Why is the most common base 10?

[Max™]

Haven't thought about adjusting written language other than to make it more suited for representing mathematical information, but I've often wondered why we don't use numerals that represent the values better. A major part of mathematics is getting used to using different symbols when values aren't required to be exact, but the symbols we use for exact values seem so... I dunno, arbitrary, I guess.

 

[Mark44]

In what way do they seem arbitrary? Can you give an example?

 

[Max™]

Roman numerals, while hard to write large values, hard to perform calculations, and lacking zero, still encode the values in a readable way.

A single "I" is a one, two "I" marks (II) makes a two, etc...

In what way does the change from 1 to 2 encode the difference in the values? Does that rule hold from 2 to 3, 3 to 4, 4 to 5, and so on? I can't find any rhyme or reason there, and after encountering someone with issues reading them (my girlfriend, like other dyslexia-type readers) I just wondered why we arrived at these symbols.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I can't find any rhyme or reason there, and after encountering someone with issues reading them (my girlfriend, like other dyslexia-type readers) I just wondered why we arrived at these symbols.

You can trace them pretty far back, at least to the banks of the Indus over 2000 years ago. At that point the low numbers were basically a number of strokes corresponding to their number. Two has gained a curve between its horizontal strokes, and three gained two curved between its horizontal strokes. Four gained a diagonal slant; it looked more like a + in origin. The others are more conceptual; I don't know if they corresponded to the shape of the initial letters of their names or if there's some other nonarbitrary reason for their shape. Of course those shapes aren't too close to the modern shapes.

The modern versions are excellent for readability. Numerals that once resembled each other too closely have moved further apart for increased legibility. (The Romans used |||| for 4, which was hard to distinguish at a glance from |||, and of course their large numbers are quite hard to read in comparison with our own.) Of course this process continues to this day -- strokes on the 7 in Europe and on the 0 on some typewriters and keyboards are modern innovations.

 

[Max™]

You can trace them pretty far back, at least to the banks of the Indus over 2000 years ago. At that point the low numbers were basically a number of strokes corresponding to their number. Two has gained a curve between its horizontal strokes, and three gained two curved between its horizontal strokes. Four gained a diagonal slant; it looked more like a + in origin. The others are more conceptual; I don't know if they corresponded to the shape of the initial letters of their names or if there's some other nonarbitrary reason for their shape. Of course those shapes aren't too close to the modern shapes.

The modern versions are excellent for readability. Numerals that once resembled each other too closely have moved further apart for increased legibility. (The Romans used |||| for 4, which was hard to distinguish at a glance from |||, and of course their large numbers are quite hard to read in comparison with our own.) Of course this process continues to this day -- strokes on the 7 in Europe and on the 0 on some typewriters and keyboards are modern innovations.

The modern versions are great for readability if you don't suffer from dyslexia type mirroring/reversal issues, you mean.

http://schools-wikipedia.org/images/303/30369.png

http://www.archimedes-lab.org/numeral.html

It isn't quite as well thought out as you might think.