Re: [Fwd: dozenal and hexadecimal digits]

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                                   cowan@ccil.org
       I am a member of a civilization. --David Brin