From: Luke-Jr (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Jun 05 2010 - 10:29:03 CDT
On Saturday 05 June 2010 09:33:03 am Otto Stolz wrote:
> In the decimal systems, you can easier divide by 2, 5,
> and powers of 10, whilst in the hexadekadic system,
> you can easier divide by many powers of two, and all
> powers of 16.
And 4, and 8. Many repeating fractions also become more accurate with base 16.
> For arbitrary divisors, the decimal system seems to be
> easier, as you would use the same division algorithm,
> in both systems, however with different tables (dubbed
> “multiplication table” or, less formally, “times table”)
> that comprise 100 vs. 256 entries. Hence, the the hexa-
> dekadic multiplication table should be 2½ times as hard
> to learn, and memorize, as the decimal one.
Does anyone seriously memorise multiplication tables...?
> This whole deliberation is, of course, purely academic.
> In real life, you will have to use the decimal system
> as everybody else does, lest you wont be misunderstood.
Only when/if you deal with "everybody else".
And then you need only convert, not use it for your calculations.
> You may wonder, why I am using the term “hexadekadic”.
> This is because, “hexadeka” is the Greek word for 16,
> whilst the Latin word ist “sedecim”; there is no language
> known that has “hexadecim”, or anything alike, for 16.
I prefer "tonal", since "hexadecimal"/"hexadekadic" both imply a decimal base.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jun 05 2010 - 10:31:39 CDT