From: Stephan Stiller <stephan.stiller_at_gmail.com>

Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 17:32:47 -0700

Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 17:32:47 -0700

(Well, that's a long thread delay. I just realized that this email never

made it to the list - I previously sent it from an unsubscribed address.)

*> I was, however, planning on submitting a proposal for support for
*

*> Cuneiform numerals in CLDR (and thus also ICU) via so-called RBNF, when
*

*> this has settled. More for fun than expecting heavy use...
*

If it's more for fun - wouldn't base-30 digits be better? We don't need

the additional factor of 2, because the exact same set of rational

numbers will have terminating "decimal" representations ("decimal" here

as opposed to representations as integer vulgar fractions). Base 30 has

lower average radix economy than base 60.

If representing angles and time is a goal, base 60 has its uses, but

this is /only/ for historical reasons, it seems. The historical

prevalence of base 60 over base 30 might have to do with the fact that

there are approximately 12 lunar cycles in a year, with the count having

been routinely rounded to the integer 12 by various cultures. (12

divides 60 but not 30.) If more peoples had "rounded" months to strictly

30 days, the situation might be different.

Stephan

Received on Fri Sep 21 2012 - 19:37:05 CDT

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0
: Fri Sep 21 2012 - 19:37:06 CDT
*