Talk:Base 13

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Numbers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Numbers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NumbersWikipedia:WikiProject NumbersTemplate:WikiProject NumbersNumbers articles

This article was nominated for deletion on 14 May 2004. The result of the discussion was keep.

VfD[edit]

This page was listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion in May, 2004. The result of that discussion was to keep the article. For an archive of the discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Base 13.

Sentence in wrong place=[edit]

"Also 42₁₃ is read as "four two base thirteen" as the four is not in a "tens" column."

This seems just jarring for a discussion of a base-13 joke (or non-joke.) 42 is read as "forty two" in the absence of an explicit base.

The sentence should be moved to its own paragraph on reading non-decimal numbers. E.g. we say "hex forty-one or "41 base 16" when the base is not obvious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.89.147 (talk) 23:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ROT13[edit]

I removed:

This system was used in some encryption algorithms.

Is this is a reference to ROT13? If so, it's incorrect, as ROT13 uses addition modulo 26. — Matt 03:33, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Base 15?[edit]

6×9=42 in base 15, or am I insane? --68.13.122.35 11:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6*9 is 54(dec), whereas 42(base 15) is 4*15 + 2 = 62(dec). -- Jao 14:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

can someone please explain how 6*9=42 in base13? i'm confused. I can't find the mathematical pattern.--unsigned by User:75.3.181.17

I think User:68.13.122.35 meant base 13.

As for User:75.3.181.17, can you find the pattern in 6*7=42₁₀? I don't think I can.

6*9=42₁₃ can be verified either by doing the product in decimal (it's 54₁₀) and converting either 54₁₀ into base-13 or 42₁₃ into decimal to see that they are the same - or by doing a repeated sum in base 13, e.g.:

2*9=9+9=15₁₃ (where 15₁₃is of course 13+5=18₁₀)

4*9=2*9+2*9=15+15=2A₁₃ (where A₁₃=10₁₀)

6*9=4*9+2*9=2A+15=42₁₃ (using A+5=12₁₃)

Are you still confused?--Niels Ø 21:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What?! This is why I use calculators. I don't understand any of this. Karonaway (talk) 05:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's do it in base 10:

6*9 is ......... + ......... + ......... + ......... + ......... + ......... (six times nine dots).

That's ...................................................... (54 dots)

In base 13 we count groups of 13, so let's rearrange that flock of dots into groups of 13:

............. | ............. | ............. | ............. | ..

We got four groups of 13 dots each and one group of two dots left. In base 13 this is 42. (4*13+2; just like 54 in base 10 is 5*10+4). --::Slomox:: >< 16:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That which remained unsaid...[edit]

"That which remained unsaid..." is going to become a special title for an ongoing series. Strange how many articles give you the most out of the way trivia on a subject, but forget to tell you why this thing exists, and is in an encyclopedia. (See A4 paper for another example.) The point about base 13 is that it is a joke, because nobody would choose a prime number for a counting base. You could never divide anything evenly except by 1 and 13. (Actually, the decimal base is not much better; you can divide things evenly only 2 and 5. That is why the 12 system could have been so much better; it accepts 3 and 4 and 2 and 6 as divisors, and all those factors are more useful than 2 and 5 anyway.) The fact that it appears in The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy gives it away, but only for people who know THAT book, and geekboys and girls, believe it or not, that ain't everyone. Myles325a (talk) 01:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"nobody would choose a prime number for a counting base" Lagrange would disagree with you. :-) Double sharp (talk) 12:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

I suggest the notability issues raised by sligocki are discussed here: Category talk:Positional numeral systems#Notability.--Noe (talk) 17:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Base 13 → Tridecimal – This way, the article is consistent with the neighbouring articles on bases, which use the numerical prefix nomenclature rather than the "Base x" nomenclature. (I'm not so sure about moving the higher ones, as their prefix names are not as transparent, but it looks odd to have "Base 13" between "duodecimal" and "tetradecimal". Double sharp (talk) 16:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – "tridecimal" seems to be an extremely rare thing to call a base 13 number system. Dicklyon (talk) 03:47, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Are undecimal and septemvigesimal really that much more common for bases 11 and 27? Double sharp (talk) 15:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it. Dicklyon (talk) 06:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

oppose per Dicklyon -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 04:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think triskaidecimal is more common than "tridecimal" -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 04:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Base 13 is clear, tridecimal not so much. SnowFire (talk) 18:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Tridecimal is unclear. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:24, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.