Base 9 on the Whorl?

Andy Robertson · 14 May 2002, 21:13 · 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: Tue, 14 May 2002 22:13:11 +0100
Message-ID: <urth-v0205-978 at digest.urth.net>
X-Urthmirror-Source: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0205/978.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>
 Doubtless I've bolixed up the math
> again and hartshorn will correct me, or someone else will suggest a much
> more practical reason for why Wolfe chose these specific two numbers. But
I
> thought at least I'd mention it now.
>
> Robert Borski

I haven't read the story, alas.   But if they are using base 9, then they
would not convert back to base 10 to tell the story for us.

--=20

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