i think we should introduce a new system where we count to 8 not 10
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,10

11,12,13,14,15,16,17,20

21,22,23,24,25,26,27,30

.....etc

that way you will hit round numbers at the right points.

currently if you double one and double it again and again you dont hit 10
or even 100

but this way numbers that we are using now like 12,64,128 etc would become round numbers what we now count as 8units you be 10, 64 units would be 100 etc

i know it would NEVER happen due to the ecconomics of changing but i would like to know if there is a logical / mathmatical reason why it is not better

New Mathhttp://www.sing365....1BE48256A7D002575E1 It's so simple / So very simple / that only a child can do it [friendlyfire, Oct 04 2004, last modified Oct 21 2004]

Use base 26http://www.halfbake...dea/Alphabet_20base [Monkfish, Oct 04 2004]

Use base 60http://www.halfbake...-60_20Alphanumerics There was a 'use base 12' idea around once, too, but it seems to be gone. [Monkfish, Oct 04 2004]

Some more base 60http://www.rocknrol...k/science/roma.html Fully baked by the Sumerians [suctionpad, Oct 04 2004, last modified Oct 21 2004]

Anyway, Octal is baked, personally I think that base 24... or even better, a base equal to a whole factorial would solve many problems with recurrence and the like...

This idea is almost a consumer advice idea by the way?

We should adopt base 33, using the numbers and western alphabet (without the letters 0 and L and I to avoid confusion with zero and one) as the digits. Just think: hordes of schoolchildren can spell out taboo words while doing their math homework.
If base 33 is too difficult, we could try base 1. It would be about as useful as a map that is "actual size," scale 1 cm=1 cm.
Just 2 (or 00) ideas to consider.