Why don't we use base-36, utilizing all numbers and letters of the alphabet?How would maths and life be different if we used base-36?
>>16819725Snoring forever would be equal to 1
>>16819725I think it'd be pretty heckin cool.
>>16819725Because the Latin alphabet isn’t the only script in the world?
>be me>use base infinity>never require more than one digit
>>16819725Base 62 is even more based if you include lower case.
>>16819725Why don't we use base-pi instead, then [math]\pi = 1[/math].
Why don't we just use base 6x6 where any letter or digit has a place on a 6x6 matrix and you'd need another's template to decrypt what they were saying and vice versa
>>16819725Imagine somewhere in the decimal expansion we find words like>...FUCK...>...SHIT...or even>...4CHAN...
>>16819848>Using base [math]\pi[/math] to count numbers.>Every other numbers are transcendental.Also...[math]e^{i\pi}+1=0[/math]Becomes...[math]e(base \pi)^{i(base \pi)*\pi))}+1(base \pi)=0[/math]
>>16820029Publishable tbdesu. Same as the Feynman point. We can all it the anonpoint. The first instance of a 4-letter cuss in pi in base 32
>>16819725OK anon what's H * Y? Do it without converting to decimal
>>16820068H = 2^4+ 2^1 = 10010Y = 2^5 + 2^2 = 100100H*Y = (2^4 + 2^1) * (2^5 + 2^2)H*Y = 2^9 + 2^6 + 2^5 + 2^2 = 1001100100H*Y = H>binary instead of decimalor: if you prefer no loopholes, it's this fucking easyH*Y mod(36) = (H*Y - 36) mod36 = H0 since Y = Z - 1
>>16819725Doesnt work for computing. Computing works with 8 bits, 16 bits, 32 bits, 64 bits, cause they're a multiple of 8. 36 is not a multiple of 8.
>>16820095Neither does base-10 and yet we use it
>>16820188We actually dont for computing. All the data types on computing that are "base-10" are actually just approximation. RAM, CPU cycles, storage space, internet speed, etc. There are some people pushing for base 10 in computing but everyone hates the conversion process. So we just stick with fiction.
>>16819725This anon >>16820068 already touched on it (I think), but multiplication tables get more and more unwieldy the more you increase your base, so the convenience eventually diminishes. In practice, it’d be easier to write base 36 as base 6 with “hexits” grouped in pairs.
>>16819792arabic numbers aren't the only number script in the world either
>>16820285but the Y2K effect happened at the beginning of the year 2000. 2000 isn't a power of 2, explain that
>>16820061>>16820029Well, where could the anonpoint of base-36 pi be?Is it possible to check?
>>16820368f (15) * 36^2 + a (10) * 36 + g (16)
>>16820312bodied that freak
>>16820029Q predicted this
>>16819725Normies can't use analog clocks and you want to change the number base?
>>16819725most societies converged to a system that is either base 10 (because we have 10 digits on our hands, so it's easy to count physically) or a multiple thereof (base 20 or base 60)in contrast, 36 is a completely arbitrary choice that doesn't really fit in with any known counting system and would require restructuring entire languages to make it work in a coherent manner. Not even including the previously-mentioned point that 26 letters in the alphabet is a very English-specific idea.It's not even a case where 36 is particularly useful as a base. It's not a power of 2 and it's not a superior highly composite number. There's basically no advantage to doing such things
>>16820068I agree with your point, but to answer the question, G2 by counting down from H0 on my fingers. My finger-counting system was counting first along the phalanges of my left index finger with my right index finger, then along my left middle, ring, and pinky fingers, and then repeating the whole process using my right middle and ring fingers.>>16820089Two wrong answers, but converting to binary would be a pretty reasonable way to do it for more difficult cases. For a long time, people who didn't know the decimal multiplication table have multiplied by what's known as the Russian peasant system, which is equivalent to converting one of the numbers to binary.
>>16820451Unless I'm mistaken, H = 18 and Y = 35. 18*35 = 630. Then 36 should equal 10 in base 36, and 72 should equal 20, etc. Then 17*36 = 612, and 612 should then equal G0. The remaining 18, which is H should tell us 630 = GH?
>>16820459A (the first letter) = 10, so H (the 8th letter) = 17. Similarly Y = 34.
>>16820460I have brought shame upon base numeral systems. I'll never get used to the off-count.
>>16819725>>16819844Anon, base 64 is widely used and far superior to the lame ass base 36.Also there is a base where PI is just an infinite sequence of twos.
>>16820029JEET @ places 4048464-7
FUCK @ 1258573-6
CUNT @ 3143571-4
TROON @ 102702668-72
>>16820095pdp-7 and some honeywell computers were 36-bit (because of 9-bit bytes). this is the reason you have octals of the form \056 in C, C++, Java etc., because C was first implemented on a pdp-7 in 1970 or thereabouts and the byte was exactly three octal digits wide.
>>16820095Historically, the byte has had no set definition. The PDP-7 has already been mentioned, but the Intel 4040 used 4-bit bytes, and the CDC 6600 didn't even have the CONCEPT of addressing individual bytes so you had 60-bit words that also acted like what you'd think bytes were instead(fun architecture.) The PDP-10's stack instructions(and some others) could actually arbitrarily set the byte size up to 36 bits.These differences are why most RFCs that handle networking actually declare the transmission size to be octets. The internet's pretty much why we settled on 8-bits in the end.
NIGGER @ 1260468504-9
>>16820673>Anon scours a billion digits of pi in an arbitrary base just to niggerpostBASED
>>16820677based is probably in there too
>>16820673>>16820503>>16820497>>16820498i think to make this publishable, we'd have to quantify the expected location in pi to find these specific words.
>>16820677>>16820900Bonus results.[math] \mathtt{ I. } [/math] Assuming pi is normal, the digit string [math] \mathtt{ nigger } [/math] occurs arbitrarily many times in any compatible base b > 27. We find an exceptionally early first hit for b = 30, at places 83190692-7. There was only a 10% chance that [math] \mathtt{ nigger } [/math] would occur this early.[eqn] 1 - \Big( 1 - \frac{ 1 } { 30^{ 6 } } \Big) ^ { 83190692 } \; = \; 0.10784569 \ldots [/eqn]No earlier hit was found up to b = 69. There is only a 1% total chance of an earlier hit for any b > 69.[eqn] 1 - \prod_{ b=70 } ^{ \infty } { \Big( 1 - \frac{ 1 } { b^{ 6 } } \Big) ^ { 83190692 } } \; = \; 0.01020569 \ldots [/eqn][math] \mathtt{ II. } [/math] b = 163.2209275424 is the least-precise positive decimal base for which [math] \pi = \mathtt{ 3 . nigger } \ldots _{ b } [/math]Note that 163 is famously the last Heegner number, whence [math] \mathbb{ Q } ( \sqrt{ - 163 } ) [/math] has class number 1 and the j-invariant [math] j \big( \frac { 1 + \sqrt{ -163 } } { 2 } \big) [/math] is an integer. Thus it is quite likely that [math] \mathtt{ 3 . nigger } \ldots [/math] somehow factors into moonshine theory.
>>16820542Its crazier than that, anon, check out an 8080 or 8085 octal instruction cheat sheet, those are octal processors...All the ADD instructions are of the octal form 20xAll the ADC instructions are of the octal form 21xAll the SUB instructions are of the octal form 22xAnd a metric shitton that I don't remember.The machine code was designed for octal hand assembly.So that begat the x86 series of CPUs which can still run on amd64 processors.Pretty much all non-mac PCs can run octal machine language code.
>>16819836>>use base infinityProve it, count from 1 to 10 in infinity steps.>>16819848Pi like every imaginary, fractional or irrational number is not a valid counting base, there is no way to count from 1 to 10 in an imaginary, fractional or irrational number of steps.
>>16820400Anon agreed with the other anon, though, 36 is not sufficient to account for all the numbers and letters.
>>16820438Prove that using the wrong base isn't what is causing them to have problems using analog clocks.
