Tau number system, base 7?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Co'tor Shas**

Binary yes, but the metric system is most definitely not in binary. Unless I've missed some big change. And I doubt he'd be doing stuff like that when he's trying to explain something.

If it was a joke, than, well played.

**Nevelon**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
Binary yes, but the metric system is most definitely not in binary. Unless I've missed some big change. And I doubt he'd be doing stuff like that when he's trying to explain something.

If it was a joke, than, well played.

Sorry, was joking. Us CompSci guys gota get our humor in somewhere.

I normally stick to bad puns, but they generally fare poorly in text form.

**ImAGeek**

Thanks guys. So if Tau use base 8 system, it would go '5, 6, 7, 10'..? I kinda got that anyway, I was just thrown by the comment that a civilisation wouldn't work on a base 7 system, I didn't get why it would effect that. But it would appear it wouldn't

**Furyou Miko**

sigh. 00110010.

**Co'tor Shas**

Why 2?

**Exergy**

Tydil wrote:
ImAGeek wrote:
Is it possible to explain briefly why this base system thing matters? If it's really complex don't worry, but someone said a civilisation based on a base 7 system wouldn't work, and I don't really get why it would matter.

My thought is that it wouldn't work well for the same reason that base 12 does work well: 7 is not divisible by anything but 1 and itself. The base 7 "foot" or "meter" would be difficult to bisect or trisect.

Also when such a civilisation came to computers which would likely use binary no matter what, they would have difficulty translating the on/off computer counting to a system of 0 to 6. There is a funny aspect of this because a lot of people who argue about the superiority of the metric system will say that base 10 is what computers use, when in reality neither system performs well.

A system of base however would allow a civilisation to understand computer counting quickly.

On a side note is anyone thinking of Tom Lehr's new math? "Don't worry, base eight is just like base ten really, if you're missing two fingers."

Hooray for new math...

7 is prime, and further it's nasty. In base 7 most simple fractions would not terminate.
Base 5 on the other hand is much nicer even though 5 is also prime. Most simple fractions terminate.

**Co'tor Shas**

Again, tau are actually base 8 not base 7.

Although it should be noted that the math is the same no matter what system you use, as you are still using the same numbers, just written differntly.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nevelon wrote:
Co'tor Shas 656222 7982339 d559cc1b0fdaf4c34f15912122a4d643.png wrote:Binary yes, but the metric system is most definitely not in binary. Unless I've missed some big change. And I doubt he'd be doing stuff like that when he's trying to explain something.

If it was a joke, than, well played.

Sorry, was joking. Us CompSci guys gota get our humor in somewhere. I normally stick to bad puns, but they generally fare poorly in text form.

Heh, no worries. I'm already in the process of joining you anyway.