Huh, that's a good point. A better universal naming system would be something like "Base x+1", with x being one integer lower than 10. So humans would use Base 9+1, and the alien would use Base 3+1.

*This has been on my mind all day and the more I think about it, the more obvious it becomes how fundamentally terrible the name "Base-10" is. How did this never occur to the people who coined the term? Even the system I suggested is flawed as it's still trying to incorporate the same bad logic.

A better system would be something like Base 9, stopping shy of the respective 10 in each system, or if it

*needs*to be clarified, Base 9+0, as 0 is the extra digit in the first place, not 10.Wow I never thought about that.

But it is always like this:

`let there be any base "b" That can represent a number by the sum of their positional digits: number = sum(d_i * b ^ i) where i is the position index and d_i is the digit at this position. (note: index starts with 0, from the least digit farthest to the right)`

So the (decimal) number 4 in base 4 is then

`1×4¹ + 0×4^0 = 10`

And (decimal) number 8 in base 8 is

`1×8¹ + 0×8^0 = 10`

And 10 in base 10:

`1×10¹ + 0×10^0 = 10`

This one took me a bit.

Took me a moment

🤯

I remember someone trying to come up with a solution to this by generating a name for every single base, dunno if they've succeeded or not tho

- This is why I say "10" is not a number, it just means one big group and zero remainder.
- I am a huuuuge proponent of dozenal (base-12)

not base 1100; and it's

*round!*Base is for running on after hitting the ball.

Thanks. I realized the typo after I saved. Oh well.

*"2.5, 5, 7.5, TEN! See?"**"2.5, 5, 7.5, TEN! See?"*This cartoon is incomplete. Suck my cock all the way down to the base is the end.