Re: Vocab #5

Nik Taylor writes:
 > Christian Thalmann wrote:
 > > Eight is a nice number, about the same order of magnitude as our ten,
 > > but it divides nicer: 2 x 2 x 2 rather than 2 x 5.  Most importantly:
 > > It's not ten!  Is there anything more boring than ten-based systems?
 > > ;-)
 >
 > I dunno, 10 is, IMO, a bit better than 8, as it can be divided into
 > fifths and (with nonrepeating decimals) powers of five in addition to 2
 > and powers of 2, whereas 8 can only be divided by 2 and powers of 2.

Still, 8 can be divided into quarters as well.  And, of course,
eighths, without requiring any decimals at all.  It seems more likely
to me that you'll want to divide something in half, and half again,
and again, than to divide it into fifths or tenths (if you aren't
choosing _because_ it's convenient in your system).

 >
 > But even better is 12.  :-)

Agreed.  30 is in some ways even better.  It seems like almost any
(reasonably low) integer has something to recommend it.  There are a
lot of good arguments for base 3 (ternary), for example.  I don't know
if I could go with an odd base myself (it seems to me that the most
common division is always going to be by 2) but in an odd base you can
use a balanced notation, which has several advantages.  I've even
heard eleven defended (you can count on your fingers more
"efficiently").  I should really prepare a list sometime.

LC-01 (my conlang) uses a base 16 system.  The numerals predate
everything else associated with the language, and are rather nice,
although they could probably be refined a bit for ease of writing.
Their nature dictates that they are only appropriate for a power of 2
base, so I'm not likely to change it.