3 ms·

> ...which lack the simplicity of 2 states... If you're not working with computers, does this matter?

• cr0sh 9y ago
  Also, in terms of computers, binary is only "simple" when you have the ability to create, assemble, and "warehouse" the "mechanics" necessary to represent them. Babbage arguably didn't use base-10 for his Analytical Engine because it was more complex, but rather that it lended itself to gearing mechanisms (both in being more compact, and somewhat efficient (at least in how Babbage implemented it). On the other hand, Zuse came up with an ingenious method of representing binary states using simple and efficient (and somewhat compact) sliding rod-like mechanisms in his first computer, the Z1. Prior to the application of electrical and electronic circuits to computation, coming up with a mechanical system to represent binary (and be able to calculate with useful numbers, given friction and such) wasn't a trivial task. That said, it took a while once potential circuitry came into existence; I've always found it strange (to a certain point) that Babbage didn't use relays and binary (as he was contemporary with Boole, and had to know about his work, as well as relays as used in telegraphy - the only explanation I've been able to surmise is that they were still too early in their development for them to be reliable for calculation, but that's just my reasoned opinion). Hollerith used electricity for his calculating machines, but they weren't binary-based (being essentially tallying machines they didn't have to be). Strangely enough, the ENIAC was also a base-10 machine (it's ring counters consisted of 10 flip-flops more or less); again, this might be a reliability issue with the vacuum tubes of the period...