Talk:Base 27

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Mathematics (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject Mathematics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Mathematics rating:
Stub Class
Low Importance
 Field: Basics

Is there a standard convention? Where else do you see this? It seems to me that a good number schema would be to use the set (0,A..Z). Use only Zero and the alphabet, it fits nicely.ConstableBrew 17:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the article to use the standard convention according to which I and O are not skipped. 4pq1injbok 02:51, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

The "convention" depends on the application. For computer software, e.g., encoding/decoding, I and O are not skipped. In constrast, Base 24 skips "I" and "O"; Base 32 skips "0" and "1". Perhaps, the article could strike a balance, as in Vigesimal which mentions both methods. -- Robocoder (t|c) 18:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Hepticosamal[edit]

Unfortunately, the alleged form "Hepticosamal" combines a Greek number with a Latin suffix in a rather incorrect and ugly way (which would probably not have been done by anybody who actually knew Greek and Latin), while the Google search "hepticosamal -wikipedia" turns up exactly one hit. For these reasons, I have deleted it from the article. AnonMoos 14:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Notability[edit]

I suggest the notability issues raised by sligocki are discussed here: Category talk:Positional numeral systems#Notability.--Noe (talk) 17:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This is base 28[edit]

How is this base 27? The sources say that 27 body parts are named. That means they have 27 digits, not including zero. The carry will therefore occur at 28, not 27. In any case, none of these societies seem to have a positional representation of numbers so characterising their counting as being any sort of base is highly misleading. One would have to ask them, for instance, how they say thirty before anything definite can be said, and the answer to that appears to be that their language has no means of representing numbers larger than 27. SpinningSpark 14:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

We have ten fingers. We don't count in base 11. 2.24.119.121 (talk) 15:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)