On Sat, 2003-10-11 at 12:07, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Sat, Oct 11, 2003 at 10:01:01AM +0200, David KOCH wrote: > > >Le Fri, 10 Oct 2003 16:22:32 -0700, Robin Lee Powell > > ><lojban-out@lojban.org> a ?crit: On Sat, Oct 11, 2003 at > > >02:27:12AM +0300, robin wrote: > > >>Hex is currently in vogue because we think binary computers are > > >>cool, but there is nothing to make it inherently superior. As a > > >>kid, I was a big fan of octal. > > > > > >Precisely. In fact, the utility of something whose only divisors > > >are powers of two is extremely questionable. > > > > > >Contrast to duodecimal (base 12) which is divisable by 2, 4, 3 > > >and 6, or base-60, which adds 5, 10, 20, 15, and 30. > > > > > >Which would *you* rather use in your daily life? > > > > > >Oh, and why are we having this discussion again? > > > > > >-Robin > > > > > > > Right, base 6 is one of the most useful base number (does 360? > > remind you something ?) ! > > I think you mean base *60*, and yes I was explaining the remnants of > Babylonian base-60 in modern culture to a friend just yesterday. In Heinlein's Future History, Lazarus Long's ship uses base-120 to make it easy to convert between all the various systems in use in the many places it must visit. (This is only mentioned in The Number Of The Beast, though.) -- mu'o mi'e la'o gy. Theodore Reed gy. .e la bancus. to zoi gy. http://surreality.us/lojban/ gy. mi zmanei lo notci poi mifra fi la pygypys.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part