Re: [Fwd: dozenal and hexadecimal digits]
|From:||John Cowan <cowan@...>|
|Date:||Sunday, May 14, 2000, 15:19|
Raymond Brown scripsit:
> Tho I hesitate to disagree with Quine, I see no objection to 'binary' (<--
> bi:na:rius = "containing two, consisting of two" <-- bi:ni" = "two each,
> two at a time"); it's properly derived & fits well with ternary,
> quaternary, etc.
The details of his objection have gone blurry, but it may have been
that "binary" numbers would properly be those of two digits (in any base).
John Cowan email@example.com
I am a member of a civilization. --David Brin