Nobody? Or nobody now? Have you seen a really big watch? XII - not 1 and 2
or IX - not 9
Many forms exists for the same number ;)
Printable View
Nobody? Or nobody now? Have you seen a really big watch? XII - not 1 and 2
or IX - not 9
Many forms exists for the same number ;)
I think my point is being lost.
Nobody that I know of intuitively finds it easier to work with binary numbers in little-endian than in big-endian. All you guys are doing is introducing various formats of reading numbers within totally different representations.
That's not the same thing. All I'm saying is that big-endian binary is more natural to humans than little endian binary... imo, of course.
It's the "to humans" I object to. It's more natural to one subgroup of the humans - us - because we grew up with it. It's not something that is anchored within human nature.
A similar discussion was held recently in the C forum where many people claimed most numbers in decimal form are easier for humans to understand than the same numbers in hexadecimal form. I take it then that you would also object to this claim on the same grounds as you did with my statement about endianess. If so, then I believe I firmly understand your position. :)
Yes, I would. I believe there are still base 12 number systems in use in some cultures. I know for a fact that there were at some point in history.
I will admit, though, that base 10 is a logical base for humans to use, because we have 10 fingers. I think in an alien species with 8 fingers or so, base 8 would be the predominant numbering system. (Lucky them ;))
I saw it on stargate once, or was that base 15.
The Kzinti use base 8.
The Dozenal Society of America (http://www.dozenal.org) and the Dozenal Society of Great Britain (http://www.dozenalsociety.org.uk) advocate the use of base 12 arithmetic. They probably should have given it up when pocket calculators came out.