On 1 Feb, 10:43, JT <jonas.thornv...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 1 Feb, 06:31, JT <jonas.thornv...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry it was late night my head was not clear i try again. > > > How is fraction 1/3 expressed in base 3, of course in base 10 it do > > have unfinished decimalexpansion. > > But has it really in base 3??? > > > And this is where number zero gets interesting, because when you use > > zero number 3 is expressed 10 in base 3 right? > > > But in a number system without 0 it should *undoubtly* be expressed a > > single 3. > > > And number 6 be 13 number 9 be 23 do you people agree? > > From this (may) also follow that 1/3 in such a number system would be > > expressed .1 do you people agree? > > And 0.999... would be expressed as 0.3 or.......? > > > I could easily adjust my base changer to this, and in this zeroless > > number system 3+1/3 would be expressed 3,1 > > 6+1/3 would be expressed 2,1 > > I have no idea how this happens of course it should be 13,1 the > details just slips my mind. > > > > > > > > > > > Now can you people see any benefits from my new bases without 0. It > > seem that unfinished decimal expansion vanish in certain bases or? > > > How does this basesystem make you feel angry, annoying or just > > uninteresting? > > > Is there something deep profound to all this, if i just could > > remember > > what. I think it has something todo with factoring. > > > For now i just wants commenting upon the proposed new bases without > > zeros good or bad, advantages disadvantages? > > > Would you like me make a version of my base changer where 1/3 do not > > have unfinished decimal expansion and all bases expressed without > > zeroes?
Could i please have a comment upon the benefits or drawbacks of this number system, is it consistent? Any comment would be nice, i think it fully compatible backward forward with the STANDARD BASES using zero however this have the benefits of closed digit expansions for values as 1/3, is there benefits with this?