# Re: base 10 number system

*From*: "mensanator@xxxxxxxxxxx" <mensanator@xxxxxxx>*Date*: 31 Dec 2006 19:45:18 -0800

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?

.

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: base 10 number system***From:*David T. Ashley

**References**:**Re: base 10 number system***From:*David T. Ashley

**Re: base 10 number system***From:*mensanator@xxxxxxxxxxx

**Re: base 10 number system***From:*David T. Ashley

- Prev by Date:
**Re: f and f' square integrable** - Next by Date:
**Non-Standard Measure Theory** - Previous by thread:
**Re: base 10 number system** - Next by thread:
**Re: base 10 number system** - Index(es):