/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15188723
>But I already showed you how to count to φ:
>(1)φ
>(10)φ
No, you showed me counting in a binary number system, not a phinary number system.

>Your radix stuff is irrelevant
Radix is relevant to all positional number systems and according to the article, phinary is supposedly a positional number system, so the radix of a phinary positional number system should be equal to phi.

>Now you're making stuff up again, and we are going in circles
No that is how intuition works and why humans first discovered counting using the same radix as their number of fingers and why a species with a different number of fingers likely would have intuited counting with a different radix base.

> It is not possible to have φ fingers
Which is why it is not possible to intuitively count in phinary.
> there would definitely not be anything intuitive about having φ fingers
Someone who intuitively recognized that they have φ fingers would find φ fingers intuitive because they would have φ fingers that they would base their concept of counting around.

> I recommend you actually give up on trying to have "φ of something" because this is clearly not possible in this context.
You are the one who brought phi up in the context of this discussion as if phinary somehow counteracts the diagonal argument when it doesn't, it just creates more values that are impossible to represent in phinary.

>>14839206
no you idiot, 1 is 1

>>14628905

>>12376848
no it's 10 ya dolt

>>12031026

>>11967366

.

>>11229409
no it isn't
it's 10

>>10966767
>how do you get exactly 1/3 of something
how do you get exactly 1/10 of something
there is nothing special about 10

>>10598989

ITT sci fails to solve an undergrad software engineering question

>>10434818

>>10143412

>>10119857

>>9807798
>base pi
then it would be "10"

>>9685085

>>9570309

>>9331462
how about[math] 0.1_3 [/math]

>>9190047

>>8989708
[math]5\mod{4} \equiv 1[/math]
note that every base is base 10

>>8923245