SCALES OF NOTATION 73

represented in either the octimal or the sexidenal notation
with great simplicity, as we have already seen in § 135. From
the table of that article it is evident that for the representation
of these fractions twelv is a better base than ten, eight better
than twelv, and sixteen better than eight.

Of the two bases eight and sixteen the latter seems to me
preferable; first, because we need to represent sixteenths as
well as eighths; second, because we need to know the addition
and multiplication tables beyond 8 + 8 and 8 X 8; third,
because, if we are to use a new system to replace the decimal
system, then with sixteen for base the very presence of the
new digits ¥, 0, ©, 2, ¥, ¢ will serve to remind us which
base we are using, whereas with eight for base we would have
no such reminder.

SYSTEMS OF MEASUREMENT

142. If we compare the English system of weights and
measures with the metric, it seems evident that the English
system, founded largely on the natural tendency to divide into
halves, is much better for the needs of every day life than the
metric, built on the base ten.

The metric system is more convenient to the person who
deals largely in figures, as the mathematician, the chemist, the
electrician, simply because we employ the decimal notation
for numbers. But these persons are a very small minority
and even they find the English system more convenient when
they wish to figure out mentally the price of a purchase at
the store.

We ought to regulate the English system, to found it com-
pletely on the number two, keeping the inch and the pound for
fundamental units of length and weight and employing simple
names, chiefly monosyllabic, to designate the derived units.
And we ought to use the sexidenal system of numeration.

Then we would have a system of measurement that would
possess all the advantages of the metric system and none of
its disadvantages, such as its polysyllabic names, and a system