# What is the most efficient numerical base system?

I remember reading somewhere that base $e$ is the most "efficient" base system because of its ratio of possible characters to number length. For example, binary is "inefficient" because each represented number is very long when represented with only two digits (0 and 1). Base 10 is also considered "inefficient" because there are so many numbers to remember (0-9) even though each represented number is shorter than binary. Apparently the maximum "efficiency" occurs at base $e$. How is this possible? Can irrational bases exist? How is "efficiency" of a base numerically calculated?

-
–  Foo Barrigno Jul 18 '13 at 15:52
Relevant –  MJD Jul 18 '13 at 15:55
Another source of references: mathworld.wolfram.com/Base.html –  dfeuer Jul 18 '13 at 15:56
@FooBarrigno: I would say, more this in general, and that for the optimality of $\mathrm e$ –  Ilya Jul 18 '13 at 15:57
Does that sense of optimality have any practical value? –  dfeuer Jul 18 '13 at 15:59
The base $e$ is the most economical choice of radix $\beta > 1$ (Hayes 2001), where the radix economy is measured as the product of the radix and the length of the string of symbols needed to express a given range of values.
Then we have a longish article by Hayes in American Scientist, which I don't feel like reading. The matter boils down to: the representation of number $n$ in base $\beta$ (integer or not) takes $\approx \log n/\log \beta$ digits. If your idea of "economy" is the product of this length with $\beta$ then of course, you are going to minimize $\beta /\log \beta$ and find that the minimum is at $\beta=e$. For example, with Wolfram Alpha, which can plot this function and compute its derivative.
@BabyDragon: In base $e$, the number "one" is represented as "$1$", and the number "two" as "$2$". The number "three" is represented as $1.0200112\dots$, denoting $e + 0e^{-1} + 2e^{-2} + 0e^{-3} + 0e^{-4} + 1e^{-5} + 1e^{-6} + 2e^{-7} + \dots$. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-integer_representation –  ShreevatsaR Jul 21 '13 at 6:49