I figure each finger can be up or down, 2 states, so binary.
And then base 16 is just assigning symbols to sequences of 4 binary digits, a good, manageable, compression for speaking and writing.
(When I say I could count something on one hand, it means there are up to 31 of them.)
The cost in number length is not large − 3*10^8 is roughly 1*4^14 - and the cost in factorization likewise—divisibility by 2, 3, and 5 remain simple, only 11 becomes difficult.
If you want to argue from number of fingers, though, six beats ten. ;)
Six works because you don’t need a figure for the base. Thus, zero to five fingers on one hand, then drop all five and raise one on the other to make six. (Plus, you get easy divisibility by seven, which beats easy divisibility by eleven.)
Edit: Binary, the logical extension of the above principle, has the problem that the ring finger and pinky have a mechanical connection, besides the obvious 132decimal issue. ;)
Huh. Would that actually be easier? I always figured ten fingers...
I figure each finger can be up or down, 2 states, so binary. And then base 16 is just assigning symbols to sequences of 4 binary digits, a good, manageable, compression for speaking and writing.
(When I say I could count something on one hand, it means there are up to 31 of them.)
Fewer symbols to memorize.
Smaller multiplication table to memorize.
Direct compatibility with binary computers.
The cost in number length is not large − 3*10^8 is roughly 1*4^14 - and the cost in factorization likewise—divisibility by 2, 3, and 5 remain simple, only 11 becomes difficult.
If you want to argue from number of fingers, though, six beats ten. ;)
I could see eight, but why six?
Six works because you don’t need a figure for the base. Thus, zero to five fingers on one hand, then drop all five and raise one on the other to make six. (Plus, you get easy divisibility by seven, which beats easy divisibility by eleven.)
Edit: Binary, the logical extension of the above principle, has the problem that the ring finger and pinky have a mechanical connection, besides the obvious 132decimal issue. ;)
I don’t see how eight comes in, though.
Eight would be if you counted your fingers with the thumb of the same hand.
I see—I count by raising fingers, so that method didn’t occur to me.
There’s are websites dedicated to making Base 12 the standard. Same principle as making Base 6.
Nature’s Numbers
Dozenal Society
Simplest explanation—its possible to divvy 12 up in more whole fractions than the number 10.
I don’t see myself with ten fingers as a posthuman anyway.