they never specified the order relation, so we canβt really know what they meant by smallest. for all we know, 10 could be the right answer
flawless answer and arguments
In binary the answer is good, which is fun
In binary the one on the left is meaningless, and therefore the two cannot be compared. In any base in which they can be compared, the one on the left is smaller.
*circles the 1 in 1-10*
By some definitions, maybe. However, definitions that exclude it probably do so for a specific reason. Itβs more a fluke of categorization than a real world distinction. Those distinctions might be critical to certain logic systems, but even most people who use that definition recognize reality.
Zero is a number in more cases than it isnβt. It is a symbol that represents a value. Just like infinity, it doesnβt matter if 0 doesnβt exist in physical reality. Itβs still a useful value in most cases.
Obviously he is correct because the smallest base that can represent 10 is base 2 and 10 in base 2 is equal to 2 in base 10. And the smallest base in which you can represent the number 3 is base 4 and 3 in base 10 in equal to 3 so 2 is the smaller number hence β10β is the smaller number. And from the drawing of the rainbow you can infer that he wants to use a diverse range of bases and not just the common base 10. Btw I am only talking about the natural bases (whole number positive).
