Re: base 10 number system
- From: "David T. Ashley" <dta@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 18:47:48 -0500
<mensanator@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1167594475.908091.287130@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness as I
observe, through a glass darkly, the pearls that are
cast before swine.
No pears, involved, mensanator. You're casting soiled cat litter before
food critics.
The web page you cited is dead wrong. The zero pattern is irrelevant.
Think about early man trying to keep track of things. He won't use the zero
pattern as suggested. He would put his fingers into one-to-one
correspondence with the things he is trying to keep track of ... lions at
the watering hole, whatever. When ten is exceeded, he would then use one
finger again (the one-to-one correspondence).
The assertion that if counting were based on fingers it would be base-11 is
.... nonsense.
Also, the criticism if Casio watches at that site is unfounded. If I'm
understanding it correctly, the Casio watch displays a number of those LCD
segments that is "rounded" to the nearest 10th of a second. There could
have been a number of reasons for doing it that way ... but it definitely
was a sane design decision.
Those crunchy things in the cat litter are NOT pearls.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: base 10 number system
- From: Nick
- Re: base 10 number system
- From: mensanator@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Re: base 10 number system
- Prev by Date: Re: base 10 number system
- Next by Date: Re: Calling all Geese - Calling all Geese -
- Previous by thread: Re: base 10 number system
- Next by thread: Re: base 10 number system
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|