From rob@twcny.rr.com Tue Oct 02 13:57:48 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rob@twcny.rr.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 2 Oct 2001 20:55:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 14834 invoked from network); 2 Oct 2001 20:55:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by 10.1.1.221 with QMQP; 2 Oct 2001 20:55:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailout5.nyroc.rr.com) (24.92.226.122) by mta3 with SMTP; 2 Oct 2001 20:57:47 -0000 Received: from mail1.twcny.rr.com (mail1-1 [24.92.226.139]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id f92Kvjo23645 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 16:57:45 -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 ; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 16:56:45 -0400 Received: from rob by riff with local (Exim 3.32 #1 (Debian)) id 15oWbC-0000EX-00 for ; Tue, 02 Oct 2001 16:57:06 -0400 Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 16:57:06 -0400 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: possible A-F... Message-ID: <20011002165706.A806@twcny.rr.com> Reply-To: rob@twcny.rr.com References: <20011002010133.B1021@twcny.rr.com> <9pbl6v+qrho@eGroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <9pbl6v+qrho@eGroups.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.20i X-Is-It-Not-Nifty: www.sluggy.com From: Rob Speer On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 06:01:03AM -0000, thinkit8@lycos.com wrote: > it's more compact than binary and quaternary. :) That's all it is, in fact. The reason hex is used at all is that it's a compact representation of binary. And binary is used because it's a _minimal_ number system, the easiest to implement using electronics - not because it's the most useful. Human brains are analog, and (I believe) are equipped equally well to deal with any reasonable base. Why let this ability go to waste by using hex? -- la rab.spir noi sarji zo gumri