# Thread: Bahro and D'ni -- Identical Bases on Number Systems | Forums

1. It's interesting to note that the Bahro and the D'ni have identical number systems; they're both ultimately base 5. The presentation is a little different, but the end result is the same -- hard to say if the Bahro go as high as 25 in single digits, but it's still interesting nonetheless. In that cultural sense the Bahro and the D'ni are quite alike.

Number systems, Linking capability... one wonders if the Bahro and the D'ni are alike in other ways as well.

2. It's interesting to note that the Bahro and the D'ni have identical number systems; they're both ultimately base 5. The presentation is a little different, but the end result is the same -- hard to say if the Bahro go as high as 25 in single digits, but it's still interesting nonetheless. In that cultural sense the Bahro and the D'ni are quite alike.

Number systems, Linking capability... one wonders if the Bahro and the D'ni are alike in other ways as well.

3. The D'ni number system is base 25. (Just because 25 is a multiple of 5 does not mean the system is "ultimately" base 5. Our number system is also based on a number that is a multiple of 5.) The base of a system with positional notation is determined by the number of digits in the system. In our base-10 notation we have 10 digits (0-9). In D'ni notation there are 25 digits (0-24).

From what we've seen of the Bahro system so far, it appears to be an additive notation -- like Roman numerals or Narayani numerals -- rather than positional. This means that it cannot be spoken of as having a base at all. We have not seen a digit for zero yet, and the digits we have seen only go up to 15. If the Bahro do use a positional notation and have a way of representing zero, then the evidence we have to date suggests that it is base 16. While there could be more digits than we've seen, there is no reason at this point for presuming this is so, and no reason for presuming the number is more likely to be 25 than 18 or 56.

4. I'm aware that the system is, digitally speaking, base 25. However, each number's symbol is created based around a derivative of one of five initial designs. Ultimately, with all of the manipulation stripped away, you have five basic numbers. They are then changed in some way to represent a number larger than themselves, with some multiple of five added onto the initial symbol, until the system hits 25. I can understand why it stopped there -- any more, and it would become unwieldy.

There is a Bahro -0- on the board where the numerical solution to the Noloben chamber is, once you reflect it. It's the circle with the dot in the middle of it -- much like a D'ni -0-.

To counter my own point, there was a post brought up on a previous thread with a reference to a "D'ni B", or an alternate form of D'ni numbers. My question is: does anyone know anything about this?

5. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Boyue65:
There is a Bahro -0- on the board where the numerical solution to the Noloben chamber is, once you reflect it. It's the circle with the dot in the middle of it -- much like a D'ni -0-. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
There are symbols other than numbers on that wall, so how do you know the symbol you're talking about is a zero, rather than, say, the Bahro word for "cheese"? What evidence do you have that justifies stating this as fact?

6. Continuity within the given set, and an assumption based on the (above explained) admittedly dubious relationship between D'ni numbers and Bahro numbers, in terms of symbol construction.

7. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">how do you know the symbol you're talking about is a zero, rather than, say, the Bahro word for "cheese"? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

8. The bahro have a symbolic representation for an element in Esher's code representation of 1 to 15.

9. HI to everyone.

If you still have MystV demo on your PCs, did anyone tried asking the bahro creature, through the slate, if there is a 0 number?.
ex: draw a formula like 1-1= or 1-1= ?
yan

10. [QUOTE]
There is a Bahro -0- on the board where the numerical solution to the Noloben chamber is, once you reflect it. It's the circle with the dot in the middle of it -- much like a D'ni -0-. [QUOTE]
The 'continuity-theory', which was spoken of as well in this thread, would leave you to conclude that in combination with the 'similarity to D'ni numbers-theory' the circle with the dot is zero. Drawing this symbol (in Noloben) makes the Bahro put the slate on itâÂ´s âÂ´zeroâÂ´ position. Meaning that the slate is transferred to itâÂ´s starting position from where no action has been taken with it. Making the order once more puts the slate back again once more, but now to the pedestal on Direbo.
A more complicated theorie could accompany (is this correct english?), but also break the latter;
hte symbols for Atrus and Katran are the square and the cirlce, both with the dot in the middle, respectively a square and a round one. Now two assumptions must be made: Bahro name each other, and Bahro came to know of a gender-difference only because of their interactions with the DâÂ´ni.
A simple circle-with-dot could not possibly mean âÂ´KatranâÂ´ coincidentally, especially not when Atrus is âÂ´coincidentallyâÂ´ written as a square.
So the circle is not her Bahro-written-name. A logical conclusion would be that it stands for female, mother (Yeesha drew them!) or woman then.
Finally my conclusion follows: the character for zero and female are the same because the Bahro had no concept of female before, therefore giving the female (DâÂ´ni) the âÂ´non-existingâÂ´ character.
Others might state that it is simply the mother symbol, and therefore the Bahro bring the slate to itâÂ´s âÂ´motherâÂ´ position. But one must assume that mother is also the bringer of life for the Bahro, making literal translations like âÂ´mothershipâÂ´ from their language to ours / DâÂ´ni possible.