- #1
swampwiz
- 571
- 83
in every radixial representation, except of course for those cases in which the numerator is a factor of some natural-number power of the radix?
For the radixial system we know (i.e., because we are bilateral and have arms that have 5 fingers), this would mean that any possible natural number that does not have 2 or 5 as factor (which if it did have such a factor would mean that it is a factor of some number 10n) must be a factor of some number 9999 ..., and of course mean something similar for a radixial number of any radix?
(I am probably using some improper terminology, including the term radixial, but I think folks understand what I mean here - i.e., as a generic term for a number that is in decimal, hexadecimal, binary, etc.)
For the radixial system we know (i.e., because we are bilateral and have arms that have 5 fingers), this would mean that any possible natural number that does not have 2 or 5 as factor (which if it did have such a factor would mean that it is a factor of some number 10n) must be a factor of some number 9999 ..., and of course mean something similar for a radixial number of any radix?
(I am probably using some improper terminology, including the term radixial, but I think folks understand what I mean here - i.e., as a generic term for a number that is in decimal, hexadecimal, binary, etc.)