On Sep 10, 5:06 pm, David Nebenzahl snipped-for-privacy@but.us.chickens> wrote: >
>
>
> > On 9/10/2009 2:01 PM David Nebenzahl spake thus:
>
> > > On 9/10/2009 10:55 AM Morris Dovey spake thus:
>
> > >> krw wrote:
>
> > >>> There are 10 types of people in this world; those who can do binary
> > >>> arithmetic and those who can't.
>
> > >> But there's really only one type of people, those who can't do base one
> > >> arithmetic. :)
>
> > > Never thought about until now, but base 1 would be an impossibility, no?
> > > I'm sure it would take higher mathematics (or at least higher
> > > arithmetic, which does exist) to prove it, but my top-of-the-head guess
> > > is that it isn't possible because each position in a written number must
> > > have at least two possible symbols, as in binary.
>
> > Ack! Total brain fart! Shoot me already.
>
> > Of course base 1 exists, and you've probably used it many times. Think
> > of the typical tally system. It's simple: the number represented equals
> > the number of marks made.
>
> > Duh.
>
> > --
> > Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism
>
> Roman numerals are some sort of tally. And whoever thought that 4 = IV
> has never looked at a clock with roman numerals. IIII
"IV" is a relatively recent invention.