Do oyu think higher bases or lower bases of counting are better?
490324
I think I think the desirability of a base is less a matter of how large the base is than of how many prime factors it has.\n\nBases composed only of powers of 2 (such as octal or hexadecimal) are convenient when dealing with computers. However, base representation of fractions in such bases tends to have repeating digits in situations where base 10 would not (denominators whose only prime factors are 5 and 2). Repeating digits lead to roundoff errors when performing computer-based floating-point arithmetic. This leads to inaccurate results.\n\nDecimal is better, but it has repeating fractions in situations where, say, base 30 would not (one third does not repeat in base 30). Likewise, one seventh is a repeating fraction in base 30, but not in base 210. Of course, teaching people to count in base 210 presents its own unique problems.\n\nPersonally, I think we could reach a happy medium at around base 30. You could switch to base 32 for binary equivalence computations, and the rough estimate magnitude of computations would track fairly close together for everyday calculations. Digits for base 30 would be 0-9 + english alphabet A-T. For base 32, 0-9 + A-V.\n\nFor convenient decimal-independent reference, we could call these two bases "base T+1" and "base V+1" respectively.
379102
The range is the lowest number to the highest number. You don't need to subract them (well, depends on the case I guess).
662415
If you practice, you should be able a lot of math in your head.  Math is significantly easier than language, but you practice speaking and listening everyday.  Think for a second about how simple math is compared to language.   There are 26 letters, but only 10 numbers.  The letters "bat" could be a wooden stick for hitting a ball or a winged mammal, but 123 always means one hundred twenty three.  Whole course have been devoted to resolving the meaning of sentences, but a mathmatical sentence has only one solution.  Still, we don't practice math everyday like we do language.  If you did, you could become extremely proficient.
797722
AARGHHH!!  I withdraw my earlier attempt.  It must be dementia, I'm afraid.  It's still asking about 1000! (1000 factorial), of course, but a careful accounting is needed, not only of the effect of all numbers ending in: \n\nA. 1, 2, 3, ... 9 (I did this by a variety of ways, always coming up with a final non-zero digit of 6 for the product of all such sets), \n\nbut also of the following two other types of number, which I regrettably neglected the first time around:\n\nB. 10, 20, 30 ...90 (as often as sets of numbers like that occur), and finally, of types:\n\nC. 100, 200, 300, ... 900 (this set occurs but once).  The final, unique 4-digit number (1000) only adds three zeros at the end and doesn't affect the final non-zero digit.\n\nO.K., here goes:\n\nNumbers of Type A.\n\n1 x 2 x 3 x ... x 9 = 362880; final non-zero digit is 8.\n\nThere are 100 such "basic sets" of type A altogether.  \nMultiplying them together, set after set, we get the \nfollowing repeated cycle of non-zero ending digits \n(top row is # of basic sets used so far; bottom row is the corresponding final digit.)\n\n1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9 ...\n8   4   2   6   8   4   2   6   8 ...\n\nNotice that after every four basic sets have been used, we end up with 6 as the final non-zero digit.  Since there are exactly 100 such sets (a multiple of 4), we end up with that same last non-zero digit for the product of ALL numbers of type A.  (But we're not done yet.) \n\nNumbers of Type B.\n\nThere are exactly 10 sets of numbers of Type B, i.e. ending with  exactly one (but not two or three) zeros.\n\nMultiplying just these sets together, we'll have the following analogous results:\n\n1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9  10  \n8   4   2   6   8   4   2   6   8     4   \n\nSo, the last non-zero digit in these "10's products" is 4 for this lot.\n\nNumbers of Type C.\n\nWe have just one set of "100's".  For this, the last non-zero digit is 8 (it's just our "basic set" with a large number of zeros following it); only the last non-zero digit is of interest.\n\nSo, to summarize, the different sets we've divided our numbers into, when multiplied together, give us final non-zero digits as follows:\n\nType A:   6\nType B:   4\nType C:   8 \n\nFinally, then, the last non-zero digit of the product of everything is the last digit of:\n\n6 x 4 x 8, or 2.  (PHEW!!)\n\nWell, it's now the value of 2 (as reported by zanti3 from the 100 factorial website at:\n\nhttp://www.justinwhite.com/big-calc/1000.html)\n\n(Finish off this URL with 1000.html, instead of 1000... The Yahoo site would not reproduce the full URL from my draft.  Alternatively, just go to Yahoo or Google with 1000 factorial 1000 - this worked for me.) \n\nBoy; what a problem!  Evidently the jury is still out on the question of my impending dementia.  (See zanti3's kind words, below about my earlier fiasco.) \n\nThanks again to zanti3 for bringing the existence of a (1000 factorial) web site to my attention.\n\nLive long and prosper, everyone.
943121
Both of the top 2 answers are correct depending on what you meant. If you meant the sum of 5 times EACH of the numbers then the first answer is correct. If you meant the smaller number added to 5 times the larger number then the second answer is correct.
258580
Should depend on the numeration system.\nIn base 3, it is 11.\nIn base 4 it is 10.\nIn all other bases, it is 4 except base 2, there it does not exist any 2.\nSo right answers were 11, 10 or 4.\nLiked the game.\nAnd the players too.
277598
That is a very good rule of thumb (excellent to remember the ballpark numbers for sure). \nOf course, the exact numbers would be a little different from individual to individual (up to 100% in extreme - and rare- cases), but in general it's true.
541892
Apparently better than yours.\n"Quotient"
991856
It is called WRONG. If A is much larger than B, then A+B/A is about A unless you meant (A+B)/A, in which case the result is about 1. In neither case do you get A/B.
23523
Both, depending on the base.  Base10 2+4=6 and Base5(right?) 2+4=11.
157677
This question cannnot be answered due to a simple fact that there are infinite amounts of numbers, therefore is no limit to a higher or a lower number.
1120506
No, it cannot be disproven, because it is true.  Actually, you could even remove the exponents:\n10 base n = n base 10\nHere is the reason.  In any numbering system, the value 10 (in that base) is equal to the value of the base you are using.  In binary, 10 = 2 base 10.  In a base three system, 10 = 3 base 10, and so forth.  So 10 base n will always equal n base 10.\n\nBecause that is true, you can raise them to any exponent value x you want--you are dealing with the same values on both sides of the equation.
1163625
Improper fractions are much easier to deal with in any math, physics, or chemistry equation than mixed numbers.\n\nThe only time mixed numbers are easier are for graphing purposes or in explaining your results to someone without a math background (which, sadly, is most everybody that doesn't post here).\n\n;-)
24599
binomial has higest degree of 2 whereas polynomials have more. Polynomials(at least the ones that are going to show up on your math test) can be expressed as product of two or more binomials
1183414
I myself would say higher, everyday is a learning experence, You seem to  learn with hands on and ears and eyes open. We learn as  our kids learn new things also in school today.
580025
15 > 9\n\nThis is a true statement.  15 is greater than 9.
663002
Whats to think?\nHope is better!!!