3 ms·

Do you really want to have to learn 60 different symbols for digits? Or a 60x60 multiplication table?

• dempedempe 3y ago
  Yes. I think people would be a lot better at arithmetic if we had a larger base or, more importantly, iconic numerals so that arithmetic can be done visually as in Mayan numerals or Kaktovik numerals[1] (both base 20). 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaktovik_numerals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaktovik_numerals
• maxerickson 3y ago
  If you already use an alphabet similar to modern Latin it's probably only terrible to learn the symbols.
• t-3 3y ago
  You don't have to learn 60 different symbols, you only need two: https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/HistTopics/Babylonian_numerals/ https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/HistTopics/Babylonian_... An advantage of a small base is that you can use different symbols for each numeral and make reading much quicker/easier/less error-prone. 60 is probably too many to be optimal, but most alphabets work well with a few dozen.
• waldrews 3y ago
  We could use the binary representation for base 64, and turn 61-64 into a minus, a decimal point equivalent, an imaginary number separator, and the exponent separator (as in 1.0e5). Then something like -1.2e5+3i would have a direct representation in this notation.