Re: base 10 number system




David T. Ashley wrote:
<mensanator@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1167616766.944127.124380@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The assertion that if counting were based on fingers it would be base-11
is
... nonsense.

Which is why I didn't say that. I didn't say "counting" based on
fingers would be base-11, I said the radix of a standard positional
number system based on fingers would be base-11.

They seem to be the same thing.

The second digit from the right would the number of groups of fingers
involved. A group of fingers is 10 of them.

You're giving early man too much credit. Those poor folks were just trying
to stay alive and didn't have the time to think much about number systems
(that came much later in history). One finger, one sheep, two fingers, two
sheep, etc.

What is your reasoning leading to a radix-11 positional number system based
on 10 fingers? You've lost me.

A radix b positional number sytem must have b glyphs,
one of which must be 0. So which finger do you chop off
to get base 10?


BTW, I don't concede the Casio matter, just that my arguments would be
subjective and we wouldn't get anywhere. I am very interested in
understanding, however, how 10 fingers could lead to a radix-11 positional
number system.

11 glyphs representing zero, one, two, three, four, five, six,
seven, eight, nine and ten, e.g. base 11. What part of this don't
you understand?

.