Base 9 on the Whorl?

Andy Robertson · 12 May 2002, 08:05 · from urth-v0205.mbox · original

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: "Andy Robertson" <andywrobertson at clara.co.uk>
Subject: Re: (urth) Base 9 on the Whorl?
Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 09:05:39 +0100
Message-ID: <urth-v0205-970 at digest.urth.net>
X-Urthmirror-Source: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0205/970.txt.shtml
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Borski" <rborski at charter.net>
> Yes. But if indeed the children are making mistakes, they are making the
> less likely one. 29 - 19 in base 10 is almost impossible to get wrong--

It is 10 in any base whatever.

> our solution. But a calculation in base 9 of 7 + 17 is much more
difficult,
> even for adults; you need to figure out (or memorize by rote) that the
> number 17 only contains 16 integers

No, no,no.   All you need to know is that 7+7 =3D 15.     You put 5 down and
carry 1 making 25.

It's a fascinating idea, Robert, but there is no evidence for it.

   hartshorn

(I did teach my kids base 9 - as a mental exercise for them)

--=20

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net