This website is a useless exercise, but the idea in the submission title "using fewer syllables to express numbers" has utility.
As a musician, I frequently need to count to a rhythm, and the pesky number seven's two syllables throws my cadence off. So I count a bar of 8 like this:
> one, two, three, four, five, six, sev, eight
Occasionally I'll need to count up to as high as 16, which is especially tricky. It'd be easiest to do it in hexadecimal-style, but somehow I can't bring myself to count a part out as:
> one, two, three, four, five, six, sev, eight, nine, a, b, c, d, e, f, g
If only I could convince musicians to use zero-based indexing instead of one-based.
As a musician, I frequently need to count to a rhythm, and the pesky number seven's two syllables throws my cadence off. So I count a bar of 8 like this:
> one, two, three, four, five, six, sev, eight
Occasionally I'll need to count up to as high as 16, which is especially tricky. It'd be easiest to do it in hexadecimal-style, but somehow I can't bring myself to count a part out as:
> one, two, three, four, five, six, sev, eight, nine, a, b, c, d, e, f, g
If only I could convince musicians to use zero-based indexing instead of one-based.