Number of Fingers for a Math Oriented RaceWhat environment would support an electric alien species?Could fairies be a hominid subfamily?Ideas for how aliens would approach this fight?Could a solar system with large amounts of dust and debris exist?What mix of corporate structures (out of the 4 given) would be most efficient for a galaxy-wide corporate conglomerate?How would aircraft and air-life develop on High-G, Lower-Atmosphere planet?A mechanism for a level interstellar playing fieldCan someone help me with ocean currents? I'm really confused
Federal Pacific 200a main panel problem with oversized 100a 2pole breaker
How to prevent a hosting company from accessing a VM's encryption keys?
Are strlen optimizations really needed in glibc?
Why did James Cameron decide to give Alita big eyes?
Can MuseScore be used programmatically?
Shift lens vs move body?
Can a paladin prepare more spells if they didn't cast any the previous day?
What was the point of "Substance"?
Alternatives to Network Backup
Is it true that different variants of the same model aircraft don't require pilot retraining?
What's the point of fighting monsters in Zelda BoTW?
Did the Apollo Guidance Computer really use 60% of the world's ICs in 1963?
Can I get a PhD for developing an educational software?
Why can't you say don't instead of won't?
Which meaning of "must" does the Slow spell use?
Why was this commercial plane highly delayed mid-flight?
Is the Amazon rainforest the "world's lungs"?
Does NASA use any type of office/groupware software and which is that?
Count the number of triangles
Count the number of shortest paths to n
Why does this London Underground poster from 1924 have a Star of David atop a Christmas tree?
How can I download a file from a host I can only SSH to through another host?
Can I take a boxed bicycle on a German train?
Why did Lucius make a deal out of Buckbeak hurting Draco but not about Draco being turned into a ferret?
Number of Fingers for a Math Oriented Race
What environment would support an electric alien species?Could fairies be a hominid subfamily?Ideas for how aliens would approach this fight?Could a solar system with large amounts of dust and debris exist?What mix of corporate structures (out of the 4 given) would be most efficient for a galaxy-wide corporate conglomerate?How would aircraft and air-life develop on High-G, Lower-Atmosphere planet?A mechanism for a level interstellar playing fieldCan someone help me with ocean currents? I'm really confused
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
$begingroup$
Form follows function, or that's how the saying goes. Which isn't true for some things. That is to say, a large reason why humans use a base 10 numbering system is because we have 10 fingers, not that we have 10 fingers because we use a base 10 numbering system. Except as worldbuilders, we get to do the reverse and create an alien race with the precise number of fingers that would be the most useful.
In my sci-fi setting, I'd like the most advanced race to have an extra advantage - a superior numbering system, using base 16 instead of base 10. 16 is a perfect square, almost a perfect number, and uses squares of 2 as it's landmarks of higher numbers (it's 'ten's place' is 256, it's 'hundred's place' is 4096, etc.). It handles larger numbers far better than a Base 4 system would, and easily converts to binary.
So now comes the real question - how do I design the aliens such that a base 16 system is organically produced? After all, number systems aren't designed in the modern. Eight fingers on one hand is too much for my tastes, and a four-armed, four-fingered alien on two feet doesn't seem like it would naturally arise. And, considering this the 'smart' race, I'd rather not have a solution that comes up as a result of combat with each other, something which the four-armed variation definitely suggests.
Two points - one: Yes, I know there are ancient 16-bit numbering systems that have survived to the modern era. However, they don't see widespread use today. I'm looking for a way so that I don't have to handwave and say they just developed a system like that and took over. Second - an answer which proposes a different base system will be accepted, so long as you can definitively prove it superior to my base 16 for the purposes of a sci-fi setting.
EDIT: Reminder, I'm not asking which Base numbering system is superior. As far as I'm concerned, they've all got strengths and weakness, and 16 is what I find easiest for my setting. The question is a xenobiology question about alien design and development.
EDIT II: The most common numeral system used currently, and historically, is the Hindu-Arabic numeral system, as it is so called. It is Base 10, and spread throughout the world to become the backbone of math, which has only recently begun to commonly use other bases because of programming.
science-fiction xenobiology numeral
$endgroup$
|
show 6 more comments
$begingroup$
Form follows function, or that's how the saying goes. Which isn't true for some things. That is to say, a large reason why humans use a base 10 numbering system is because we have 10 fingers, not that we have 10 fingers because we use a base 10 numbering system. Except as worldbuilders, we get to do the reverse and create an alien race with the precise number of fingers that would be the most useful.
In my sci-fi setting, I'd like the most advanced race to have an extra advantage - a superior numbering system, using base 16 instead of base 10. 16 is a perfect square, almost a perfect number, and uses squares of 2 as it's landmarks of higher numbers (it's 'ten's place' is 256, it's 'hundred's place' is 4096, etc.). It handles larger numbers far better than a Base 4 system would, and easily converts to binary.
So now comes the real question - how do I design the aliens such that a base 16 system is organically produced? After all, number systems aren't designed in the modern. Eight fingers on one hand is too much for my tastes, and a four-armed, four-fingered alien on two feet doesn't seem like it would naturally arise. And, considering this the 'smart' race, I'd rather not have a solution that comes up as a result of combat with each other, something which the four-armed variation definitely suggests.
Two points - one: Yes, I know there are ancient 16-bit numbering systems that have survived to the modern era. However, they don't see widespread use today. I'm looking for a way so that I don't have to handwave and say they just developed a system like that and took over. Second - an answer which proposes a different base system will be accepted, so long as you can definitively prove it superior to my base 16 for the purposes of a sci-fi setting.
EDIT: Reminder, I'm not asking which Base numbering system is superior. As far as I'm concerned, they've all got strengths and weakness, and 16 is what I find easiest for my setting. The question is a xenobiology question about alien design and development.
EDIT II: The most common numeral system used currently, and historically, is the Hindu-Arabic numeral system, as it is so called. It is Base 10, and spread throughout the world to become the backbone of math, which has only recently begun to commonly use other bases because of programming.
science-fiction xenobiology numeral
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
There is no “definitively better base”. The base is a trade-off. In positional numbering systems — which itself is a relatively recent piece of technology — a higher base can be written more compactly but requires memorizing a larger set of axioms (the times table for hexadecimal is 2.5x as large as the one for decimal). Prime basis have advantages, but composite bases give you more “round numbers”, witness the ubiquity of 360 — divisible by 0-12 easily, ie base 12).
$endgroup$
– Dan Bron
9 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
"That is to say, a large reason why humans use a base 10 numbering system is because we have 10 fingers" Citation needed. Sumerians used base 60 and had very advanced mathematics.
$endgroup$
– Trevor
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Trevor 60 was because 60 = (1*2*3) * (10). The 10 is still in there, the other term (6) was included because it embeds two additional small primes, making division easier. See my comments above about base 12. Same idea for base 20, which some cultures use. The base 10 part unequivocally comes from bilateral symmetry (2) with 5 fingers on each hand.
$endgroup$
– Dan Bron
9 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
(1) Humans in general do not use base 10. There are languages which use other bases of numeration. (2) We don't know for certain whether there is a causal link between our ten fingers and the widespread use of base 10 representation of numbers. (3) Very many humans can think and compute mentally in base 16. They are called programmers. Older programmers can also do it in base 8. (4) Base 16 is in no way, shape or form "better" for humans than base 10. (5) Computers actually use base 2, not base 16. (6) "16-bit ancient numbering systems": citation definitely needed.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
8 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
"The Hindu-Arabic numeral system [...] is Base 10, and the backbone of math": with all due respect, you have no idea what you are talking about. The decimal representation of numbers is not the backbone of mathematics; it is in fact an utterly unimportant detail.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
6 hours ago
|
show 6 more comments
$begingroup$
Form follows function, or that's how the saying goes. Which isn't true for some things. That is to say, a large reason why humans use a base 10 numbering system is because we have 10 fingers, not that we have 10 fingers because we use a base 10 numbering system. Except as worldbuilders, we get to do the reverse and create an alien race with the precise number of fingers that would be the most useful.
In my sci-fi setting, I'd like the most advanced race to have an extra advantage - a superior numbering system, using base 16 instead of base 10. 16 is a perfect square, almost a perfect number, and uses squares of 2 as it's landmarks of higher numbers (it's 'ten's place' is 256, it's 'hundred's place' is 4096, etc.). It handles larger numbers far better than a Base 4 system would, and easily converts to binary.
So now comes the real question - how do I design the aliens such that a base 16 system is organically produced? After all, number systems aren't designed in the modern. Eight fingers on one hand is too much for my tastes, and a four-armed, four-fingered alien on two feet doesn't seem like it would naturally arise. And, considering this the 'smart' race, I'd rather not have a solution that comes up as a result of combat with each other, something which the four-armed variation definitely suggests.
Two points - one: Yes, I know there are ancient 16-bit numbering systems that have survived to the modern era. However, they don't see widespread use today. I'm looking for a way so that I don't have to handwave and say they just developed a system like that and took over. Second - an answer which proposes a different base system will be accepted, so long as you can definitively prove it superior to my base 16 for the purposes of a sci-fi setting.
EDIT: Reminder, I'm not asking which Base numbering system is superior. As far as I'm concerned, they've all got strengths and weakness, and 16 is what I find easiest for my setting. The question is a xenobiology question about alien design and development.
EDIT II: The most common numeral system used currently, and historically, is the Hindu-Arabic numeral system, as it is so called. It is Base 10, and spread throughout the world to become the backbone of math, which has only recently begun to commonly use other bases because of programming.
science-fiction xenobiology numeral
$endgroup$
Form follows function, or that's how the saying goes. Which isn't true for some things. That is to say, a large reason why humans use a base 10 numbering system is because we have 10 fingers, not that we have 10 fingers because we use a base 10 numbering system. Except as worldbuilders, we get to do the reverse and create an alien race with the precise number of fingers that would be the most useful.
In my sci-fi setting, I'd like the most advanced race to have an extra advantage - a superior numbering system, using base 16 instead of base 10. 16 is a perfect square, almost a perfect number, and uses squares of 2 as it's landmarks of higher numbers (it's 'ten's place' is 256, it's 'hundred's place' is 4096, etc.). It handles larger numbers far better than a Base 4 system would, and easily converts to binary.
So now comes the real question - how do I design the aliens such that a base 16 system is organically produced? After all, number systems aren't designed in the modern. Eight fingers on one hand is too much for my tastes, and a four-armed, four-fingered alien on two feet doesn't seem like it would naturally arise. And, considering this the 'smart' race, I'd rather not have a solution that comes up as a result of combat with each other, something which the four-armed variation definitely suggests.
Two points - one: Yes, I know there are ancient 16-bit numbering systems that have survived to the modern era. However, they don't see widespread use today. I'm looking for a way so that I don't have to handwave and say they just developed a system like that and took over. Second - an answer which proposes a different base system will be accepted, so long as you can definitively prove it superior to my base 16 for the purposes of a sci-fi setting.
EDIT: Reminder, I'm not asking which Base numbering system is superior. As far as I'm concerned, they've all got strengths and weakness, and 16 is what I find easiest for my setting. The question is a xenobiology question about alien design and development.
EDIT II: The most common numeral system used currently, and historically, is the Hindu-Arabic numeral system, as it is so called. It is Base 10, and spread throughout the world to become the backbone of math, which has only recently begun to commonly use other bases because of programming.
science-fiction xenobiology numeral
science-fiction xenobiology numeral
edited 8 hours ago
Halfthawed
asked 9 hours ago
HalfthawedHalfthawed
5,6064 silver badges28 bronze badges
5,6064 silver badges28 bronze badges
$begingroup$
There is no “definitively better base”. The base is a trade-off. In positional numbering systems — which itself is a relatively recent piece of technology — a higher base can be written more compactly but requires memorizing a larger set of axioms (the times table for hexadecimal is 2.5x as large as the one for decimal). Prime basis have advantages, but composite bases give you more “round numbers”, witness the ubiquity of 360 — divisible by 0-12 easily, ie base 12).
$endgroup$
– Dan Bron
9 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
"That is to say, a large reason why humans use a base 10 numbering system is because we have 10 fingers" Citation needed. Sumerians used base 60 and had very advanced mathematics.
$endgroup$
– Trevor
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Trevor 60 was because 60 = (1*2*3) * (10). The 10 is still in there, the other term (6) was included because it embeds two additional small primes, making division easier. See my comments above about base 12. Same idea for base 20, which some cultures use. The base 10 part unequivocally comes from bilateral symmetry (2) with 5 fingers on each hand.
$endgroup$
– Dan Bron
9 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
(1) Humans in general do not use base 10. There are languages which use other bases of numeration. (2) We don't know for certain whether there is a causal link between our ten fingers and the widespread use of base 10 representation of numbers. (3) Very many humans can think and compute mentally in base 16. They are called programmers. Older programmers can also do it in base 8. (4) Base 16 is in no way, shape or form "better" for humans than base 10. (5) Computers actually use base 2, not base 16. (6) "16-bit ancient numbering systems": citation definitely needed.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
8 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
"The Hindu-Arabic numeral system [...] is Base 10, and the backbone of math": with all due respect, you have no idea what you are talking about. The decimal representation of numbers is not the backbone of mathematics; it is in fact an utterly unimportant detail.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
6 hours ago
|
show 6 more comments
$begingroup$
There is no “definitively better base”. The base is a trade-off. In positional numbering systems — which itself is a relatively recent piece of technology — a higher base can be written more compactly but requires memorizing a larger set of axioms (the times table for hexadecimal is 2.5x as large as the one for decimal). Prime basis have advantages, but composite bases give you more “round numbers”, witness the ubiquity of 360 — divisible by 0-12 easily, ie base 12).
$endgroup$
– Dan Bron
9 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
"That is to say, a large reason why humans use a base 10 numbering system is because we have 10 fingers" Citation needed. Sumerians used base 60 and had very advanced mathematics.
$endgroup$
– Trevor
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Trevor 60 was because 60 = (1*2*3) * (10). The 10 is still in there, the other term (6) was included because it embeds two additional small primes, making division easier. See my comments above about base 12. Same idea for base 20, which some cultures use. The base 10 part unequivocally comes from bilateral symmetry (2) with 5 fingers on each hand.
$endgroup$
– Dan Bron
9 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
(1) Humans in general do not use base 10. There are languages which use other bases of numeration. (2) We don't know for certain whether there is a causal link between our ten fingers and the widespread use of base 10 representation of numbers. (3) Very many humans can think and compute mentally in base 16. They are called programmers. Older programmers can also do it in base 8. (4) Base 16 is in no way, shape or form "better" for humans than base 10. (5) Computers actually use base 2, not base 16. (6) "16-bit ancient numbering systems": citation definitely needed.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
8 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
"The Hindu-Arabic numeral system [...] is Base 10, and the backbone of math": with all due respect, you have no idea what you are talking about. The decimal representation of numbers is not the backbone of mathematics; it is in fact an utterly unimportant detail.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
There is no “definitively better base”. The base is a trade-off. In positional numbering systems — which itself is a relatively recent piece of technology — a higher base can be written more compactly but requires memorizing a larger set of axioms (the times table for hexadecimal is 2.5x as large as the one for decimal). Prime basis have advantages, but composite bases give you more “round numbers”, witness the ubiquity of 360 — divisible by 0-12 easily, ie base 12).
$endgroup$
– Dan Bron
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
There is no “definitively better base”. The base is a trade-off. In positional numbering systems — which itself is a relatively recent piece of technology — a higher base can be written more compactly but requires memorizing a larger set of axioms (the times table for hexadecimal is 2.5x as large as the one for decimal). Prime basis have advantages, but composite bases give you more “round numbers”, witness the ubiquity of 360 — divisible by 0-12 easily, ie base 12).
$endgroup$
– Dan Bron
9 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
"That is to say, a large reason why humans use a base 10 numbering system is because we have 10 fingers" Citation needed. Sumerians used base 60 and had very advanced mathematics.
$endgroup$
– Trevor
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
"That is to say, a large reason why humans use a base 10 numbering system is because we have 10 fingers" Citation needed. Sumerians used base 60 and had very advanced mathematics.
$endgroup$
– Trevor
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Trevor 60 was because 60 = (1*2*3) * (10). The 10 is still in there, the other term (6) was included because it embeds two additional small primes, making division easier. See my comments above about base 12. Same idea for base 20, which some cultures use. The base 10 part unequivocally comes from bilateral symmetry (2) with 5 fingers on each hand.
$endgroup$
– Dan Bron
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Trevor 60 was because 60 = (1*2*3) * (10). The 10 is still in there, the other term (6) was included because it embeds two additional small primes, making division easier. See my comments above about base 12. Same idea for base 20, which some cultures use. The base 10 part unequivocally comes from bilateral symmetry (2) with 5 fingers on each hand.
$endgroup$
– Dan Bron
9 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
(1) Humans in general do not use base 10. There are languages which use other bases of numeration. (2) We don't know for certain whether there is a causal link between our ten fingers and the widespread use of base 10 representation of numbers. (3) Very many humans can think and compute mentally in base 16. They are called programmers. Older programmers can also do it in base 8. (4) Base 16 is in no way, shape or form "better" for humans than base 10. (5) Computers actually use base 2, not base 16. (6) "16-bit ancient numbering systems": citation definitely needed.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
(1) Humans in general do not use base 10. There are languages which use other bases of numeration. (2) We don't know for certain whether there is a causal link between our ten fingers and the widespread use of base 10 representation of numbers. (3) Very many humans can think and compute mentally in base 16. They are called programmers. Older programmers can also do it in base 8. (4) Base 16 is in no way, shape or form "better" for humans than base 10. (5) Computers actually use base 2, not base 16. (6) "16-bit ancient numbering systems": citation definitely needed.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
8 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
"The Hindu-Arabic numeral system [...] is Base 10, and the backbone of math": with all due respect, you have no idea what you are talking about. The decimal representation of numbers is not the backbone of mathematics; it is in fact an utterly unimportant detail.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
"The Hindu-Arabic numeral system [...] is Base 10, and the backbone of math": with all due respect, you have no idea what you are talking about. The decimal representation of numbers is not the backbone of mathematics; it is in fact an utterly unimportant detail.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
6 hours ago
|
show 6 more comments
7 Answers
7
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The same way humans can do base 12 on our hands, use the bones of the fingers, excluding thumbs (or using thumbs to keep track of sets completed).
So, take human physiology and either add a joint to each finger (16 bones on each hand) or remove a joint (8 bones on each hand, for 16 total).
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Just go with those four-fingered-hand aliens.
Let me remind you, despite having 10 fingers, for quite some time, base 12 was very popular parallel system and there were even attempts to discard base 10 in favour of base 12. It still survived alongside base 60 in time measurement, and word "dozen" is used till this day.
It doesn't need to develop very organically, and 8 fingers is already good enough start. Just assume that originally, they used base 8, but they also used base 16 for certain things like dividing their day into hours, etc.
However, base 16 and base 8 aren't as good as you'd expect. They're indeed good now in days of computing, but base 12 and base 10 had two big advantages over offshoots of binary - division. Base 12 allows simpler division for 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9 and base 10, while worse, still allows 2, 4, 5, 8, 10.
It's more likely that such a species would go for base 12, to eventually replace it in some areas by base 16 for math and science, but base 12 would likely stick around as something normal people wouldn't easily leave behind.
A reminder of how people can get stuck in their ways is how, we could easily divide day into 20 'hours' of 100 'minutes' each, redefining meaning of hour and minute, but we don't do it.
New contributor
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
You can argue that 12 is not a good candidate for a base, as it needlessly includes the factor 2 twice. I'd expect either a use of base 6 (simpler, more efficient) or 30 (include 2, 3, and 5 as factors).
$endgroup$
– cmaster
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you. To understand why 12 is a good candidate, you need to understand where was base 12 used. Base twelve used dozens and grosses(144), and was used by people who mostly operated with these numbers. For example, they brought six dozen and five eggs. Or a merchant might have four grosses three dozens and two pieces of currency. Base 12, unlike base 6, is large enough to cover most numbers people used with units, dozens and grosses. Meanwhile to achieve similar coverage, you'd require 1, 6, 36, and 216. 30 is impractical - too many numbers.
$endgroup$
– Failus Maximus
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Give them prehensile feet
4 fingers on each of two hands.
4 toes on each of two feet.
The feet don't even have to be fully prehensile. Just usable enough that they'd think to count them. After their civilization creates their math system, their culture can also move to one that wears shoes and so forth. The feet don't have to be highly visible today.
Make it a cooperative culture
If the math system comes from two people working together, then two pairs of hands—each with 4 fingers—gives you your perfect 16.
Count other body parts
When my daughter was learning math, I encouraged her to count on her body to get the process started. For numbers higher than 10, we sometimes used my fingers, sometimes her toes, and other times her face.
8 fingers + 2 ears + 2 eyes + 2 lips + 2 nostrils = 16
Or use any other body parts you desire, including ones that might be particular to this species.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Why not a primate like species with three fingers and an opposable thumb on each hand for a total of 16 digits. Primates are largely adapted to use both hands and feet for grasping with Hominids (those silly creatures we call humans) being an exception (they have less dexterous feet than most primates, as an adaptation for bipedial locomotion necessitated some design changes. Still, it's not unheard of for a human to be quite adapt at dexterous manipulation of tools with their feet and some practice. I once met a man with no arms, who played a mean guitar and had a specially adapted steering device he used to drive a car).
The counting system of base 16 would evolve from using all four limbs in counting, since their society would likely have equally used all limbs for movement.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The base in which numbers are represented doesn't change, ease, or inform mathematics. All it changes is arithmetic.
The number of digits, arms, feet, eyes, knuckles, gill slits, or kinks in their prehensile tails won't change the brilliance, insight, and utility of the math your species develops.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Your aliens are smart. So they use the four fingers they have on one hand to represent all their 16 digits by using a different combination for each:
- 0 = closed fist
- 1 = only thumb stretched out
- 2 = only index finger stretched out
- 3 = index + thumb
- 4 = only ring finger (there is no middle finger!)
- 5 = ring + thumb
- 6 = ring + index
- 7 = ring + index + thumb
- 8 = only pinky
- 9 = pinky + ...
With their two hands, they can either remember two different digits at the same time, or put them together to form a 2-digit number. This allows them to count up to 255 with their fingers.
Your aliens actually envy the humans for our fifth finger, realizing that humans are able to count up to 1023 on their fingers alone... if only they would recognize the full power of their ten fingers!
(Full disclosure: Even humans can learn to use their fingers efficiently, counting mindlessly from zero to 31 on a single hand, and I'm proof of that. I only need to make sure that I don't inadvertendly show someone a 4... 1 is ok, 6 is ok, 18 is reserved for concerts...)
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If you wanted symmetric bodies like ours, you might consider having 3 phalanges and an opposable thumb-like thingy, but each digit has two independent tips. That gives you a natural 8 counters per hand, and with two hands you get to 16.
They'd look normal wearing mittens, normalish wearing gloves, and might be kind of a thing of nightmares barehanded. Like stubby octopi.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "579"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f153914%2fnumber-of-fingers-for-a-math-oriented-race%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
7 Answers
7
active
oldest
votes
7 Answers
7
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The same way humans can do base 12 on our hands, use the bones of the fingers, excluding thumbs (or using thumbs to keep track of sets completed).
So, take human physiology and either add a joint to each finger (16 bones on each hand) or remove a joint (8 bones on each hand, for 16 total).
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The same way humans can do base 12 on our hands, use the bones of the fingers, excluding thumbs (or using thumbs to keep track of sets completed).
So, take human physiology and either add a joint to each finger (16 bones on each hand) or remove a joint (8 bones on each hand, for 16 total).
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The same way humans can do base 12 on our hands, use the bones of the fingers, excluding thumbs (or using thumbs to keep track of sets completed).
So, take human physiology and either add a joint to each finger (16 bones on each hand) or remove a joint (8 bones on each hand, for 16 total).
$endgroup$
The same way humans can do base 12 on our hands, use the bones of the fingers, excluding thumbs (or using thumbs to keep track of sets completed).
So, take human physiology and either add a joint to each finger (16 bones on each hand) or remove a joint (8 bones on each hand, for 16 total).
edited 7 hours ago
answered 7 hours ago
HaihamiHaihami
712 bronze badges
712 bronze badges
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Just go with those four-fingered-hand aliens.
Let me remind you, despite having 10 fingers, for quite some time, base 12 was very popular parallel system and there were even attempts to discard base 10 in favour of base 12. It still survived alongside base 60 in time measurement, and word "dozen" is used till this day.
It doesn't need to develop very organically, and 8 fingers is already good enough start. Just assume that originally, they used base 8, but they also used base 16 for certain things like dividing their day into hours, etc.
However, base 16 and base 8 aren't as good as you'd expect. They're indeed good now in days of computing, but base 12 and base 10 had two big advantages over offshoots of binary - division. Base 12 allows simpler division for 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9 and base 10, while worse, still allows 2, 4, 5, 8, 10.
It's more likely that such a species would go for base 12, to eventually replace it in some areas by base 16 for math and science, but base 12 would likely stick around as something normal people wouldn't easily leave behind.
A reminder of how people can get stuck in their ways is how, we could easily divide day into 20 'hours' of 100 'minutes' each, redefining meaning of hour and minute, but we don't do it.
New contributor
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
You can argue that 12 is not a good candidate for a base, as it needlessly includes the factor 2 twice. I'd expect either a use of base 6 (simpler, more efficient) or 30 (include 2, 3, and 5 as factors).
$endgroup$
– cmaster
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you. To understand why 12 is a good candidate, you need to understand where was base 12 used. Base twelve used dozens and grosses(144), and was used by people who mostly operated with these numbers. For example, they brought six dozen and five eggs. Or a merchant might have four grosses three dozens and two pieces of currency. Base 12, unlike base 6, is large enough to cover most numbers people used with units, dozens and grosses. Meanwhile to achieve similar coverage, you'd require 1, 6, 36, and 216. 30 is impractical - too many numbers.
$endgroup$
– Failus Maximus
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Just go with those four-fingered-hand aliens.
Let me remind you, despite having 10 fingers, for quite some time, base 12 was very popular parallel system and there were even attempts to discard base 10 in favour of base 12. It still survived alongside base 60 in time measurement, and word "dozen" is used till this day.
It doesn't need to develop very organically, and 8 fingers is already good enough start. Just assume that originally, they used base 8, but they also used base 16 for certain things like dividing their day into hours, etc.
However, base 16 and base 8 aren't as good as you'd expect. They're indeed good now in days of computing, but base 12 and base 10 had two big advantages over offshoots of binary - division. Base 12 allows simpler division for 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9 and base 10, while worse, still allows 2, 4, 5, 8, 10.
It's more likely that such a species would go for base 12, to eventually replace it in some areas by base 16 for math and science, but base 12 would likely stick around as something normal people wouldn't easily leave behind.
A reminder of how people can get stuck in their ways is how, we could easily divide day into 20 'hours' of 100 'minutes' each, redefining meaning of hour and minute, but we don't do it.
New contributor
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
You can argue that 12 is not a good candidate for a base, as it needlessly includes the factor 2 twice. I'd expect either a use of base 6 (simpler, more efficient) or 30 (include 2, 3, and 5 as factors).
$endgroup$
– cmaster
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you. To understand why 12 is a good candidate, you need to understand where was base 12 used. Base twelve used dozens and grosses(144), and was used by people who mostly operated with these numbers. For example, they brought six dozen and five eggs. Or a merchant might have four grosses three dozens and two pieces of currency. Base 12, unlike base 6, is large enough to cover most numbers people used with units, dozens and grosses. Meanwhile to achieve similar coverage, you'd require 1, 6, 36, and 216. 30 is impractical - too many numbers.
$endgroup$
– Failus Maximus
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Just go with those four-fingered-hand aliens.
Let me remind you, despite having 10 fingers, for quite some time, base 12 was very popular parallel system and there were even attempts to discard base 10 in favour of base 12. It still survived alongside base 60 in time measurement, and word "dozen" is used till this day.
It doesn't need to develop very organically, and 8 fingers is already good enough start. Just assume that originally, they used base 8, but they also used base 16 for certain things like dividing their day into hours, etc.
However, base 16 and base 8 aren't as good as you'd expect. They're indeed good now in days of computing, but base 12 and base 10 had two big advantages over offshoots of binary - division. Base 12 allows simpler division for 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9 and base 10, while worse, still allows 2, 4, 5, 8, 10.
It's more likely that such a species would go for base 12, to eventually replace it in some areas by base 16 for math and science, but base 12 would likely stick around as something normal people wouldn't easily leave behind.
A reminder of how people can get stuck in their ways is how, we could easily divide day into 20 'hours' of 100 'minutes' each, redefining meaning of hour and minute, but we don't do it.
New contributor
$endgroup$
Just go with those four-fingered-hand aliens.
Let me remind you, despite having 10 fingers, for quite some time, base 12 was very popular parallel system and there were even attempts to discard base 10 in favour of base 12. It still survived alongside base 60 in time measurement, and word "dozen" is used till this day.
It doesn't need to develop very organically, and 8 fingers is already good enough start. Just assume that originally, they used base 8, but they also used base 16 for certain things like dividing their day into hours, etc.
However, base 16 and base 8 aren't as good as you'd expect. They're indeed good now in days of computing, but base 12 and base 10 had two big advantages over offshoots of binary - division. Base 12 allows simpler division for 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9 and base 10, while worse, still allows 2, 4, 5, 8, 10.
It's more likely that such a species would go for base 12, to eventually replace it in some areas by base 16 for math and science, but base 12 would likely stick around as something normal people wouldn't easily leave behind.
A reminder of how people can get stuck in their ways is how, we could easily divide day into 20 'hours' of 100 'minutes' each, redefining meaning of hour and minute, but we don't do it.
New contributor
New contributor
answered 8 hours ago
Failus MaximusFailus Maximus
1341 silver badge8 bronze badges
1341 silver badge8 bronze badges
New contributor
New contributor
$begingroup$
You can argue that 12 is not a good candidate for a base, as it needlessly includes the factor 2 twice. I'd expect either a use of base 6 (simpler, more efficient) or 30 (include 2, 3, and 5 as factors).
$endgroup$
– cmaster
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you. To understand why 12 is a good candidate, you need to understand where was base 12 used. Base twelve used dozens and grosses(144), and was used by people who mostly operated with these numbers. For example, they brought six dozen and five eggs. Or a merchant might have four grosses three dozens and two pieces of currency. Base 12, unlike base 6, is large enough to cover most numbers people used with units, dozens and grosses. Meanwhile to achieve similar coverage, you'd require 1, 6, 36, and 216. 30 is impractical - too many numbers.
$endgroup$
– Failus Maximus
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You can argue that 12 is not a good candidate for a base, as it needlessly includes the factor 2 twice. I'd expect either a use of base 6 (simpler, more efficient) or 30 (include 2, 3, and 5 as factors).
$endgroup$
– cmaster
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you. To understand why 12 is a good candidate, you need to understand where was base 12 used. Base twelve used dozens and grosses(144), and was used by people who mostly operated with these numbers. For example, they brought six dozen and five eggs. Or a merchant might have four grosses three dozens and two pieces of currency. Base 12, unlike base 6, is large enough to cover most numbers people used with units, dozens and grosses. Meanwhile to achieve similar coverage, you'd require 1, 6, 36, and 216. 30 is impractical - too many numbers.
$endgroup$
– Failus Maximus
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
You can argue that 12 is not a good candidate for a base, as it needlessly includes the factor 2 twice. I'd expect either a use of base 6 (simpler, more efficient) or 30 (include 2, 3, and 5 as factors).
$endgroup$
– cmaster
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
You can argue that 12 is not a good candidate for a base, as it needlessly includes the factor 2 twice. I'd expect either a use of base 6 (simpler, more efficient) or 30 (include 2, 3, and 5 as factors).
$endgroup$
– cmaster
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you. To understand why 12 is a good candidate, you need to understand where was base 12 used. Base twelve used dozens and grosses(144), and was used by people who mostly operated with these numbers. For example, they brought six dozen and five eggs. Or a merchant might have four grosses three dozens and two pieces of currency. Base 12, unlike base 6, is large enough to cover most numbers people used with units, dozens and grosses. Meanwhile to achieve similar coverage, you'd require 1, 6, 36, and 216. 30 is impractical - too many numbers.
$endgroup$
– Failus Maximus
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you. To understand why 12 is a good candidate, you need to understand where was base 12 used. Base twelve used dozens and grosses(144), and was used by people who mostly operated with these numbers. For example, they brought six dozen and five eggs. Or a merchant might have four grosses three dozens and two pieces of currency. Base 12, unlike base 6, is large enough to cover most numbers people used with units, dozens and grosses. Meanwhile to achieve similar coverage, you'd require 1, 6, 36, and 216. 30 is impractical - too many numbers.
$endgroup$
– Failus Maximus
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Give them prehensile feet
4 fingers on each of two hands.
4 toes on each of two feet.
The feet don't even have to be fully prehensile. Just usable enough that they'd think to count them. After their civilization creates their math system, their culture can also move to one that wears shoes and so forth. The feet don't have to be highly visible today.
Make it a cooperative culture
If the math system comes from two people working together, then two pairs of hands—each with 4 fingers—gives you your perfect 16.
Count other body parts
When my daughter was learning math, I encouraged her to count on her body to get the process started. For numbers higher than 10, we sometimes used my fingers, sometimes her toes, and other times her face.
8 fingers + 2 ears + 2 eyes + 2 lips + 2 nostrils = 16
Or use any other body parts you desire, including ones that might be particular to this species.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Give them prehensile feet
4 fingers on each of two hands.
4 toes on each of two feet.
The feet don't even have to be fully prehensile. Just usable enough that they'd think to count them. After their civilization creates their math system, their culture can also move to one that wears shoes and so forth. The feet don't have to be highly visible today.
Make it a cooperative culture
If the math system comes from two people working together, then two pairs of hands—each with 4 fingers—gives you your perfect 16.
Count other body parts
When my daughter was learning math, I encouraged her to count on her body to get the process started. For numbers higher than 10, we sometimes used my fingers, sometimes her toes, and other times her face.
8 fingers + 2 ears + 2 eyes + 2 lips + 2 nostrils = 16
Or use any other body parts you desire, including ones that might be particular to this species.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Give them prehensile feet
4 fingers on each of two hands.
4 toes on each of two feet.
The feet don't even have to be fully prehensile. Just usable enough that they'd think to count them. After their civilization creates their math system, their culture can also move to one that wears shoes and so forth. The feet don't have to be highly visible today.
Make it a cooperative culture
If the math system comes from two people working together, then two pairs of hands—each with 4 fingers—gives you your perfect 16.
Count other body parts
When my daughter was learning math, I encouraged her to count on her body to get the process started. For numbers higher than 10, we sometimes used my fingers, sometimes her toes, and other times her face.
8 fingers + 2 ears + 2 eyes + 2 lips + 2 nostrils = 16
Or use any other body parts you desire, including ones that might be particular to this species.
$endgroup$
Give them prehensile feet
4 fingers on each of two hands.
4 toes on each of two feet.
The feet don't even have to be fully prehensile. Just usable enough that they'd think to count them. After their civilization creates their math system, their culture can also move to one that wears shoes and so forth. The feet don't have to be highly visible today.
Make it a cooperative culture
If the math system comes from two people working together, then two pairs of hands—each with 4 fingers—gives you your perfect 16.
Count other body parts
When my daughter was learning math, I encouraged her to count on her body to get the process started. For numbers higher than 10, we sometimes used my fingers, sometimes her toes, and other times her face.
8 fingers + 2 ears + 2 eyes + 2 lips + 2 nostrils = 16
Or use any other body parts you desire, including ones that might be particular to this species.
answered 8 hours ago
CynCyn
18.8k2 gold badges37 silver badges84 bronze badges
18.8k2 gold badges37 silver badges84 bronze badges
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Why not a primate like species with three fingers and an opposable thumb on each hand for a total of 16 digits. Primates are largely adapted to use both hands and feet for grasping with Hominids (those silly creatures we call humans) being an exception (they have less dexterous feet than most primates, as an adaptation for bipedial locomotion necessitated some design changes. Still, it's not unheard of for a human to be quite adapt at dexterous manipulation of tools with their feet and some practice. I once met a man with no arms, who played a mean guitar and had a specially adapted steering device he used to drive a car).
The counting system of base 16 would evolve from using all four limbs in counting, since their society would likely have equally used all limbs for movement.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Why not a primate like species with three fingers and an opposable thumb on each hand for a total of 16 digits. Primates are largely adapted to use both hands and feet for grasping with Hominids (those silly creatures we call humans) being an exception (they have less dexterous feet than most primates, as an adaptation for bipedial locomotion necessitated some design changes. Still, it's not unheard of for a human to be quite adapt at dexterous manipulation of tools with their feet and some practice. I once met a man with no arms, who played a mean guitar and had a specially adapted steering device he used to drive a car).
The counting system of base 16 would evolve from using all four limbs in counting, since their society would likely have equally used all limbs for movement.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Why not a primate like species with three fingers and an opposable thumb on each hand for a total of 16 digits. Primates are largely adapted to use both hands and feet for grasping with Hominids (those silly creatures we call humans) being an exception (they have less dexterous feet than most primates, as an adaptation for bipedial locomotion necessitated some design changes. Still, it's not unheard of for a human to be quite adapt at dexterous manipulation of tools with their feet and some practice. I once met a man with no arms, who played a mean guitar and had a specially adapted steering device he used to drive a car).
The counting system of base 16 would evolve from using all four limbs in counting, since their society would likely have equally used all limbs for movement.
$endgroup$
Why not a primate like species with three fingers and an opposable thumb on each hand for a total of 16 digits. Primates are largely adapted to use both hands and feet for grasping with Hominids (those silly creatures we call humans) being an exception (they have less dexterous feet than most primates, as an adaptation for bipedial locomotion necessitated some design changes. Still, it's not unheard of for a human to be quite adapt at dexterous manipulation of tools with their feet and some practice. I once met a man with no arms, who played a mean guitar and had a specially adapted steering device he used to drive a car).
The counting system of base 16 would evolve from using all four limbs in counting, since their society would likely have equally used all limbs for movement.
answered 8 hours ago
hszmvhszmv
6,0306 silver badges17 bronze badges
6,0306 silver badges17 bronze badges
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The base in which numbers are represented doesn't change, ease, or inform mathematics. All it changes is arithmetic.
The number of digits, arms, feet, eyes, knuckles, gill slits, or kinks in their prehensile tails won't change the brilliance, insight, and utility of the math your species develops.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The base in which numbers are represented doesn't change, ease, or inform mathematics. All it changes is arithmetic.
The number of digits, arms, feet, eyes, knuckles, gill slits, or kinks in their prehensile tails won't change the brilliance, insight, and utility of the math your species develops.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The base in which numbers are represented doesn't change, ease, or inform mathematics. All it changes is arithmetic.
The number of digits, arms, feet, eyes, knuckles, gill slits, or kinks in their prehensile tails won't change the brilliance, insight, and utility of the math your species develops.
$endgroup$
The base in which numbers are represented doesn't change, ease, or inform mathematics. All it changes is arithmetic.
The number of digits, arms, feet, eyes, knuckles, gill slits, or kinks in their prehensile tails won't change the brilliance, insight, and utility of the math your species develops.
answered 2 hours ago
cmmcmm
1,6475 silver badges11 bronze badges
1,6475 silver badges11 bronze badges
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Your aliens are smart. So they use the four fingers they have on one hand to represent all their 16 digits by using a different combination for each:
- 0 = closed fist
- 1 = only thumb stretched out
- 2 = only index finger stretched out
- 3 = index + thumb
- 4 = only ring finger (there is no middle finger!)
- 5 = ring + thumb
- 6 = ring + index
- 7 = ring + index + thumb
- 8 = only pinky
- 9 = pinky + ...
With their two hands, they can either remember two different digits at the same time, or put them together to form a 2-digit number. This allows them to count up to 255 with their fingers.
Your aliens actually envy the humans for our fifth finger, realizing that humans are able to count up to 1023 on their fingers alone... if only they would recognize the full power of their ten fingers!
(Full disclosure: Even humans can learn to use their fingers efficiently, counting mindlessly from zero to 31 on a single hand, and I'm proof of that. I only need to make sure that I don't inadvertendly show someone a 4... 1 is ok, 6 is ok, 18 is reserved for concerts...)
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Your aliens are smart. So they use the four fingers they have on one hand to represent all their 16 digits by using a different combination for each:
- 0 = closed fist
- 1 = only thumb stretched out
- 2 = only index finger stretched out
- 3 = index + thumb
- 4 = only ring finger (there is no middle finger!)
- 5 = ring + thumb
- 6 = ring + index
- 7 = ring + index + thumb
- 8 = only pinky
- 9 = pinky + ...
With their two hands, they can either remember two different digits at the same time, or put them together to form a 2-digit number. This allows them to count up to 255 with their fingers.
Your aliens actually envy the humans for our fifth finger, realizing that humans are able to count up to 1023 on their fingers alone... if only they would recognize the full power of their ten fingers!
(Full disclosure: Even humans can learn to use their fingers efficiently, counting mindlessly from zero to 31 on a single hand, and I'm proof of that. I only need to make sure that I don't inadvertendly show someone a 4... 1 is ok, 6 is ok, 18 is reserved for concerts...)
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Your aliens are smart. So they use the four fingers they have on one hand to represent all their 16 digits by using a different combination for each:
- 0 = closed fist
- 1 = only thumb stretched out
- 2 = only index finger stretched out
- 3 = index + thumb
- 4 = only ring finger (there is no middle finger!)
- 5 = ring + thumb
- 6 = ring + index
- 7 = ring + index + thumb
- 8 = only pinky
- 9 = pinky + ...
With their two hands, they can either remember two different digits at the same time, or put them together to form a 2-digit number. This allows them to count up to 255 with their fingers.
Your aliens actually envy the humans for our fifth finger, realizing that humans are able to count up to 1023 on their fingers alone... if only they would recognize the full power of their ten fingers!
(Full disclosure: Even humans can learn to use their fingers efficiently, counting mindlessly from zero to 31 on a single hand, and I'm proof of that. I only need to make sure that I don't inadvertendly show someone a 4... 1 is ok, 6 is ok, 18 is reserved for concerts...)
$endgroup$
Your aliens are smart. So they use the four fingers they have on one hand to represent all their 16 digits by using a different combination for each:
- 0 = closed fist
- 1 = only thumb stretched out
- 2 = only index finger stretched out
- 3 = index + thumb
- 4 = only ring finger (there is no middle finger!)
- 5 = ring + thumb
- 6 = ring + index
- 7 = ring + index + thumb
- 8 = only pinky
- 9 = pinky + ...
With their two hands, they can either remember two different digits at the same time, or put them together to form a 2-digit number. This allows them to count up to 255 with their fingers.
Your aliens actually envy the humans for our fifth finger, realizing that humans are able to count up to 1023 on their fingers alone... if only they would recognize the full power of their ten fingers!
(Full disclosure: Even humans can learn to use their fingers efficiently, counting mindlessly from zero to 31 on a single hand, and I'm proof of that. I only need to make sure that I don't inadvertendly show someone a 4... 1 is ok, 6 is ok, 18 is reserved for concerts...)
answered 1 hour ago
cmastercmaster
3,98110 silver badges16 bronze badges
3,98110 silver badges16 bronze badges
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If you wanted symmetric bodies like ours, you might consider having 3 phalanges and an opposable thumb-like thingy, but each digit has two independent tips. That gives you a natural 8 counters per hand, and with two hands you get to 16.
They'd look normal wearing mittens, normalish wearing gloves, and might be kind of a thing of nightmares barehanded. Like stubby octopi.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If you wanted symmetric bodies like ours, you might consider having 3 phalanges and an opposable thumb-like thingy, but each digit has two independent tips. That gives you a natural 8 counters per hand, and with two hands you get to 16.
They'd look normal wearing mittens, normalish wearing gloves, and might be kind of a thing of nightmares barehanded. Like stubby octopi.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If you wanted symmetric bodies like ours, you might consider having 3 phalanges and an opposable thumb-like thingy, but each digit has two independent tips. That gives you a natural 8 counters per hand, and with two hands you get to 16.
They'd look normal wearing mittens, normalish wearing gloves, and might be kind of a thing of nightmares barehanded. Like stubby octopi.
$endgroup$
If you wanted symmetric bodies like ours, you might consider having 3 phalanges and an opposable thumb-like thingy, but each digit has two independent tips. That gives you a natural 8 counters per hand, and with two hands you get to 16.
They'd look normal wearing mittens, normalish wearing gloves, and might be kind of a thing of nightmares barehanded. Like stubby octopi.
answered 48 mins ago
EDLEDL
5,3374 silver badges29 bronze badges
5,3374 silver badges29 bronze badges
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Worldbuilding Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f153914%2fnumber-of-fingers-for-a-math-oriented-race%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
There is no “definitively better base”. The base is a trade-off. In positional numbering systems — which itself is a relatively recent piece of technology — a higher base can be written more compactly but requires memorizing a larger set of axioms (the times table for hexadecimal is 2.5x as large as the one for decimal). Prime basis have advantages, but composite bases give you more “round numbers”, witness the ubiquity of 360 — divisible by 0-12 easily, ie base 12).
$endgroup$
– Dan Bron
9 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
"That is to say, a large reason why humans use a base 10 numbering system is because we have 10 fingers" Citation needed. Sumerians used base 60 and had very advanced mathematics.
$endgroup$
– Trevor
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Trevor 60 was because 60 = (1*2*3) * (10). The 10 is still in there, the other term (6) was included because it embeds two additional small primes, making division easier. See my comments above about base 12. Same idea for base 20, which some cultures use. The base 10 part unequivocally comes from bilateral symmetry (2) with 5 fingers on each hand.
$endgroup$
– Dan Bron
9 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
(1) Humans in general do not use base 10. There are languages which use other bases of numeration. (2) We don't know for certain whether there is a causal link between our ten fingers and the widespread use of base 10 representation of numbers. (3) Very many humans can think and compute mentally in base 16. They are called programmers. Older programmers can also do it in base 8. (4) Base 16 is in no way, shape or form "better" for humans than base 10. (5) Computers actually use base 2, not base 16. (6) "16-bit ancient numbering systems": citation definitely needed.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
8 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
"The Hindu-Arabic numeral system [...] is Base 10, and the backbone of math": with all due respect, you have no idea what you are talking about. The decimal representation of numbers is not the backbone of mathematics; it is in fact an utterly unimportant detail.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
6 hours ago