# Re: Strictly OT - conworlding with 92% or thereabouts commonality with curren...

From: | Jim Henry <jimhenry1973@...> |

Date: | Monday, January 7, 2008, 14:47 |

On Jan 6, 2008 8:02 AM, <MorphemeAddict@...> wrote:
> In a message dated 1/6/2008 5:08:19 AM Central Standard Time,
> wes.parish@PARADISE.NET.NZ writes:

> > So a mathematics that privileges the prime numbers instead of the base-two,
> > would have a much greater range of physical variation/s than a universe with
> > the
> > opposite focus. A much more detailed explanation of the idea can be
> Mathematics doesn't 'privilege' any particular. Numbers don't have a base,
> until and unless someone chooses a base to express them in.

I don't fully understand what he's talking about, but my impression
is that he's not using "base two" in the usual sense.
He wrote in his original post:
>>What I'm thinking of is a skewed set of basic physical laws where the basic

mathematical progression is not the binary one-two-plusone-plusone-plusone...
into infinity, but instead the integer prime sequence having prime importance
and the binary sequence being of secondary importance.
<<
I can't figure out what he's talking about exactly, -- do the primes
exist without being embedded in and defined by
the sequence of natural numbers, in his world? --
but he doesn't seem to be using "binary" and "base two"
in the usual sense to denote a notational method, but rather
to denote the counting numbers or natural numbers as
opposed to the primes.
Wesley, can you explain further?
--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry

### Reply