We have basic words for the numbers zero to three, so why not use them to count?

  • None (0)
  • Single (1)
  • pair (2)
  • Multiple (3+ but we’ll use it as three)

So with those “digits” we can construct some numbers:

  1. Single
  2. pair
  3. Multiple
  4. Single nothing
  5. Single single
  6. Single pair
  7. Single multiple
  8. Pair of nothing
  9. Pair of singels
  10. Pair of pairs

And of course we can construct bigger numbers like:
42 = 4²×2+4¹×2+4⁰×2 = pair of pairs of pairs
128 = 4³×2 = pair of absolute complete nothinges For this last one I just use some adjectives to repeat the “nothing” as it looks really weird with multiple nothing in a row.

The distance between Stockholm and Gothenburg is a single multiple of none multiple multiples

Could I have a single multiple of bananas please?

  • antlion@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Should be single syllables to speak. Nil, bit, pair, few.

    15 is a few few. 12 is few nil.

    But for more than 2 digits, I think we need something better than just spewing digits. I would propose a vowel suffix for the higher digits. Y, O, and A. So 63 becomes few-y few few, and 64 is Bit-Y or “bitty”. Don’t need to say the nils after. 65 is Bitty bit. 255 is FewO FewY few few, followed by 256 which is Bitta.

  • IggyTheSmidge@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    OP is clearly a troll:

    In fact, trolls traditionally count like this: one, two, three . . . many, and people assume this means they can have no grasp of higher numbers.
    They don’t realize that many can be a number. As in: one, two,three, many, many-one, many-two, many-three, many many, many-many-one, many-many-two, many-many-three, many many many, many-many-many-one, many-many-many-two, many-many-many-three, LOTS.
    Terry Pratchett - Men at Arms

    • I_Fart_Glitter@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      But everyone knows camels are the better mathematicians, having always used base infinity.

      Lack of fingers was another big spur to the development of camel intellect. Human mathematical development had always been held back by everyone’s instinctive tendency, when faced with something really complex in the way of triform polynomials or parametric differentials, to count fingers. Camels started from the word go by counting numbers.

      Terry Pratchett - Pyramids

    • Hjalmar@feddit.nuOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Yes, I’m indeed a traditional Swedish troll. Here I am, I’m the one to the right with red hair on this image:

      Me

    • Hjalmar@feddit.nuOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Mathematically this works just like our number system, your just not used to it

  • Etterra@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Hey how many fingers were you born with? 10 probably. And now you know why we use base 10.

    Although to be fair the Babylonias loved them some base 60. See also time keeping and degrees in a circle.

  • Justin@lemmy.jlh.name
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Lower bases like base-2 and base-4 are more efficient in some ways because they use fewer symbols, but with the tradeoff that the numbers get longer. e.g. 13033 vs 499. Most computers count in base-2, but ssds actually count in base-8, as it’s the most efficient way to store data on the kind of flash storage that they use. Honestly, for humans it probably matters more to have easy division, like with base-12, base-60, and base-360, than it does to have writing efficiency. Bases using square numbers, like base-4, base-8, and base-16 are convenient for computer scientists though, since they convert easily into base-2.