From rob@twcny.rr.com Tue Sep 25 22:26:39 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rob@twcny.rr.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_2); 26 Sep 2001 05:26:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 45674 invoked from network); 26 Sep 2001 05:26:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 26 Sep 2001 05:26:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailout5.nyroc.rr.com) (24.92.226.122) by mta3 with SMTP; 26 Sep 2001 05:26:38 -0000 Received: from mail1.twcny.rr.com (mail1-0 [24.92.226.74]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id f8Q5Pdo02090 for ; Wed, 26 Sep 2001 01:25:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from riff ([24.92.246.4]) by mail1.twcny.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 26 Sep 2001 01:25:38 -0400 Received: from rob by riff with local (Exim 3.32 #1 (Debian)) id 15m7Cv-0000iG-00 for ; Wed, 26 Sep 2001 01:26:05 -0400 Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 01:26:05 -0400 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] periodic hexadecimal reminder Message-ID: <20010926012605.A2709@twcny.rr.com> Reply-To: rob@twcny.rr.com References: <9orgpt+2n84@eGroups.com> <20010925221948.Y10550@digitalkingdom.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20010925221948.Y10550@digitalkingdom.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.20i X-Is-It-Not-Nifty: www.sluggy.com From: Rob Speer On Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 10:19:48PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 01:10:24AM -0400, Invent Yourself wrote: > > On Wed, 26 Sep 2001 thinkit8@lycos.com wrote: > > > > > this is just a post to remind everyone that hexadecimal is the > > > future, and lojban is by default hexadecimal. rafsi will be assigned > > > for dau-vai, and "ju'u dau" will be used for references to the old > > > way of doing things. > > > > > > > > What are the benefits of hex that outweigh the enormous, trillion dollar > > investment in decimal infrastructure? > > Especially since 16 isn't as divisible as either 12 or 60, and hence > could easily be argued to be inferior to both of those. Base 12 is nicer than 16, yes. But a higher base would still use some of the same digits. Instead of "hex cmavo" they might be "duodec cmavo". -- la rab.spir noi sarji zo gumri