This page provides answers to frequently asked questions regarding 12480.

Q: Why is the writing system called "12480"?

A: "12480" comes from the divisions of hexadecimal: 10, 8, 4, 2, 1, 0.8, 0.4, 0.2, 0.1, 0.08, etc. The pattern repeats infinitely and, in binary, it is the movement of a 1 through 0's. 12480 = 0001 0010 0100 1000 0000. 8, 4, and 2 are all multiples of two, and therefore consume less energy than other odd numbers.

Q: Why was unary, radix 1, not used as the basis for 12480?

A: Unary is far too simple for use in much of anything. It is not a positional system, so the quantity expresses the number. Tally marks are the closest to unary, but even they need a separator to keep the unary numbers away from the next set (binary). Computers cannot use unary productively because they could never get any different values from it. The processor clock would need to change in order to find a different unary value, but the clock would need to use a binary or higher radix source to know when it should change.

Q: Why was ternary, radix 3, not used as the basis for 12480?

A: Ternary certainly has many advantages and it could be used as the main computation base in the distant future. It is closest to the most economical radix, 2.718, and it is balanced: -1, 0, 1. It was not used for the basis of 12480 because it fails to be practical for universal use, it is not as applicable as binary, and it is an odd base. Ternary is not the simplest system so it is very possible that something may not be able to display the three states that are required in ternary. The economical part of ternary causes its powers to grow exponentially beyond what is practical--3, 9, 81, 6561. I suppose 3³ (27) could be useful though. The odd radix is beneficial for balance centered around 0, but it also yields numbers that are difficult to work with. People cut things in half more than they cut things into thirds. 12480 is based off of binary numerically, but most of the time it is written with a third component, the break or space. In that way, 12480 is partly based off of ternary.

Q: Is binary really balanced around 0?

A: Sort of. If you use -1 and 1 and exclude 0, binary is fairly balanced.

Q: Why are there no octagonal, radix 8, based scripts?

A: Eight is not an even power of two (2³). Octagonal is not as orderly as binary, quaternary, and hexadecimal. Conversion between these three systems and octagonal is not as simple as decompiling/compiling one symbol into two or four other symbols. Octagonal does have a convenient number of symbols, but this also causes it to not specialize in compactness or simplicity. 12480 can be used to write octagonal, it is just not supported by the standard.

Q: Why are there so many ways to represent the same number?

A: Just because there are many ways to represent the same number, that does not mean that they all have to be used. 12480 is still very new and untested. Standards will be set up when it comes into common use. These standards will prevent the awkward use of the 12480 scripts and they will end any confusion.

Q: How do I use the integer-fraction divider and letter mark?

A: The point of the integer-fraction divider and letter mark is to show whether the symbols are a number or a word. The integer-fraction divider is used in the same way as a decimal point is used. It is only called an integer-fraction divider because the numbers using it are not in decimal. The integer-fraction divider is placed in between the last integral digit and the first fractional digit. Every number has this point. The disadvantage of this is that the integer-fraction divider will not always come conveniently at the beginning of a number. The letter mark can be placed either at the end or the beginning of a word.

Q: What are all of the extra marks in the C0 to CD range of the 12480 fonts used for?

A: These symbols were included as possible mathematical operators. Their use is not recommended however. The current assignments are as follows:

Q: One of the examples of "C84213" is written in musical notes. Are those musical notes standardized to hexadecimal values in 12480?

A: No, there only is a very rough draft of what musical note combinations and positions would mean which hexadecimal values. There is currently no standardized way in 12480 to play musical notes as hexadecimal values.