Henry
Posts:
1,089
Registered:
12/6/04


Re: "unary" neumber system
Posted:
Feb 15, 2011 5:21 AM


On Feb 15, 6:10 am, James Dow Allen <gm...@jamesdowallen.nospam> wrote: > FWIW, I agree with Tim. Those who insist "StoneAge counting" > (Glen Langdon's term) shouldn't be called "unary" are overly > pedantic, IMO. > Base10 has 10 symbols, Base2 has two; Base1 has 1. The only > inconsistency is that you have to throw away zero instead of one > when you reduce the alphabet to a singleton: Otherwise you > couldn't count past zero. :)
You can also have Basen systems with the n symbols 1, 2, ... n but not zero for larger values of n. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bijective_numeration

