Technology

1 in base 10 isn’t 1/10 and in hexadecimal it’s not 1/16.

Decimal integers in base pi are 1, 2, 3, 10.2201…, 11.2201…, 12.2201…, 20.2201… and so on.

Basically: 10.2201… = 1 * pi^1 + 0 * pi^0 + 2 * pi^-1 + 2 * pi^-2 … which approaches 4 as you add digits.

But 1 is just 1*pi^0

Username checks out.

Let's start here:

310^0 + 110^-1 + 410^-2 =
31 + 1*.1 + 4*.01 =
3.14

That's uhh... not pi. The only way to do pi that way is to extend it infinitely.

Also, what you're using is called scientific notation, but it's still in decimal format, i.e. base~10~

[Edit: just noticed you did say that was decimal notation; my bad).

Any base~X~ numeral system has X number of integers per digit.

• Base~10~: {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9}
• Base~2~: {0,1}
• Base~3~: {0,1,2}
• Base~16~: {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,a,b,c,d,e,f}
• Base~60~: {[series of 60 sumerian numerals]}

A base~π~ numeral system would look like this: {0,1,2,[int(π-3)]}.

But that's not how set theory works. Since integers are by definition whole numbers and their inverse counterparts, it's impossible to have .141592654... of an integer. If you have {0,1,2,3}, that's base~4~; if you have {0,1,2,n}, that's still base~4~.

To put it another way, in any base~X~ system, (if it includes 0), X is the first two-digit number. That means π in base~π~ would be written as "10".

• In base~2~, two is written as "10"
• In base~3~, three is written as "10"
• In base~10~, ten is written as "10"
• In base~16~, sixteen is written as "10"

That means, if you wanted to make a base~π~ numeral system, in order to have a consistent interval between integers (without which, integers become meaningless), each numeral would have to represent (π/3).

So in base~π~:

• "0" = base~10~(0)
• "1" ≈ base~10~(1.047197551)
• "2" ≈ base~10~(2.094395102)
• "10" ≈ base~10~(3.141592654)

[Edit: aaand I just noticed you did say base~π~(10) = base~10~(π); my bad again. I guess you weren't as wrong as I thought you were. Not bad for being too high for this...]

But that's still technically base~3~, it's just a wonky base~3~. And it would have no practical value. Also, the same thing can already be achieved in base~10~ using radians.

• (0π) rad = 0°
• (π/3) rad = 60°
• (2π/3) rad = 120°
• π rad = 180°

I guess if you really wanted to express radians as whole numbers, you could use base~π~, i.e.:

• base~π~(0) rad = 0°
• base~π~(1) rad = 60°
• base~π~(2) rad = 120°
• base~π~(10) rad = 180°

But again, that's still technically base~3~, and all it does is confuse people. Plus, if you want to express an angle as a whole number you can choose degrees or mills. The whole point of radians is to express it with reference to pi (as in, the arc corresponding to the length of the radius along the circumference)