
Post by Buffoonery on Jul 25, 2015 22:29:03 GMT 8
 Base 6  Base 8  Base 10  Base 12  Base 14  Base 16  Base 18  1/2  .3  .4  .5  .6  .7  .8  .9  1/3  .2  .25¯  .3¯  .4  .49¯  .5¯  .6  1/4  .13  .2  .25  .3  .37  .4  .49  1/5  .1¯  .1463¯  .2  .2497¯  .2B2B¯  .3¯  .3AE7¯  1/6  .1  .125 25¯  .16¯  .2  .249 49¯  .2 A¯  .3  1/7  .05¯  .1¯  .142857¯  .186A35¯  .2  .249¯  .2A5¯  1/8  .043  .1  .125  .16  .1A7  .2  .249  1/9  .04  .07¯  .1¯  .14  .17AC63¯  .1C7¯  .2  1/A (10)  .0 3¯  .06314¯  .1  .1 2497¯  .1 58¯  .1 9¯  .1 E73A¯  1/B (11)  .0313452421¯  .0564272135¯  .09¯  .1¯  .13B65¯  .1745D¯  .1B834G69ED...  1/C (12)  .03  .052¯  .083¯  .1  .12 49¯  .1 5¯  .19  1/D (13)  .024340531215¯  .0473¯  .076923¯  .0B¯  .1¯  .13B¯  .16GB¯  1/E (14)  .0 23¯  .0 4¯  .07 142857¯  .0 A35186¯  .1  .1 249¯  .1 52A¯  1/F (15)  .0 2¯  .0421¯  .0 6¯  .0 9724¯  .0D¯  .1¯  .13 AE73¯  1/G (16)  .0213  .04  .0625  .09  .0C37  .1  .1249  1/H (17)  .020412245351433...  .03607417¯  .0588235294117647¯  .08579214B3643...  .0B75A9C4D268...  .0F¯  .1¯  1/I (18)  .02  .0 34¯  .0 5¯  .08  .0 AC6317¯  .0 E38¯  .1 



Post by on Jul 28, 2015 14:06:37 GMT 8
You were right, we should just write here due to G+ deletions. I can't read your entire message each time. Anyway, quadrivigesimal needs a 12*12 to fit packings of 6*4 or 2*12 into a square, and trigesimal needs a 30*30 square LOL 12 and 18 prevail big time if you want that 6*6 packing.



Post by on Jul 28, 2015 16:38:52 GMT 8
The multiplication table entry number increases quadratically lol, and the zero enders only linearly. For bases larger than binary, I considered b  3 zeroenders due to avoiding the trivial ones. 30 had a sum of 27 (7+14+6) and dozenal had a sum of 9 (3+4+2), etc.



Post by Buffoonery on Jul 29, 2015 15:01:31 GMT 8
Damn, that's such a tease. How frustrating, 30's a good number, but it's unwieldy because of its size.



Post by on Jul 30, 2015 15:15:56 GMT 8
Making a base 30 ruler would need a division by five (or cutting up a pie or pizza or etc. into thirty pieces). Making a computer that would operate in base 30 would also need quinary digits instead of just binary and ternary for doz., Od., and Qvg. The same benefits of having that third prime factor do confer drawbacks... so what's wrong with base 24? How do we prove it's too high? Let's check a few basics.. 1/2 = 0.U 1/3 = 0.8 1/4 = 0.6 1/5 = 0.4G4G4G4G4G4G4.... (my symbols for this stuff) 1/6 = 0.4 1/7 = 0.3t6PHN3t6PHN3t6PHN3t6PHN.... Yuck. 1/8 = 0.3 1/9 = 0.2J 1/t = 0.29C9C9C9C9C9C9C9C9....
Maybe a big integer.... a billion in the long system (1000000000000) is 920yNyL2J in quadrivigesimal.



Post by Buffoonery on Jul 30, 2015 17:25:09 GMT 8
0__5__A __F__K__P__10 ¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡ Trigesimal
0_3_6_9_10 ¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡ Dozenal
0___6___C___I__10 ¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡ Quadravigesimal
What do you mean you'd need quinary digits instead of binary. The transistors have an off and an on state (1 / 0), I don't see how you could change that. Aren't all even bases safe to use binary?



Post by on Jul 30, 2015 20:37:07 GMT 8
I was doing my own Qvg. multiplication table and tried to write a G and turned it into a 6 lolz



Post by on Jul 30, 2015 20:40:32 GMT 8
You don't have to divide by 4 and 6 for Quadrivigesimal, you can divide by 2, 3, 2, and 2 again so you don't have to have all those marks with the same length. Yes, you can translate between any bases, although it's faster for binary to hex due to a certain number of bits mapping to a hex digit. For trigesimal, you'd do ternary, binary, quinary for instance to get a power of thirty.



Post by on Jul 31, 2015 10:48:17 GMT 8
Oh I see you used  and i or something for the ruler divisions.
Octodecimal  i i 1 i i ! i i 1 i i ! i i 1 i i  0 0.3 0.6 0.9 0.C 0.F 1



Post by Buffoonery on Jul 31, 2015 21:41:42 GMT 8
Lol, GGGGGGGGGGG6GGGG6GGGGGGGG spot the 2 6's.  Yeah, I didn't put much effort into the base 24 divisions. But you know, the funny thing is, I had a bunch of spaces in between the (¡) and (), but they didn't translate onto this forum. Here's a test: ___a___a___a___(triple underscores) a a a (triple spaces)  I'm just wondering how you'd get a computer to not run on binary. I can't imagine how else the transistors would work.  Yup, I used () vertibar, and (i) letter i. I'm thinking if we use 1/4, 1/2, 1/3, 1/8, if they should all be different symbols. It could get pretty confusing if they were just 2 symbols. Example: ¡¡¡¡¡¡ would get cluttered
¡¡¦¡¡¦¡¡ is still cluttered, hmmm. lol
_¡_¡__;_¡__¡_;__¡_¡_ That's pretty good



Post by on Jul 31, 2015 22:57:13 GMT 8
Those two 6s were five characters apart (four Gs between them). G is my symbol for nineteen so it still turns up in vigesimal (base twenty). Qvg. also may confuse a 6 and a b xD, b being twentyone. At least I don't have 1 and I and O and 0, or 5 and S. LOL Ok...
Octodecimal __i__i__1__i__i__!__i__i__1__i__i__!__i__i__1__i__i__ 0_______0.3______0.6______0.9______0.C______0.F_______1



Post by on Jul 31, 2015 23:09:19 GMT 8
Pfffft it changed the spacing.... because the typing interface uses a monospaced font, maybe Courier, and then it posts and displays in a different one.



Post by on Aug 2, 2015 15:22:34 GMT 8
What's the big deal about grouping the base into 6*6 squares? You can pack rectangles without staggering them like bricks.



Post by Buffoonery on Aug 3, 2015 15:22:08 GMT 8
Having the square numbers is helpful since having both sides the same makes it easier for storing goods. Take for example: ooo ooo ooo A 3x3 grid can be stored simply by making it parallel to the wall. Where as: ooo ooo A 2x3 grid has to be planned ahead of time since 2x2x2x2 grows at a slower rate than 3x3x3x3. Even without bricking/staggering, it's easier to organize squares, it's a straightforward process.



Post by on Aug 3, 2015 17:25:12 GMT 8
Too bad no one uses triangular numbers for packing, we're stuck with containers and appliances and homes and what not with countless 90 degree angles, triangular arrangements have a higher packing density (such as piles of oranges). Anyway, it sounds like you've ruled out base 24 since 24 isn't a factor of 36 and thus groupings of 24 would have to be extended to a 12*12 square rather than 6*6 (bases 6, 12, and 18 do fit). I saw someone advocating base eight but he hasn't answered since I gave specific instances where dividing by threes isn't so lovely in it.

