Consider that the most important property of a number for it to be used as a base of enumeration and division is the number of factors it has. Under this supposition, a base with more factors will be better than a base that has fewer factors, while other conditions are equal as far as possible. For example, the base thirty should be a better base than the bases twenty-nine or thirty-one, because thirty has more factors than twenty-nine or thirty-one, although the numbers are of similar size. The number of factors, say \(F_B\), a base number \(B\) has is dependent on its prime factorisation:

\[ \prod_{i=1}^{i=n} {p_i}^{a_i} \]

where \(p_i \) is the \(i^{th}\) prime and \(a_i\) is its exponent, and can be calculated by the formula:

\[ F_B = \prod_{i=1}^{n} ({a_i + 1}) \]

However, there tends to be a cost to gaining more factors in that the size of the base tends to increase such that it becomes less practical. To take into account the size of the base, divide its number of factors by the number of factors a base in the vicinity of its size would be expected to have to form a measure \(D_B\) of the density of factors:

\[ D_B = \frac{F_B }{1+\log_2 {B}} \]

According to this computed measure, bases that are powers of two have a unitary density of factors and are called efficient, bases that have a factor density less than one have a lower density of factors and are called deficient because they have fewer factors than expected for their size, and bases that have a factor density of more than one have a greater density of factors. A table can be drawn comparing factor densities of various bases:

As one increases the base, those with higher factor densities than of smaller bases tend to be highly composite numbers. According to the factor density, bases that increase in size without introducing a greater number of factors over smaller bases tend to be worse. Thus, bases eight and ten are worse than base six. Base twelve has a good factor density for its size and there is not a better base until the double dozen. This factor density as a computed measure of base efficiency does not penalise an increase in size of the base enough, as base eight for example has the same density as base 1024 decimally, although most would admit that the latter as a pure base would be far more impractical.

\[ \prod_{i=1}^{i=n} {p_i}^{a_i} \]

where \(p_i \) is the \(i^{th}\) prime and \(a_i\) is its exponent, and can be calculated by the formula:

\[ F_B = \prod_{i=1}^{n} ({a_i + 1}) \]

However, there tends to be a cost to gaining more factors in that the size of the base tends to increase such that it becomes less practical. To take into account the size of the base, divide its number of factors by the number of factors a base in the vicinity of its size would be expected to have to form a measure \(D_B\) of the density of factors:

\[ D_B = \frac{F_B }{1+\log_2 {B}} \]

According to this computed measure, bases that are powers of two have a unitary density of factors and are called efficient, bases that have a factor density less than one have a lower density of factors and are called deficient because they have fewer factors than expected for their size, and bases that have a factor density of more than one have a greater density of factors. A table can be drawn comparing factor densities of various bases:

**Table of Base Factor Densities**Base, decimally | \(D_B\) decimally | \(D_B\) dozenally |

2 | 1 | ①⁏ |

3 | 0.7737 | ⓪⁏⑨③⑤ |

4 | 1 | ①⁏ |

6 | 1.1158 | ①⁏①④⑧ |

8 | 1 | ①⁏ |

9 | 0.7194 | ⓪⁏⑧⑦⑦ |

10 | 0.9255 | ⓪⁏⑪①③ |

12 | 1.3086 | ①⁏③⑧⑤ |

16 | 1 | ①⁏ |

18 | 1.1606 | ①⁏①⑪① |

24 | 1.4324 | ①⁏⑤②③ |

30 | 1.3544 | ①⁏④③⓪ |

36 | 1.4587 | ①⁏⑤⑥ |

48 | 1.5186 | ①⁏⑥②⑧ |

60 | 1.7374 | ①⁏⑧⑩② |

72 | 1.6737 | ①⁏⑧①⓪ |

120 | 2.0236 | ②⁏⓪③ |

180 | 2.1197 | ②⁏①⑤ |

210 | 1.8361 | ①⁏⑩⓪ |

360 | 2.5285 | ②⁏⑥④① |

720 | 2.8594 | ②⁏⑩③⑨ |

840 | 2.9867 | ②⁏⑪⑩① |

2520 | 3.9027 | ③⁏⑩⑩ |

Today at 6:57 pm by

Phaethon» How a Dozenal Metrological System Should be Developed

Tue Sep 05, 2023 8:33 pm by

Phaethon» Optimal Analogue Clock

Sun Jul 02, 2023 5:10 pm by

Phaethon» Dozenal Fifths Better than Decimal Thirds

Tue Jun 13, 2023 11:00 pm by

Phaethon» Unit Power Prefixes

Sat May 13, 2023 12:19 pm by

Phaethon» Old School Textbook Duodecimal

Sun Apr 02, 2023 10:59 pm by

Phaethon» Perpetual Calendar

Tue Mar 14, 2023 12:54 pm by

Phaethon» Potency

Mon Feb 27, 2023 5:48 pm by

Phaethon» Mnemonics

Tue Feb 07, 2023 5:43 pm by

Phaethon