• TootSweet@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      You’re not wrong, but…

      The arabic numererals we use in our primary base-10 system are very arbitrary. There’s no connection between the around-a-tree-around-a-tree numeral “3” we use to represent the number after the candy-cane-with-a-shoe numeral “2” and the concept of the number 3.

      But it doesn’t have to be that way. What if the numerals in our base-60 system themselves followed a pattern.

      One of the simpler and more straightforward ways of doing that (that might not work well in practice, at least not for hand-written numerals) would be just to make each numeral in our base-60 system be a vertical line of 6 marks, each either a dot or a dash. We could use that then to encode a single digit in our base-60 system using base-2 digits.

      For instance:

       . .
       . _
       . .
       _ _
       . .
      

      Would be (1*2^1)*60^1+(1*2^3+1*2^1)*60^0 = 2*60^1+10*60^0 = 120+10 = 130.

      Viola! Base-60 with (handwave, mutter, qualify) only 2 numerals!

      There are downsides to this as well. For instance, you’d have to not consider certain patterns valid. Six base-2 digits can encode numbers up to 63, so you’d just have to throw away the last four and say you’re not allowed to put a 60, 61, 62, or 63 in a single digit. (Also, we’d need language to differentiate between the base-2 digits and the base-60 digits in the same exact number system.)

      Not the only way it could be approached, but it’s an option.