>>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?