Why is the most common base 10?

[Phrak]

Hmm, interesting thought, why are arabic numerals automatically the standard symbols?

Which ones did you mean?

These: 0123456789?

Perhaps these: ٠١٢٣٤٥٦٧٨٩?

Was I confusing? You can use any symbols you want. It's simply a good idea to have a common language for purposes, you know, communication.

 

[Max™]

No, I was asking about what specific benefit arabic numerals grant, do they represent the numbers well? Are they easier to write than any alternative? Do they avoid issues such as dyslexia type reversal errors?

 

[Phrak]

Oh, I see. If we were all fairly unimpressed with left-right distinctions, all symbols would be left-right symmetrical or equally well be written either way. But it's an historical fact of life that westernized Arabic numerals are the de facto standard today. Trying to change it is like trying to stop a train with your bare hands.

People also get peculiar notions about how spoken and written language should be improved. I once attended a lecture presented by some guy at UCLA who had his own ideas of a common global language. His peccadillo was order. He wanted a language with a high degree of order.

For instance, the words:

---we, they, I, you, he, and she---

would be improved.

I don't recall the actual spelling, but his idea of improvement was something like:

---tad, tid, ted, tyd, tod, tud---

This is not improvement; this is the destruction of redundant audio information that helps us tell similar sentences apart.

I have a special concern about dyslexia. How would you recommend improving the written language--or getting over it?

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't recall the actual spelling, but his idea of improvement was something like:

---tad, tid, ted, tyd, tod, tud---

This is not improvement; this is the destruction of redundant audio information that helps us tell similar sentences apart.

good point.

This guy clearly has not read - but desparateley needs to read - 1984. 'The destruction of words' was an awesome subplot.

 

[Phrak]

good point.

This guy clearly has not read - but desparateley needs to read - 1984. 'The destruction of words' was an awesome subplot.

Doubleplusgood of you to say so. I read 1984 when I was 15. I had to look it up to recall your meaning.

 

[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.