base is changed?</h2><p>No, the value of "ten" will remain the same regardless of the chosen number base. It is a constant value and is not affected by the base used to represent it.</p>

1. Is "ten" always equal to ten regardless of the number base used?

Yes, "ten" is always equal to ten no matter what number base is used. In base 10, "ten" is represented as 10, while in base 2 it is represented as 1010. However, the value of "ten" remains the same in both cases.

2. Can "ten" be represented in number bases other than 10 and 2?

Yes, "ten" can be represented in any number base. In base 3, it is represented as 101, in base 16 it is represented as A, and so on. The symbol used to represent "ten" may vary, but its value remains the same.

3. Is "ten" considered a special number in different number bases?

No, "ten" is not considered a special number in different number bases. It is simply a representation of the value 10, just like any other number in a particular base.

4. How does the concept of "ten" change in non-positional number systems?

In non-positional number systems, the concept of "ten" may not exist as it is based on the number of digits and their positions. For example, in Roman numerals, "ten" is represented as X, but its value is not based on its position but on the symbol itself.

5. Can the value of "ten" change if the chosen number base is changed?

No, the value of "ten" will remain the same regardless of the chosen number base. It is a constant value and is not affected by the base used to represent it.

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Engineering and Comp Sci Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • General Math
Replies
1
Views
890
Replies
6
Views
909
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
9
Views
979
  • Math Proof Training and Practice
2
Replies
67
Views
10K
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
2
Replies
52
Views
4K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
34
Views
10K
Back
Top