Re: Possible base-20 numeric system

Quoting Danny Wier <dawiertx@...>:

> From: "Simon Richard Clarkstone"
>
> > No, wrong, you have a bizarre dual-base system.  Each of the quoted
> > should be 20 more than its predecessor.  In the next "place", each would
> > be 20*20=400 more than its predecessor.
> > Also, you must (well, should) only have one name for each integer, but
> > you have:
> > ketïs-tis = koltïs (assuming hyphens add the two numbers)
>
> Dual-base systems are bizarre? Systems using 20x5 are not that uncommon;
> Welsh, Danish, French (for 60 and 80) and Georgian are just a few that do
> such.
>
> And what about Sumerian and Akkadian? Base 60 is inevitably dual-base, since
> you can't square an integer and get 60.
Eh? How is it any more inevitably dual-base than base 10? It's not like there's
an integer that squares to ten either.

                                            Andreas

Reply