Talk:Nonary

A nonary number is divisible by six, if it is divisible by three and by two.

Well, this is true, but then it is true for any number base... ;) Morwen 09:27, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

This artilce confuses me, and i dont relaly understand, whats it used for :-s ? -fonzy

I think Wales once had a base-nine numeral system. I think "two nines" is still used for 18, for example. The Jade Knight 06:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The use of "two nines" for 18 is a form of the irish refering to multiples of 19 as such (six 19s). The number is variously three-fifteen, (3+15) two-nine or new style one ty eight. --Wendy.krieger (talk) 12:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsensical paragraph[edit]

nonary can also go 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,21,22....... No Zero's since they dont really exist anyways.. PS. dont allways belive what you read, search out the truth for yourself!

This statement doesn't make much sense, and is not in any case very encyclopedic, so I'm removing it to the talk page here. If the original editor (Octahedron80) has an issue with it, then let us please argue here. --Wtrmute 19:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add the statement. You are misunderstanding. --Octra Bond (talk) 02:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The statement is indeed correct, since the digits of a number is the difference between the number and its referant. For example, the set here does not allow conversions of 2-digit numbers into three-digit numbers (eg dec 17 to 017), so every length and combination of digit has its own sequence.

A similar thing exists with the balanced trinary system, where the digits could be either 0,1,2 or -1,0,1. In practice, the digits can be any possibility of digit, as long as all of the remainders are covered. In base 3, the digit strings 1,2,3 and -1,1,3 also work. --Wendy.krieger (talk) 09:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Notability[edit]

This page doesn't have any explanation of WP:Notability of the topic, it does not appear that the system has been noted outside of Wikipedia except by one science fiction author. Is there anything else notable about it? Was it used in any interesting mathematical proofs? considered to have any special properties by a WP:Reliable Source? etc. Cheers, — sligocki (talk) 01:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All bases up to 16 have articles of their own, and many largter bases too - see the category. Some of these articles may need some attention and streamlining (which I'd support), and the less notable ones might be merged into one article (I don't actually support that). In any case, deletion of Nonary should be part of a coordinated effort on these articles.--Noe (talk) 07:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I see that sligocki is suggesting deletion of more of these articles. I think all discussion should be directed to one place - e.g. category talk:Positional numeral systems#Notability.--Noe (talk) 09:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, this is sort of rediculous, There are articles on bases 1–16, 20, 24, 30, 32, 36, 60, 64

I'm leaning toward keep on:

unary, binary, trinary, octal, decimal, hexadecimal are all commonly used in math. Clear notability.
base 20 and base 60 have historical notability as early numeral systems, seems good.
base 12 is used for music and has often been suggest because there are many factors of 12, seems like a pretty good article.
base 36 seems to be widely used in CS for some reason, probably notable.
base 4 claims to be useful for Hilbert curves.

Skeptical about:

base 24 seems to claim notability because of the 24-hour/day system, but that's not really a positional system, only one 24-digit, I'm skeptical of notability.
base 6 and base 30 claim notability because all primes have certain endings, it is not noted whether this is used by anyone favorably. Dubious notability.

And leaning towards delete (redirect to positional system) for:

base 32 and base 64 seem to be here simply because of Base32 and Base64. I don't see why the have their own articles.
base 5, base 15 seems most notable for being used in a natural language (maybe). Copied info over to Decimal#Alternative bases.
base 7, base 9, base 11, base 13 seems most notable for the plethora of sci-fi refs (perhaps we could have a general article about non-standard bases)
base 14 seems completely unnotable.

Cheers, — sligocki (talk) 09:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NONAL![edit]

i was thinking apart from you guys and I thought that the name "nonal" would be better — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.185.0.100 (talk) 01:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

East Asians use Nonary?[edit]

just wondering, due to Tetraphobia, can we say that East Asians use base 9 in some cases? (since 4 is omitted, so 10 is actually 9) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.246.68.208 (talk) 02:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]