Talk:Radix

message: * Base (mathematics) → Radix … Rationale: less ambiguous … Please share your opinion at Talk:Base (mathematics). Ewlyahoocom 20:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
#Support on the basis of ambiguity. -lethe talk [ +] 21:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 10:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
#Support on the basis of ambiguity. -lethe talk [ +] 21:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 10:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: I know this has been discussed before, but it was a binary choice between two options, one too ambiguous, the other too technical.
I would like to propose moving this page to Base (radix), to reflect the most common term and also the more precise disambiguation. Geometry guy (talk) 19:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Name of this article

message: I have marked both articles to be merged, again, since it seems like there was a general consensus to merge in 2006...  Perhaps this time Radix needs a note at the top about the redirect from Base. LobStoR (talk) 01:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge (again)

message: Most of the content of this article was primarily about Positional notation, so I have merged most of it into that article, and merged the contents of Base (mathematics) here.  Positional notation is a much broader topic and the details formerly in this article deserved a more thorough treatment in conjunction with what was already in that other article. I think as a result this article is more succinct and focused, and the positional notation article has more depth.  Base (mathematics) now redirects here. Dhollm (talk) 23:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, it is much more focused on its topic now - good stuff.  I was surprised that someone actually jumped up to fix these articles, I just slapped the merge template on in order to "get around to it when i have the chance."  LobStoR (talk) 23:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge results

message: The aboriginal base 2 counting example is completely incorrect binary counting. So wrong is the counting that I doubt the validity of the statement that the number system of the mentioned language was base 2. Furthermore, Kala Lagaw Ya doesn't discuss the number system and no reference is cited in this article. If a reliable reference cannot be found, I think that this should be removed from the article. The counting example is frivolous anyway.
Kala Lagaw Ya "Numbers": urapon, ukasar, ukasar-urapon, ukasar-ukasar, ukasar-ukasar-urapon, ukasar-ukasar-ukasar
binary: 0, 1, 10, 11, 110, 111 
decimal: 0, 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.102.57 (talk) 23:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope! It means urapon = 1, ukasar = 2. Then it is 1, 2, 2+1=3, 2+2=4, 2+2+1=5, 2+2+2=6. Double sharp (talk) 10:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect Example 

message: I don't like how this article starts out stating the radix is the number of unique digits, because later on in the article, the radix is allowed to be more general than a natural number and hence "number of unique digits" makes no sense in the general case.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.203.118.146 (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It may seem odd, but even if characters other than 0-9 are used, they're still considered digits if they're used that way; for example, in hexadecimal, 0-9 and A-F are all considered "digits." 28bytes (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's not an answer. —Tamfang (talk) 21:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  That sentence does have the caveat "for the simplest case". —Tamfang (talk) 21:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

text: More to the point imho, with a negative or complex base (as mentioned at the bottom of the article) the radix is not the number of symbols. —Tamfang (talk) 01:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

text: I'd like to change the lead definition to something like "is the ratio of weights between adjacent places," but supect there is a much better word than weights. —Tamfang (talk) 02:03, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The number of unique digits... 

message: Currently RadixConverter and DigitConvert are linked as external links. While there's not a huge difference, I think the tool I made, Base Convert, is better than the others (it supports bases higher than 36 and floating point conversions unlike RadixConverter). Would it be alright to replace them with Base Convert? Skalman (talk) 22:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I won't be following this page closely, so please leave me a message if you want to discuss this. I'm changing the links for now. Skalman (talk) 21:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: I've moved some old page history that used to be at the title "Radix" to Talk:Radix/Old history, along with its corresponding talk page, which can be found at Talk:Radix/Old talk page. Graham87 13:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old page history 

message: Is necessary to add a reference to numeral systems which do not use radix point to represent real numbers.
Even an entire article is needed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.20.129.191 (talk) 01:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numeral systems without radix point 

message: Duodecimal is not commonly used, neither is senary. And yet duodecimal is allowed on the list, but senary isn't. wtf? Username142857 (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Duodecimal has been discussed (and advocated) much more than senary has. XOR'easter (talk) 23:53, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duodecimal but not senary? 

message: Vigesimal is described as 'now most famous in the phrase "four score and seven years ago" in the Gettysburg Address'. Is it? Do we need a source? Is this peacock words? סשס Grimmchild. He/him, probably 13:25, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not vigesimal that is most famous in this phrase, it is "score". D.Lazard (talk) 14:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

text: I have edited the sentence for clarify this, D.Lazard (talk) 14:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Your change made the false claim that the only use of this word with this meaning is in the Gettysburg Address. It is easy to find other examples. I undid your change. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most famous?