"Geoff Wedig" <wed### [at] darwinepbicwruedu> wrote in message
news:3a829d42@news.povray.org...
> Tom Melly <tom### [at] tomandlucouk> wrote:
> > There maybe an arguement, but it isn't a clear one. However, any
arguement
> > that says 2*3 is not 6 is plainly batty.
>
> Actually, there are plenty of number systems where this is plainly *not*
> true.  There are the simple systems where 6 is undefined (base 4, for
> example, where 2+3 = 11, or the mod 5 number system, where 2*3 = 2) and
then

Well, yes, obviously if you use any other system than decimal, then all bets
are off. However, even recognising the validity of some of the arguements
put forward, I still find it remarkably obtuse to argue that precedence is
no more arbitary than what 1+1 equals (base 3 upwards ;)

Post a reply to this message