Numerical Base Notation

© 2009 by James Robert Batek

3 rules and only 3

always in brackets convention

always a right subscript convention
always in base two** mandate

**unless expressed in numerical base notation itself, then it doesn't have to be; or
unless the subject is a variable, then a base is usually meaningless.

Examples

532 [111] is in base seven

855 [12 [1010] ] is in base twelve

855 [12] is improper

Always in base two:

Viewed naively, which is all one can expect of history, but with intelligence, which
is not inconsistent with naiveté, Arabic numerals whose largest example in a
number expressing places is Q can derive their values according to any base
larger than Q. My two conventions create an accounting eddy, which is all one can
do for naiveté. An eddy instigates solution of its intent by honoring intelligence in
naiveté. A discrimination of two numbers forces a guess that base variation is
known to the author and this makes it likely he regards base 2 as unique in the
variation because it alone has only one neighbor among bases. This assigns it the
role of ending the solution of base discrimination.

Always in brackets:

It could be argued that brackets are a complete extraneousness and should not be
made a rule. I would argue differently. As the discussion below the examples,
about expressing the base in base two, shows, the effect of discrimination
between two numbers is a definite object here, and to leave the base
undifferentiated in its appearance leaves the function of discrimination entirely to
placement in one of the four appendages to the subject—left superscript, right
superscript, left subscript, and right subscript. These appendages are used
everywhere in science and mathematics and do not have much discrimination
power by themselves. Their use is somewhat automatic when one is trying to fit a
wealth of information into a tight space and so they really say nothing about the
nature of their occupants. On the other hand, one number without brackets and
one number with them is a small but definite discrimination. Even so, it must be
admitted that no rigorous relations have been invoked here and thus this rule is
classed as a convention instead of a mandate, as noted to the right of the rule list.

Pronunciation:

Refer to the number whose value is to be evaluated in a certain base as the

subject.

For those who know ten is not the only number base, considering how much
brutal inertia there is in pronouncing numbers in Arabic as base ten regardless of
the base, a convention that keeps things straight is necessary.

Say “base coming in base 2” before saying the subject but say the subject any
way you wish, so long as it gets across the correct digits. After saying the subject,
say “base” then say the base, which will be in base two, again any way you wish
so long as the digits are correctly understood.

This convention can be adapted for the case of expression of the base in a base
other than two. You would begin by saying “base coming” (instead of saying “base
coming in base 2), then the subject, then “base, base coming in base 2, then say
the sub-subject, then say “base”, then say the base of the sub-subject in base 2.

These pronunciations may seem baroque, but there really is no other way to be
clear, and no better way to be economical, in an environment where it isn't
obvious from the context just what base a number is in, and it has to be given
explicitly.