Talk:Tetradecimal

Notability

I suggest the notability issues raised by sligocki are discussed here: Category talk:Positional numeral systems#Notability.--Noe (talk) 17:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I found the information usefull , please do not delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.137.121 (talk) 19:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Stub article

Can you add a stub tag for me because I don't know how without risking adding the wrong one or messing up the article. Also check out my youtube comment about base 14 on base 12 by numberphile as a head start to carefully researching whether base 14 is better than base 12 to not risk picking a new non-optimal base and to help expand this article. We should use the base that is best for good mathematicians, not the one that's best for bad ones. Does it count as original research to add in statements similar to those in that youtube comment when they're trivial to mathematically prove. Blackbombchu (talk) 20:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Why would anyone pick base 14? It is just like base 10 in its factorability, and sacrifices some treatment of 3 for a better treatment of 7, which is really not worth it IMHO. Base 10 and 12 have very convenient multiplication tables that allow people to learn calculation faster so they can get to the real mathematics, and not have to spend an inordinate amount of time memorizing the product lines. Not only are the relationships for tetradecimal less favourable than for duodecimal, the table is also larger, thus working against easy multiplication. If you want convenient relationships for {2, 3, 5, 7}, base 15 is marginally better at this scale, and base 6 is unsurpassed. Double sharp (talk) 05:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)