1+1=11

i am so smart

'1' + '1' = '11'

CONCATENATE("1","1")

1 + 1 = 11

...

IN BASE 1

>>4
There's no digit "1" in base 1, just like there isn't a digit "2" in base 2, "3" in base 3, and so on.

>>4,5
Base 1 is unheard of.  The minimal base is binary.

1+1=((-1)^0.5)/(0^0)

Var
  One : Integer;
.
.
.
Write (One+One);
.
.
.
end.

<11>

Var
  One : string;
.
.
.
Write (One+One);
.
.
.
end.

<11>

>>6
Base 1 isn't "unheard of" so much as it is meaningless. As I said in >>5, base 1 contains no digits other than 0, making 0 the only number expressible in base 1.

FACT: Unary numeral systems are often referred to as 'base 1'.

>>11
FACT: Unary numeral systems are often incorrectly referred to as 'base 1'.

>>7
we have a winr4r

4 here, clearry you people dont understand how bases work.
in base 10, a number looks like
14893
lets convert to base 10, from base 10, this is trivial.
1 * 10^4 +
4 * 10^3 +
8 * 10^2 +
9 * 10^1 +
3 * 10^0 =
14893

in base 2 a number looks like
10110
convert to base10 omgz
1 * 2^4 +
0 * 2^3 +
1 * 2^2 +
1 * 2^1 +
0 * 2^0 =
22

a number in base 1 looks like
11111
lets convert to base 10
1 * 1^4 +
1 * 1^3 +
1 * 1^2 +
1 * 1^1 +
1 * 1^0 =
5

want to tell me it doesnt make sense?

>>14
Digits in base d go from 0 to d-1. Notice how in base 10, the digits are {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9}, and in base 2 the digits are {0,1}, and so on. In base 1, the digits are {0}, and thus every number is of the form 00000, and thus equal to 0.

Further, in the system you give, there is no way of representing 0, only positive and negative integers.

or maybe you could just let base 1 have 2 digits, 0 and 1, and not allow 0 placeholders.

>>16
That wouldn't be "base 1" then. It would be a way of representing integers which uses "almost only" the digit 1, but that has nothing to do with base 1.

>>14
gb2/babylon

>>17
maybe your theorem on the number of digits in a base only applies for base n, n>1
youre seriously going to use that observation of other bases to make a claim that this one cant be constructed?
stop spewing out shit and think.

>>19
stop trolling and troll

>>19
I'm defining it that way because it MAKES SENSE. You realize lots of worthless exceptions are a bad thing, right? That no one wants to hear "base d is defined like this except when d is 1, and then it's something completely different because I said so." There are times when exceptions are a necessary evil, but this is not one of them.

>>21
creating a world in which things are 'the way you want' isnt a scientific approach. and exceptions arent inherently bad things, what the fuck kind of statement is that?

>>21
gb2 persecuting galileo 400 years ago

>>23
You're a moron. "Persecuting Galileo" would be me claiming that the system he described doesn't exist. I'm merely pointing out that it's silly to name it "base 1" since it is not consistent with "base d" for any other d. He's perfectly welcome to use that system of writing numbers, he's just not welcome to name it something that is needlessly confusing.

>>22
I'm not creating a world in which things are "the way I want," I'm creating a world in which definitions are consistent as much as possible. You are the one creating a world in which things are "the way you want" by insisting that we change the definition of "base d" for one single case when it would be far more appropriate to just give that numbering system a separate name. Furthermore, I did not say "exceptions are inherently bad," I said that WORTHLESS exceptions are a bad thing. You see the difference there, right?

This is not physics, or chemistry, or any other "real world" science in which exceptions just ARE. In math, definitions are CHOSEN. Why is it a bad thing to want definitions that don't involve a whole bunch of "special cases" which add nothing at all to the value of the concept?

>>24
No you are saying you don't think science is true because you are a complete "person with learning difficulties" and think it's too hard.

I'm creating a world in which definitions are consistent as much as possible
Before you complain again that remembering how "base d is defined by 0 -> d-1 numbers" consider that in decimal 0 -> 9 is ten numbers.  The pattern is true for all bases.  In your system, instead of having a true decimal system of ten numbers, we have nine. WTF?

Math happens to be one of the most consistant things around.  If you want to define something mathematically, you submit a proof that your calculations are correct, and ideally it is consistant with what was true before.  Math very rarely is supposed to relate to anything in the physical world anymore. That's why I told you to go back to Babylon, where you will happily find that there is no way to express "nothing-ness" in a rigourous sense.

In your system, instead of having a true decimal system of ten numbers, we have nine.
lol, don't make it too obvious that you're trolling.

>>26
Wow.

dear >>28
>>26 is not >>4 btw.

Dearest >>29,
Reading >>26 again, I'm not even sure which side he comes in on. Is he implying (in that first paragraph) that 0,1,...,d-1 gives a total of d-1 digits? Or is he saying that doing it some other way gives a total of d-1 digits?

>>30
it looked to me like he was saying that 0,1,...,d-1 is d-1 digits, yes.

ps, im not retarded, and i know that base d is defined as having d digits, and that generally people would say theres no base 1, since it would have only 1 digit.  im part trolling, but part of me also sees that the structure does make sense, so maybe it shouldnt be called base since it doesnt follow the same pattern, but either way it would be an exception, imo.

no i mean 03.246.35,2 is +5435 that is = nigga ☻

>>26 is me.

I think all the bases talk has broken my brain actually, and >>31's interpretation of my post is correct because that is what I wanted to say.

Doesn't matter though.

>>34 is me

lol

guys this is fun

BINARY

10-2=10 according to sig figures. Screw science! 10-2=8!

>>38
Depends on how accurate you are....

Let\'s say Moot took maths instead of mexican studies, mooth if you will, and his scientific instruments cannot see decimal places due to inaccuracy. God comes along and

looks at his experiment and shows us the real values so we can see what\'s really going on. R is the real value M is the value moot sees with his scientific instruments.

a is an object with original value 1, each step on the table represents the next instance in time, the process of taking b from a is occurring
b=0.2

Moot: My instruments tell me a = 1 and b =0 yet b is a physical phenomena??? I needs to do experiments with my inaccurate instruments to find the value of b.

R        M
1-0.2=0.8    a-b=1
0.8-0.2=0.6    a-b=1
0.6-0.2=0.4    a-b=0
lol        ZOMG!!

Moot: (a=original a now) 0≤a-3b<0.5≤a-2b<1
therefore...
0≤1-3b<0.5≤1-2b<1
CALCULATE
-1≤-3b<-0.5≤-2b<0
0≤2b<0.5≤3b<1 } 0≤2b<1/2≤3b<1
SEPERATE AND SIMPLIFY
0≤2b<1/2 } 0≤b<1/4
1/2≤3b<1 } 1/6≤b<1/3
UNIFY
0<1/6≤b<1/4<1/3
1/6≤b<1/4

Well this is as accurate as I can get until someone invents moar technologies. :3

>>38
Depends on how accurate you are....

Let\'s say Moot took maths instead of mexican studies, mooth if you will, and his scientific instruments cannot see decimal places due to inaccuracy. God comes along and looks at his experiment and shows us the real values so we can see what\'s really going on. R is the real value M is the value moot sees with his scientific instruments.

a is an object with original value 1, each step on the table represents the next instance in time, the process of taking b from a is occurring
b=0.2

Moot: My instruments tell me a = 1 and b =0 yet b is a physical phenomena??? I needs to do experiments with my inaccurate instruments to find the value of b.

R        M
1-0.2=0.8    a-b=1
0.8-0.2=0.6    a-b=1
0.6-0.2=0.4    a-b=0
lol        ZOMG!!

Moot: (a=original a now) 0≤a-3b<0.5≤a-2b<1
therefore...
0≤1-3b<0.5≤1-2b<1
CALCULATE
-1≤-3b<-0.5≤-2b<0
0≤2b<0.5≤3b<1 } 0≤2b<1/2≤3b<1
SEPERATE AND SIMPLIFY
0≤2b<1/2 } 0≤b<1/4
1/2≤3b<1 } 1/6≤b<1/3
UNIFY
0<1/6≤b<1/4<1/3
1/6≤b<1/4

Well this is as accurate as I can get until someone invents moar technologies. :3