Are english numerals the most efficient numeric system for mathematics?

Answer 1

They're NOT English numerals, they're Arabic.

They may not be the most efficient system (base 10 is kind of dumb, for example) but they work far better than other systems like Roman numerals.

To the fellow below me, I know why we use base 10. It's mathematically idiotic, is my point. Base 12 is better, base 8 or 16 is better still.

Answer 2

The numerals we use are just a variation on numerals from the Middle East used centuries ago, if I recall correctly. Certainly they're more efficient than Roman numerals! I can't imagine a more efficient way of writing a number than our place-value system, especially combined with the so-called scientific notation for very large and very small numbers. Now if somebody wanted to argue that a base other than 10 could be more efficient, I'd certainly listen to that. Ten has some nice properties like having two small prime factors (most civilizations used base 10 because they had 10=2*5 fingers), but I see no reason why 10 has to be the single most efficient base.

Answer 3

For the kind of computations we usually do, i.e. addition and multiplication, the answer is a qualified yes. As the first poster says, base 10 is kind of a crummy choice, due to its lack of small factors. Base 12 would be better. (For comparision, 1/3 in base 10 is that .33333... mess, while in base 12 it is .4, nice and neat.) Blame God for giving us five fingers rather than six. :)

Answer 4

Poorcocoboiboi hasn't stopped to count the number of fingers and thumbs he has. That's the reason we use base 10 ☺

But he's damned sure correct about Roman Numerals. Try to figure out long division using them ☺

Doug