On 6/9/2014 12:49 AM, Garth Wallace wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Daniel
> Bowman<[log in to unmask]>  wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> I'm happy to present the Angosey numbering system - and I'm
>> especially excited because it has some fun mathematical properties.
>> I am not sure if I've mentioned this before, but Angosey is
>> base-28.  About three years ago, I wrote the 28 symbols for each
>> digit.  There was no pattern or thought behind them, and
>> (predictably) I could never commit them to memory.  And it seemed
>> too arbitrary.  The Angosey developed a base-28 system because 28
>> is a perfect number...surely there had to be a pattern, a
>> rationale, to the symbols they used.
> I guess I don't know enough about number theory, but what is the
> advantage of having a perfect number as a base?

Does there have to be an advantage? :-)

I think it's pretty cool that it's not just an unusual base for the sake 
of being different, but that there's a reason for that specific base. 
You could have a base-15 number system just for the sake of being 
different, but this is more interesting since there are so few perfect 

Coincidentally, the symbol for 24 looks like the Triforce, and 
"triforce" is my name for a tuning used in Sangari music*, having 6, 9, 
15, or 24 notes per octave. Notice also the symbols for 6 and 15! The 
origin of the name is that the Triforce is three golden triangles; the 
tuning has three periods to the octave and is based on the golden ratio. 
(That's not actually what the Sangari call it, of course. But I haven't 
worked out their musical terminology.)

*Examples of music in 15-note triforce tuning: