🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4dgj80$pef@news.luth.se>,
Olov Marklund <olovm@my21.sm.luth.se> wrote:
>Ray Mines (ray@grete.nmsu.edu) wrote:
>
>: The set of digits is {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9}.  So the largest
>: digit with a name is 9.
>: --
>
>The decimal system was never specificly mentioned in the original
>post, so here goes:
>
>{0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E,F}

  Read the latest Scientific American.  I don't have it on me, but there
was a cute article near the end about number bases, which cited a story 
about someone of unfathomable intelligence for whom EVERY number had a unique
designation, and thus did not need to represent a number in terms of other
digits - every value had its own digit, in a sense.

  In this "base infinity," then, there is no "largest digit with a name."

  But then, isn't that what you were expecting all along?

							    -Caj