Re: Hexadecimal digits

From: Luke-Jr (
Date: Sat Jun 05 2010 - 10:29:03 CDT

  • Next message: Peter Constable: "base-9 digits"

    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