|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 15 new of 39 responses total. |
scott
|
|
response 25 of 39:
| 
Aug 25 01:41 UTC 2003 |
I don't see "irty" or "orty" as inherently base ten. It ocurred to me once
that I could count in binary out loud as "one, ten, eleven, one hundred, one
hundred one, one hundred ten, one hundred eleven..."
Granted I'm probably abusing some Latin language roots pretty badly with
"hundred", "thousand", etc.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 26 of 39:
|
Aug 25 05:11 UTC 2003 |
OK, it does make sense to say "thirty" in octal is 30[8], which is
24[10]. So "thirty seven twenty three" is 3723[8]. My mins is again
at rest....
|
sholmes
|
|
response 27 of 39:
|
Aug 25 07:29 UTC 2003 |
Re #25 : YOu may not see "irty" or "orty" as inherently base ten , but adding
ten to "forty" does give us "fifty" ....
Also under normal speak we mean decimal numbers when we dont specifically
mention a bse. To use 3723 we either have to indicate that its octal in some
way or let everyone convert to octal and make it default :)
.
|
gull
|
|
response 28 of 39:
|
Aug 25 13:19 UTC 2003 |
Just don't try it in hexadecimal. 'Thirty-Dee' is likely to confuse a
lot of people. ;>
|
rcurl
|
|
response 29 of 39:
|
Aug 25 17:35 UTC 2003 |
Adding ten[10] to forty gives fifty only in base [10]. I'll agree that a
more consistent nomenclature is needed. Is 10 "ten" in all bases? It is
awkward in base [2] (especially as no one tries to speak binary).
However sholmes is correct, that if one doesn't specify a base, base [10]
is usually assumed, unless there are other clues. I wasn't arguing against
that - only that 3723[8] avoids the problem of having the century end
in a vowel.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 30 of 39:
|
Aug 25 18:40 UTC 2003 |
I seem to recall from long ago school days that numbers in bases other than
ten were to be recited by saying the numerals folled by "base N".
|
rcurl
|
|
response 31 of 39:
|
Aug 25 20:09 UTC 2003 |
Practical, but hardly poetic.
|
remmers
|
|
response 32 of 39:
|
Aug 25 20:50 UTC 2003 |
The notation M[N] is ambiguous unless one stipulates that N is always
written in a particular base. The discussion seems to assume that it
is, and that the base is decimal. That seems excessively decimalcentric.
Better to have a base-independent way of referring to bases.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 33 of 39:
|
Aug 26 03:26 UTC 2003 |
I suppose you could resort to using a mark (such as a dot) for every digit
in the base being used, i.e. 1101[..] = 15[........] = 13[..........]
(with a preceding unary minus if necessary to indicate a negative integer
base.)
simple and unambiguous, but really, really cumbersome...
|
janc
|
|
response 34 of 39:
|
Aug 31 02:34 UTC 2003 |
I strongly question the randomness of the above thoughts.
|
other
|
|
response 35 of 39:
|
Sep 9 03:44 UTC 2003 |
On to another random thought. The last decade was "the nineties." The
one before it was "the eighties." Will this one be "the oughties?" Or
perhaps, "the naughties?" Or something else altogether?
|
dah
|
|
response 36 of 39:
|
Sep 9 03:53 UTC 2003 |
MONTREAL! DID YOU GO TO THE PLATEAU DISTRICT?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 37 of 39:
|
Sep 9 04:17 UTC 2003 |
"Oughties", because everyone is thinking and talking about what they "ought"
to do.
|
remmers
|
|
response 38 of 39:
|
Sep 9 10:16 UTC 2003 |
There is a website devoted to this very question:
http://www.wwmeli.org/newdate/decades.html
|
albaugh
|
|
response 39 of 39:
|
Sep 9 17:05 UTC 2003 |
Ain't da web wonderfull? ;-)
|